Cold injury training

Adult Staff
14

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
15

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. :roll_eyes:

2 Likes
16

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
17

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. :crazy_face:

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. :thinking:

1 Like
18

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
19
20

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
21

The RAF doesn’t need to wear camouflage uniforms any more than the RN does: the days of expeditionary deployments to austere bases ended with the defeat of and withdrawal from Afghanistan of our armed forces. Militarised liberal intervention is not a government policy anymore.

The RAF now operates only from properly built up airbases in safe and secure countries like Romania, Estonia, Cyprus and the Falkland Islands. Not even the RAF Regiment patrols outside the wire anywhere these days, and the RAF Police never have in their history. RAF tradespeople haven’t done Guard or Augmentation Force duties on even UK airbases since the MPGS took over the guard rooms around 20 years ago. The RAF have never had any militarised Search and Rescue units, either. They’ve relied on the USAF to provide SAR cover for air operations.

In fact a blue/grey uniform is better camouflage than a green one in such an urban environment as a permanent airbase. The Berlin Brigade of Cold War days had blue urban combat uniforms. :thinking:

22

Are you absolutely sure about that statement???..

2 Likes
23

I’d not say that any of those places are entirely safe and secure right now. For 3 of the 4 for sure, we wouldn’t be there if they were.

Back to cold injuries? Can we get gloves from parent stations? Ours never seem to have any!

1 Like
24

So you’ve missed the CAS fully embracing ACE at the moment.

2 Likes
25

Not that I’m aware of. But it would be good if we could start getting some cold weather gear. Even if we get a deal to get it issued to units rather than individuals, then we can loan it out as needed, then collect back in.

26

Squints

Well I wonder what I’ve been doing then sat on guard over the numerous points in my career.

But they deffo did do their heat illness training though. I was allowed to wear my bush hat one day when it was really hot. I didn’t, because that’s not professional.

5 Likes
27

It’s an admission of guilt by HQAC & HQ Region that they’ve failed to keep cadet infrastructure up to the minimum safe standards and that cadets thus may be exposed unduly to the cold weather even inside.

1 Like
28

Okay, to play Devil’s Advocate on this.

Cold Injury Training is part of the mandatory ACTO99 training; may be individual has been stopped from participating because they have failed to complete within a reasonable timescale :man_shrugging:t2:

29

This would be sensible.
Cancelling the whole event is not.

5 Likes
30

That would be fair enough, but they’ve canned the whole event, not just stopped that person turning up.

2 Likes
31

If it is a region approved event, then surely it needed approval at least 1-2 weeks before - or at least the back and forth comments between the unit and the region requesting amendments, further info or files. Had this been looked at early in the process, the staff member could easily have completed this in 2-3 hours max.

Or was it an event planned and approved locally which region decided to look at on the day it started and decided to cancel?

There may have been an opportunity to swap that staff member with another or have them complete the training before they were involved. Going straight to cancel before even letting them fix the problem seems archaic.

Any why cancel rather than just not approve? It means that all the SMS work has to be done again instead of tweaking.

It would be interesting to know what the event was, what level was it at (Sqn/Wing etc), had it already been previously approved, when was it for and how much notice did they get for cancellation?

Had the person been advised they needed to complete the training by Sqn/Wg/Region and it was ignored?

1 Like
32

The OP stated the CI wasn’t one of the directors, and wasn’t needed for ratios. They just needed to say that person can’t attend.

1 Like
33

Yes, now I’ve just checked the MPGS website: they are based at 23 RAF stations.

You don’t need to wear a cammo uniform for manning the station main gate: when I served at RAF Laarbruch in the early 1990s we, the RAF Regt, would man the sangar with a L85 rifle wearing the old pre-CS95 green working dress, and the RAF Police wore the No2 uniform. We must have done the job alright, because the IRA or Red Army Faction never attacked that airbase.

1 Like