The absence of helmets and body armour certainly makes it feel less safe.
Cadet forces arenât doing trg for fighting / war.
Iâve probably seen more unsafe muzzle wobbles when cadets are trying to get / replace magazines in ammo pouches!
The risk elements for cadet shooting have to be significantly less than âadultâ shooting with the added complexities.
Youâre literally more likely to be struck by lightning than shot on an ATC range
2 Likes
Yes, but, MOD police for ranges is tailored to those wearing plates. Thus, they only supply TQs as a torso or junctional injury risk is already mitigated by the wearing of body armour. We donât wear it. So the risk of a torso injury is just as likely as an arm/leg injury. Yet we still only have TQs.
However, the actual chance of a GSW is extremely low, so the whole thing is a bit silly anyway. A cat bleed is significantly more likely to be caused by an RTA on the way to the range.
1 Like
I would suggest much lower than âextremely.â Thatâs why I think it would be very handy to look at the different risk assessments of cadet shooting versus main Services - is it 1:1(with lots of zeros) for cadet shooting & 1:1(with even more zeros) for adult shooting? Or, did someone designate simply them as the same - GSW = end result?
i do believe this discussion is almost worthy of its own threadâŚ
but to add my thoughts.
the risk of GSW is due to someone on the point with a loaded weapon, while someone else is at the target/or at the very least, forward of the yellow line (thinking of a 25m Barrack range).
I do not see why this would be more or less likely with Regulars or Cadets providing correct protocols are followed.
I am not an RCO, so cannot talk with any experience or authority on the matter, but i am a SAAI and my understanding is the CF qualifications (be it RCO, SAAI or other) are not simply equivalent to the Regulars, or interchangeable, made âCadet Forces friendlyâ but are identical.
Certainly when we have had SIs on range, in my experience both RAF and Army, none have suggested there is a significant difference in the way a range is run.
therefore, on the basis a CF or Regular range is run by the same qualification, in the same manner (accepting that the firing drills differ, and subtle differences in weapon) the âriskâ factor of the Range management should be the same and down to the integrity and discipline of the RCO in how close to the expectation they stick.
I donât think any RCO would permit anyone to âstep forwardâ to check a target when there are still shooters with rounds left to fire.
So the next biggest âunknownâ is the shooters themselves.
in the CF we mitigate the âriskâ (which is mainly down to inexperience) by correct supervision, be that 1:1 or 1:2 as required.
the Regulars likely have fewer coaches and safety supervisors per shooter, because their shooters are likely (hopefully) more mature and mentally capable of handling a weapon and almost certainly âbiggerâ than the âaverage Cadetâ so find handling the weapon easier given the different size ratio thus the weapon is not a âscaryâ item, nor one which is difficult to hold - and as regulars would not be inexperienced shooters donât require the same 1:1 supervision that is expected of a 14 year old Cadet.
While i have no experience of shooting on a âRegularsâ range, I would not expect either one to be more âat riskâ. That said i would accept that the Regulars range would be less rigidly structured that those of a CF given the progressive shooting syllabus we follow.
harking back 20 years âto the good ole daysâ when there were just a handful of shoots to shoot;
rapid, deliberate and snap (with some adaptions made accordingly - anyone remember ârippleâ?)
In those days, the CF RCO determined how that would run, in what order, with how many rounds, typically aiming (unintentional pun) for the shooter(s) to gain sufficient points to earn a badge.
While these three types of shoot are still in place, how they are shot is far stricter in how a shooter experiences them, all deliberately towards the next shooting practise making it progressive and a learning experience working through each shooting practise in turn.
perhaps that is where the Regular ranges are different. the vast majority of Regular ranges see the shooters with more experience on a range than they have digits on one hand (which i suspect is typical for an âaverageâ Cadet.)
when the Regulars are on a range they are not learning a drill, or a syllabus, they are not working towards a badge or slogging through a progressive system. they are practising a skill which they already have and doing so to avoid skill fade
in summary - while the overall goal is quite different between the Regulars shooting on a range, and that of the CF, how either of done is the sameâŚunder the command and management of an RCO so providing both organisations are training and appointing, and approving suitable RCOs, why would one be any more a âRiskâ than the other given other control measures applied according to the group shooting?
The chances of a weaponâs injury on a well managed range are probably infinitesimal, but Saturday night in town, well thatâs another story and cadets and CFAVs are probably more likely to come across one. Training should encompass all scenarioâs.
2 Likes
Probably very true - but other than a first aid kit in a car (which could be some way away) - not much to help you.
Back when I was a fusilier, every time I shot the APWT (as the ACMT was called at the time) it was very much about qualifying for the marksman badge.
One of these probably saved the life of the guy we did the attempt murder for this month.
But there maybe local bleed control kits that could be used.
The other question that needs to be asked, is there regular refresher training? Could this be contained within NCO courses and leadership training as a training scenario?
Like anything, skill fade is a problem.
Our first aid quals only last three years and then you have to do the course again, and I would expect squadrons to run first aid as a regular activity outside of formal courses, either as its own activity or as part of something else, like fieldcraft or exped training.
oh well there shows my ignorance, i take it back thenâŚ
Iâm not saying it was like that for everyone. It might have even been my background as a cadet that motivated me to collect badges.
The general principle has always been that if you act within the bounds of your training, youâre good, and that includes TQ. Weâve been teaching their use for several years now, including to cadets. I carry one in my car. Not once has anyone even hinted that I shouldnât use it. If someone has had their leg ripped off by a train, I wouldnât hesitate to use the TQ if it was required - which is an actual scenario that happened at my local station.
2 Likes
I carry one in my work bag. Along with a chest seal and Celox.
Yes I am trained to use them. Would I use them on a cadet? Yes, it would be a life or death situation so Iâd do whatever I could.
Hope it never happens.
FWIW I did a course with our local police which recommended everyone carries TQs. They teach this at schools now.
2 Likes
TQs, Celox etc were all taught on my FAAW for SCC.
2 Likes
I think RAFAC officially dropped Celox.
1 Like
Yup. It was on the original cat bleeds course. But was dropped as it isnât actually contained in the 069 kit. And the course is just to tick that box.
2 Likes