What he said.
RC SW requires Cat Bleed trained staff for any non AR Range (In my view a total mis read of the IBN and has been poorly communicated, but I think did reach down to WShoOs)
RC SW requires an AED to be on site for any activity that is High RtL, seems he hasnāt actually done an Risk Assessment here, as the risk of Cardic Arrest is no greater on a Range than it is at the Sqn.
RC SW doesnāt allow WShoOs to Approve activity. The RShoO can only approve AR & DCCT. All other LFMT can only be approved by the RC currently (noting his total lack of shooting quals)
RC SW is so risk adverse itās unhealthy for the organisation.
RC SW doesnāt trust volunteers and wants to remove OC Low RtL Self Approval
RC SW is the most likely reason for me leaving.
Edit to add: @dazizian I canāt give you any source for this as none of this has come down as a direct comms, and is pretty a case of find out when you run an activity and it gets rejected.
5 Likes
That is absolutely crazy.
Surely this falls outside the SST? He may have a high rank but if heās not qualified, he shouldnāt be signing it off!
So all AT requires an AED? Even if thereās a very small number of attendees?
1 Like
Yes x2
1 Like
Jesus wept.
1 Like
At least I think so, canāt be sure as there are no comms to back it up, but this is my current understanding.
i heard that the āclosest AED location needs to be documented on the SMS applicationā rather than actually required to be āon siteā/carried.
although even if knowing the nearest one is ācloseā at a mile away is too far away to be any use should it be needed in anger so perhaps my source was misunderstood.
If all this AED stuff is being asked for, then why are Sqns allowed to operate without one on Sqn hq?
After all the majority of all activity and time we do and spend is on Sqn. Therefore the percentage risk of needing one is on Sqnā¦
Our nearest registered aed to Sqn is just over a mile awayā¦
If I keel over and my adj sends a runnerā¦ Iād be dead and buried before they returned.
This sounds very much like unthought out blocking, for no good reason.
2 Likes
Thatās still a load of rubbish. If Iām planning to take cadets up Snowdon as an example, the nearest AED will be at pen-y-pass YHA/warden centre. However if someone needs one, that wonāt be the one that gets used, itāll be the one mountain rescue bring up with them!
Iāve raised this with my OC Wgā¦ awaiting response since Mid Dec
i donāt disagree
the only way the location being known is useful is if it is carriedā¦but then it needs to be sourced from somewhere which comes with a Ā£Ā£Ā£
the whole thing sounds rubbish. knowing where one is or carrying one is not in line with ALARP.
if SW are expected to have a AED why not an EpiPen too?
ā¦has he even done the risk assessors course???
if youāre shot through the chest, an AED isnāt gonna save youā¦
1 Like
It comes with sticky pads you can use to cover the holes
10 Likes
Not quite. Thereās a difference between acting as SPO or any other appointment, and approving a RAFAC activity. The RC, as the DDH, is well within his remit for the latter, provided the rest (eg SST) is in place. Theyāre two separate issues. Eg I could be the SPO for a shoot in 1 Welsh but Iād have no authority to approve the event.
This is what concerns me most. Volunteers need clarity to plan effectively. To leave people guessing and then reject because they didnāt guess right ā¦ isnāt right.
Except that I know of an event which was returned as the nearest AED wasnāt near enough.
Maybe but GSW is rarely the highest risk in military skills (or āoutdoorsā) activities. Without looking at the real stats, Iād put money on a heart attack being more likely, particularly in extremes of weather.
2 Likes
Iād put more than that.
bhf own stats say heart attack when partaking in strenuous activity is far more likely than any other major incident.
1 Like
Do the people who write these things do it themselves following what theyāve written? Better still run through it with new cadets (ie never done it before) and a sample of the people (Sqn CFAV) who will be doing it with them. Then you can do the thatās daft/donāt work bits, then repeat with similar groups before it gets anywhere near released document.
You get the impression a lot is lifted directly from the Armed Forces with a few word changes like ācadetā, other than that left untouched and no respect for the fact we are doing this with children, and itās not the day to day job for those CFAV who are into shooting.
You would like to think that just once the end audience was respected. As for taking months to do a ārewriteā ā¦ why? Is it given to monks to hand scribe on vellum?
Find & replace has been the mentality on some cases. No more. Take the new syllabus for example: we took cues from the OSP but even the coaching chapter was tailored to cadet stuff to at least some degree. The shoots themselves are largely bespoke and with significant feedback implemented.
As for the CSBTR manual: it took so long as the drills are fundamentally different and it is tri-Service with input also from CCRS. Thatās a lot of going back and forth.
Without giving too much away: we proposed to update another manual today ā¦ if the proposal is accepted then it will be a very different, volunteer-led process. Thereās zero indication yet as to the likelihood of acceptance but judge us on how that goes if it is accepted, not on previous processes which have been entirely out of our control.
Iāll say one more thing on that last point: the fact that we feel we can approach ARTAT with such things and that they are working with us is testement to their attitude and openness, and to the relationship we have with them (largely thanks to two certain HQ RAFAC desk officers). Indeed, for them to have put up with the significant to and fro with the CSBTR update, respecting the input of āmere volunteersā should say something.
3 Likes
Iām still wondering why the manual hasnāt been uploaded to our system yet. Normally we get these things first.