Just had an indoor event cancelled by SW region because a member of staff didn’t have cold injury training. Can someone explain this please.
It’s a relatively new mandatory training course you can find on Learn. It’s the cold equivalent of the heat injury training.
Edit: Just realised what the actual question was. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, all mandatory training must be in date for all staff attending an activity that is authorised through SMS, regardless of whether the training seems relevant to the activity (e.g. you still need cold injury training in the height of summer).
All staff require Module 1 of the Heat and Cold illness training. All staff that are leading an activity require Module 2.
I would assume in your case the lead staff has not done their Mod 2?
Its MOD directive that we must follow. But it’s a bit silly how strictly. The course is aimed at leaders training soldiers in freezing areas of Estonia and the arctic. But anyone who might be in a responsible role needs it for any activity where there is a chance of cold injury.
That last bit is being applied as any activity.
This also isn’t new. The cold injury stuff was all released at the beginning of the summer. Most RCs allowed people to continue without until September 1st, allowing loads of time to complete.
2 Likes
The lead has all training as do 3 other staff this was 1 CI added who wasn’t even needed on ratios. No common sense.
That’s just stupid. If one person doesn’t have their training then they should be removed from the event. Not the whole event canx.
This whole org, SW especially recently, seems to just be this meme over and over again:
4 Likes
All staff have to undertake module 2 (certainly in RAFAC not sure ahout CCF)
They don’t. All staff need Module 1. Only those “responsible persons in advance of them commanding, managing or planning any activity where a risk of cold injury can reasonably be expected” * need to do Module 2.
A CI attending an event as a non-director does not require it. Arguably, if the event is indoors in a heated building then no one requires it, as you can’t reasonably expect a cold injury.
We need to stop enforcing OTT mandatory training on people who don’t need it.
Cross country in Jan? Yes, the IC and 2 IC of the event need it. All the other staff? Nah, Mod 1 covers that. Comms course in a heated building in Jan? Nah, no one should need it. DofE exped in August, with forecast not going below 15C? Nah, no one should need it.
*This is ACTO 99:
Also, direct quote from the JSP is:
- Commanders, managers and those planning activities must assess the risks of cold injury and take action to reduce and prepare for those risks. To support this, a more detailed package of cold injury prevention training courses for commanders or managers are available on the DLE as Module 2. Module 2 must be completed by all commanders or managers in advance of them commanding, managing or planning any activity where a risk of cold injury could reasonably be expected.
My bold. If there is no reasonable expectation that a cold injury could occur, the training isn’t needed.
3 Likes
The military expression is “practice bleeding.”
It’s hurts, it’s stupid, but doesn’t stop.
1 Like
Thanks for that, another sw regionism as we have all been instructed to do it.
1 Like
Training to prevent or treat cold injuries hasn’t changed in the forty or so years since I learnt and applied it.
Heat illness training hasn’t either, apart from the observation that sudden heatwaves might cause casualties by the sudden rise in temperature. Because of global warming, we don’t get proper seasons in the British Isles anymore: just damp mild winters, no Spring, an early heatwave season followed by mixed monsoon/drought weather which gradually fades into another wet Christmas season.
It’s the dampness that gets to you in the UK: dry cold is easy to protect yourself against. The Norwegian soldiers who trained in the Cairngorm mountains in WWII thought that the winters there felt colder than those in Norway.
The RAFAC might teach us to be aware of heat and cold injuries, but it would help if we all were issued clothing which actually prevented such injuries in the first place: namely boonie hats for the Summer, and the whole range of waterproof and warm clothing which is needed in cold and wet weather - proper waterproof jackets and trousers (Jeltex jackets are the most useless piece of military clothing ever issued to anyone, ever), thermal underwear, fleece jackets, hats, gloves, scarves etc - and a rucksack to put it all in.
Expecting cadets to do outdoor activities in exposed training areas without issuing such clothing is child neglect and exposure to harm as far as I’m concerned. Cadets and Staff shouldn’t have to buy this kit themselves, either, because that leads us into ‘who can afford it’ territory. It’s stupid to have this emphasis upon climatic injuries awareness and child protection without an official issue of clothing needed for protection from the elements and prevention of such injuries.
Forty years ago army surplus field clothing was expensive and hard to come by: the military tended to either shred used clothing for cotton waste, or recondition it to keep as a war reserve. Now the MoD seem to be dumping vast quantities of brand new gear onto the civvy market for knockdown prices (nice to see where our tax money’s gone, but that’s the Public Sector for you: always generous with revenue generated by the Private Sector, until it runs out).
But the point remains, we should be the first port of call for receiving all this kit if the MoD wants to get rid of it, even if the economics of it means that cadet’s parents pay a deposit to either rent or buy it (means tested, of course).
Having an adequate standard issue of clothing also means that the responsibility of turning up to an outdoor activity properly equipped is placed upon the cadets. It would get them used to service-type field kit checks and the good reasons behind them, which in turn reinforces why we carry out uniform inspections on parade nights.
2 Likes
I’m guessing you aren’t actively involved in this org or the wider MOD then? As training has changed dramatically just in the last 10 years, let alone the last 40.
Not, really, mate: if it’s cold or wet, put on some appropriate clothing or a sun hat if it’s hot and drink enough water; rewarm or cool down casualties and evacuate if needed etc etc. Not much different to what they did in WWII, as far as I can tell.
I was in the Armed Forces for 23 years serving in operational and training environments with a 100 degree difference in temperature between some of them, done well over a thousand days mountaineering and competed in winter and summer sports at club, station and service representative level, so I have had to deal with the effects of heat and cold in myself and others over that time. I’ve been a CFAV for a dozen years now.
You’re half right: we have got away from the ‘skin is waterproof’ and ‘think warm, and you’ll feel warm’ mentality (both quotes I received as an Air Cadet) which was the extent of cold weather training in the old days. There was no such thing as hot weather likely to inflict heat illness casualties in those days either: one acclimatised to summer weather during springtime in the British Isles.
One major change I have seen in recent years and highlighted by the current online training has been in the responsibilities placed upon those organising or running military training activities, but my point is that hot and cold weather conditions haven’t changed, so the prevention and treatment of injuries caused by them haven’t either at the First Aid level (unlike CPR, in which I’ve seen several major changes). We’re more aware of them these days, and that awareness is part of the planning and training system.
The Air Cadet clothing issue remains just as inadequate, though: forty years ago we got a set of RAF denim coveralls for field training, with a WWII-era rubberised groundsheet poncho as the waterproof layer. The useless Jeltex jacket was worn with the No2 uniform, for what it was worth in terms of insulation or water repellency. So at least we had the poncho for the field, which is more than cadets now get as waterproof clothing with their PCS.
Even if the cold/hot weather injuries training had changed as much as the CPR has, it’s a moot point if cadets don’t have the right gear for field training conditions in the first place. In the early 1980s coveralls and ponchos were all that we had (when I joined the army in 1984 I was issued the '58 pattern nylon poncho as my waterproof clothing: we didn’t get a general issue of waterproof jackets and trousers until 1985), so it was normal to be poorly equipped then. It’s inexcusable now, with so much military clothing out there and easily available.
3 Likes
Indeed, they don’t get PCS at all but have to buy it… now if the basics were issued, could each Sqn also get a mixed sized set of waterproofs, ECW jacket or fleece and maybe some daysacks? Enough for a section at a time in the field?
I’m pretty sure ACF units hold cadet patrol packs to loan out and they don’t have to buy them?
3 Likes
What your talking about are the basic actions at a low level which yes, don’t change. Hot, take jacket off. Cold, put jacket on. Sure.
You’re opening was statement that training to prevent cold (and heat) injuries hasn’t changed in 40 years. That is just incorrect.
10 years ago the only ‘training’ around hot and cold injuries was your basic single slide as part of your first aid training. Today we have extensive training materials on DLE and as policy to help us manage these risks properly. All formed off the back of people dying because the training didn’t exist. The training to prevent these types of injuries from happening has come a long way in 10 years, let alone 40.
Now, it’s all almost a complete null and void argument for us, as although there is loads of training and help, it’s all aimed at serving military personnel. Not 13 year old going for a walk when it’s a bit warm or a bit cold. We’re not going to be in -40C arctic weather, nor 40C heat.
For the occasional event, it’s very necessary. Running X-country in Jan when it’s -5C does need some proper planning, and so does running a DofE event when it’s 30C. Both those examples, 10 years ago, would have been planned just based on what the CFAV thought was right at the time. At least now we have a framework to work with to help us guide our decisions. Even if that framework isn’t ideal.
You’re partly correct about the issue kit though. It’s easy to say we need C, Y and Z when we don’t give them out. But there’s ways and means of working around that. And because we don’t issue certain kit, it makes the risk assessment process that more important, as the range of kit that cadets turn up wearing needs to be taken into account.
1 Like
One could argue that it would be pointless running, say, an outdoor range practice or fieldcraft lesson in heavy rain where those without WP clothing would be soaked, whereas those wearing it could continue the activity with less risk of getting hypothermic. You’d still have to watch out for the effects of cold upon young people, even amongst adequately dressed participants, and reduce the exposure time accordingly, but at least you’d still get something done, and prove that you can still operate in inclement weather.
It’s the principle behind the old saying that Norwegian parents say to their children before sending them outside: “Det er ikke dårlig vær, bare dårlig klær!” This is a country where they own more outdoor clothing per head than any other. 
2 Likes
100%. But any time I’ve been involved in an activity like that, the JIs are crystal clear that if you don’t turn up with waterproofs, you will just get RTUd, and won’t take part. Made clear normally that it can be a normal civvy waterproof too.
This is where the crux of the issuing kit problem hits. Waterproofs are PPE. This was made abundantly clear after the ACFs Mourne Mountain ‘incident’ report. Arguably, if it’s PPE, we should be issuing it and properly inspecting it too!
4 Likes
We can also add berets to the Useless Military Clothing list: they provide neither shade nor warmth to the wearer’s head. Great when soaking wet, too.
A special mention goes to the RAF No2 uniform in all its forms: like many natural species of flora and fauna, remove it from its natural environment of the heated or air-conditioned office, and it’s completely hopeless. Those who are part of the ‘dark-blue shirt’ No2 uniformed RAF normally get changed into coveralls in the hanger in which they work. 
I’ve just thought…we in the RAFAC, and probably in the RAF as well, are muddling along clothing wise with either an unsuitable and obsolete blue uniform on base, or an inadequately issued army uniform for the field. If the RAF binned them both and started from the beginning, we’d probably have an RAF blue version of the complete Royal Navy uniform and PPE issue. Most RAF trades don’t need a PCS in MTP camouflage colours for their work, for instance. 
1 Like
They mightn’t need it all the time, but when camouflage is needed, it is needed (that applies to a lesser extent to us too: we need MTP for some activities, but are there any we can’t wear it for).
There’s a few other threads covering this but I 100% agree our uniform is not fit for purpose. The chances of us getting a ‘blue’ PCS are a rounding error from zero.
1 Like
That old phrase ‘when you need a tank, only a tank will do’ leaps to mind.
Yes, it’s true that 90% of the RAF don’t need a camouflage/low-viz uniform/working clothes, but if you’re ground crew working at the Harrier forward operating base at San Carlos in 1982, or you’re at Mount Alice Radar, or you’re on the Typhoon/F-35 /Chinook det in Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Poland, or Cyprus, then wearing blue because you’re only a tiny percentage of the RAF isn’t ok.
While I absolutely accept arguments around wearing through, and wasting, high-end combat uniforms while driving a desk, I’ve long taken the view that what we wear tells us things about our role and purpose, that - however remotely - everything that a military force does should be about it’s operational output (which, to be clear, is killing people and breaking their stuff…). Wearing a ‘combat uniform’, even if it’s the office version, helps to reinforce that psychology, while wearing a blue suit (or SD’s and regimental jumpers in the Army…) detracts from that.
That which reinforces that ethos is good, that which detracts from it is bad.
Now, obviously, that ethos doesn’t apply to the cadets services, but the practicality/utility element of it does - cadets can learn about cyber warfare, the principles of flight, or do foot drill in MTP, but they can’t do field craft in blue, or trudge across Dartmoor in office wear.
Budget comes into this - as we’ve long known, you only really start to economise when you stop doing whole lines of activity: so bin blue completely, and go into MTZp, even if you decide to go forward with two versions - a Õst Front design/quality for those for whom not being shot by Little Green Men is a serious consideration, and a High Wycombe office version with a special reinforced bottom…
1 Like