Okay, apparently you missed the entire purpose of my post. It is not undeniable that the rules would have prevented this, nor is it undeniable that this occurring was a result of not following rules, nor does this incident inevitably indicate poor discipline.
What "specific incident"? All you know is that a canteen fell from an Osprey. There are no specifics here. The only way it could get more general is if we didn't know what sort of aircraft it was.
Firstly, thank you for confirming that this indeed against Navy regs. I have only Air Force regs as my guide.
Hmm...wasn't aware it needed confirming. Did anyone doubt that the military requires people to strap things down in aircraft when not in use? It's kind of general knowledge.
Discipline means following regulations and orders (not necessarily in that order, but usually). Unless there was a specific order to open those doors and leave that object unsecured then it was in breach of regulations, and that makes it a discipline problem.
Spoken like a true lean, mean, typing machine.
If you have any further questions I recommend you take them to your JAG corps officers, they'll set you straight.
Well, sure, if you happen to be in a TV series. In real life, no, JAG doesn't get involved in squadron discipline issues (as opposed to disciplinary issues, in which it can be consulted for advice regarding appropriate punishment).
... and on a personal note I am woefully disappointed that someone who is nominally an officer fails to understand what constitutes military discipline. I would suggest that you immediately enroll yourself for a refresher course.
And...that's enough of the armchair warrior talk. Personal note...right...
Let's talk about the world of an actual aviation officer, as opposed to a paper pusher of some kind. Discipline, according the dictionary, means following rules and regulations or being punished. In the real world, discipline means being able to do things you don't like doing on a regular and reliable basis. Usually, that means following the rules. However, a real officer recognizes that it is entirely possible to follow all the rules and still have something go tits up. Probably everyone here is familiar with the SNAFU acronym. A paper pusher who prioritizes his rules over reality tends to forget this and makes definitive judgements on situations in which the rules should have prevented the incident. The paper pusher has an inner belief that the rules are perfect, and so any incident must have been the result of not following the rules. A real officer, most of whom have experienced at one time or another in their career a point in which things got screwed up despite their best efforts, will suspend judgement until he has the facts.
Perhaps I am being unfair saying "real" officer; I'll avoid the True Scotsman by referring to an experienced officer. An experienced officer knows that Marines, both prior to boarding and prior to a jump, always check their gear. Additionally, they get their mates to check their gear as well. What's the easiest way to check if gear is secure? You give it a hard whack. If it doesn't dislodge, it's secure. If it does dislodge, people grin at you in amusement and you sheepishly pick up whatever and re-secure it. Normally, this isn't a problem. If, however, you are on a plane, and something isn't secured as well as you thought it was, the object has an additional option beyond simply laying on the ground. It also has the option of going under the nearest fixed object (very popular), or out the door you will soon be jumping out of. If Murphy's Law was in play (and in the real world, it always is), the unsecured object will attempt a solo jump.
Did this happen? No clue. We have only the most general of descriptions of the incident. However, what we can say is that in this example (and it is by no means an improbable, or even all that rare an example) not only were all the rules being followed, it is arguably the following of the rules (the secondary inspection of secured items) actually resulted in the incident taking place!
But maybe it wasn't the jumpers. Maybe it was the pilots (although that's unlikely, as the pilots don't usually take canteens unless they are flying over a hot zone and might get shot down. Even then...ergh, trying to get pilots to take their full load-out is like pulling teeth). But let's say the pilots brought canteens. A pilot takes out his canteen for a drink. His hand slips and the canteen goes skittering out the back, past the jumpmaster who was busy pulling in the static straps.
Did that happen? Again, no one here knows, because we don't have any details. Could it have happened? Absolutely. Was it a violation of rules and regs? Nope. Did it indicate poor discipline? Nope.
I can keep going, making example after example of real-life situations where personnel followed all the regs and yet still things went wrong. That's what real world experience affords you: the ability to say (let's hold off on that till we know more". If all your experience lies in pushing words around, then you are kind of stuck having to rely on a dictionary definition and passing judgement based on second-hand logic.
What's that? Logic?
I'd also suggest a basic course in logic, since your inability to distinguish specific from general is a major failing.
Another thing that real world experience gives you is the understanding that something being logical is not the same as something being correct.
If: Discipline means following the rules,
And: Rules state all items are to be secured,
Then: Unsecured items mean no discipline (Logically speaking, not..."Frungy said there was no discipline at all". Basically, If A and B, then -A and -B, for those who dabble in Formal Logic)
Perfectly logical, but not correct. Even though discipline does refer to following all the rules, it does not follow that breaking the rules is the only way for unsecured objects to occur.
But it isn't logic that will actually tell us whether something is specific or general. That isn't so much logic as it is preponderance of data. The more data you have, the more specific a situation is.
How specific is this situation? Not at all specific. We have practically no data with which to work with. All we know from this article is that there was an Osprey (which, in and of itself, is enough for some people), there was a canteen that fell, and the incident was reported. That is the sum total of our knowledge. As an experienced aviation officer, my advice would be:
Don't be so eager to decide who is at fault and what they are at fault for. Especially don't be so willing to make absolute and definitive statements and publicly publish them. In the same way that unfounded accusations can destroy the careers of the accused, they can also turn back and bite the person accusing.
And yeah, that's also some real-world experience talking there too.