Fieldcraft as a CI is extremely limited. First dozen or so lessons (admin in the field, etc), while uniformed colleagues are having a ball teaching later lessons (with weapons and battle exercises). I agree that CIs should consider a uniformed route if they are serious about fieldcraft (and GP shooting).
that doesn’t make it PPE it just means someone has approved it as appropriate to wear.
PPE is worn as a control measure against a hazard/risk be that to hands (gloves) eyes (glasses) head (bump cap), feet (boots) or other - the “wearing of clothes” is not PPE simply because someone, somewhere in the CoC has approved those garments as “safe”
PPE as for starters the layering system and the thickness, quality of material, waterproofing etc makes it the corrext PPE for the task.
PPE doent have to be hi-viz and ear defenders!
Its the correct Personal Protective Equpment for FT as defined in the SST.
1 Like
My bolds…
-
Only when worn as a layering system - and we’re not scaled (and most cadets aren’t funded!) for the full suite of MTP uniform which makes up the layering system. Which makes an absolute mockery of it us referring to it as PPE!
-
Secondly quality/thickness. Have you tried wearing a pair of the new trousers through a gorse or bramble bush? They are a long way from nice thick '94 issue trousers.
1 Like
When the cadets are buying it second hand we have no control over the quality. We have no idea what chemicals it’s been exposed to, how it’s been treated etc. We can’t really call it PPE unless we are inspecting it before use.
2 Likes
It’s also illegal (IIRC?) to require someone to provide their own PPE. Hence why the reference to boots as PPE in an AT generic risk assessment issued by the safety centre was changed (or should have been - just checked and it hasn’t); indeed I actually got an answer out of the safety centre going into print that walking boots are not considered PPE. I would imagine the same applies to fieldcraft.
For work purposes maybe, but not illegal for hobbies
1 Like
And unless we know what we’re looking for. Another weekend course incoming.
1 Like
i would agree but at which point does a hobby become something that is not the individuals responsibility but an organisations given they are providing a service?
As a private/personal climber no one else is going to care if I am wearing an approved harness or helmet but do that as part of an organisation, such as the RAFAC where there is a RA in place which states the level of kit being used - it is unlikely a ropy old harness my grandfather used is going to pass inspection - as an organisation we provide the PPE
when it comes to climbing & watersports I do not recall any occasion when there was mandatory PPE requirements that were not already provided. No one was expected to provide their own harness or BA.
As we [RAFAC] provide a service to our customers, there is an expectation that those delivering the service and the customers fall under assurances that the service is provided iaw the law…else how would that organisation get PLI insurance? (ok i recognise the RAFAC doesn’t have an actual PLI policy, but you get the point I am making)
Reference?
Fairly sure that’s not policy. Happy to be corrected.
I defer to the legal eagles here who know much more than me obvs - but is that definitely true if we are subject to the HSAW act?
I can’t imagine it would be looked on lightly in court where we asked someone to provide their own PPE to take part in an activity and it wasn’t of the correct standard.
I know the PPER regs specifically state ‘employer’ and ‘employee’ but that doesn’t seem to bother anyone when applying HSAW etc.
3 Likes
Am I not right in thinking that after the incident in Ireland with the ACF that waterproofs are now considered PPE. Therefore when doing AT stuff especially, we should be checking that equipment is adequate. And if we are supplying waterproofs they should be on the PPE register in the same vein as harnesses etc are?
Appreciate this is now massive thread drift, but it is an interesting topic to discuss. Maybe a thread split from further up when the PPE discussion started might be a good idea?
2 Likes
The DAIB report definitely refers to them as ‘PPE’. Whether they are or not is a different question.
1 Like
Officially a CI might be able to most of the things his uniformed colleagues can do, but in reality not being in uniform leaves the CI at a disadvantage when it comes to fieldcraft and possibly shooting. That’s my experience before going into uniform.
1 Like
Could you share the specific section in the regs that talks about ci on mtp as if i remember correctly its very double worded both denying and approving.
Honestly i think they should just change the regs and allow cis to wear mtp across the board
2 Likes
I will dig out over weekend.
1 Like
Is that a foxhole 
To be fair, waterproofs should be inspected regularly to make sure that they are still actually waterproof. The amount of times I see cadets issued with waterproofs where the seam tape has come off (and are therefore no longer waterproof) is unreal. They do not have an unlimited service life and will need repair or replacement at some stage.
1 Like
Are you telling me some units dont keep a monthly waterproof inspection log?
Amateurs…
Top tip. Combine the log with the montly ladder check to save time.
