Shooting and Hearing Aids

Adult Staff
22

I volunteered to find out if there had been any similar guidance from the NSRA so I was quoting someone else with regard to the second remark.

I made the first comment because my mate also shoots fullbore and shotguns but I have never seen if he wears hearing protection so I was wrong to make that assumption. I had no idea he had been exposed to the engine noise from C130’s as well. I only know him as a retired commercial lawyer.

In our club ear defenders are provided and most members either have their own or have bought specialist fitted ear protection where the valves allow conversation but shut out the crack of bullets being fired. Hearing protection notices are displayed in every range and require ear defenders to be worn.

The military is somewhat different where uniformed staff and cadets must follow rules & regulations quite properly where there is an obvious duty of care.

I agree that it would be good to know the reasoning and evidence behind the decision

23

I think Dans update that has been shared answers this but above us in the RAFAC.

1 Like
24

Yes it does.

I also like his combative stance of how highlight the issue & take the frustrations up further up the chain.

2 Likes
25

Highlights the “sub-optimal” comms / lack of detail / poor timing, etc.

I’ll wait to see what medical advice they took / were given (if any), but I suspect that this a sledgehammer to crack a very, very small nut.

Has there been an incident because of someone using HAT? I doubt it, or else this would have been mentioned.

To me, their thought process hasn’t taken into account a cadet / CFAV with HAT is likely to be hard of hearing anyway, if not near-deaf (especially with BCHI implants or similar). HAT is likely to improve matters with ear protection on, not impede it.

Consequently, saying that MOD hearing protection won’t work isn’t actually looking at the issue in an appropriate manner!

1 Like
26

Thinking of the age of some of the cadet training team instructors I would have thought some of the paid personnel would also be affected.

2 Likes
27

There has been some rather animated discussions had the last 2 days.

28

The irony of a lot of the people who do shooting and wear HAT because they’ve done shooting all their life isn’t lost on me… but this issue isn’t about the mass populus it’s about individuals.

The military take hearing to be a set standard, people who wear HAT or have some form of hearing deficiency are outside of that standard and will need to be treated in a different manner. Until we know what that is then they’ve opted to stop and assess.

HAT is basically a piece of kit that isn’t issue and there are so many different variations out there applying a blanket rule is extremely difficult.

1 Like
29

Dear Cadet / CFAV,

By wearing HAT, this may take you out of the stated criteria within MOD requirements for use of hearing protection whilst conducting shooting

Please sign the waiver below to confirm that you have sought specialist audiology advice about using your specific HAT in such conditions & that you accept all liability for any hearing degradation.

You will need to demonstrate (at each event) that you can hear all relevant safety communications on a range in order to participate.

Or something like that.

5 Likes
30

So how will this effect:

  • cadet training teams
  • CCF SSIs
  • Reservists
  • FTRS contracts

All have an element of pay & central job requirement of running ranges.

Would there be a legal requirement to make the reasonable adjustments for the paid employees?

2 Likes
31

Fair questions. Send them to Dan to feed back into the Safety cell

32

But applying a blanket rule is exactly what we’ve just done, no? The rule is you can’t do it.

3 Likes
33

For now yes. We can’t blanket allow though.

There is still a lot to unpack, the other services are catching up but definitely raise the questions via the approved channel as it all needs considering.

34

You and I both know it’s not that simple in the modern litigation world.

35

Incoming ShoMed01 for all

4 Likes
37

Maybe not, but this is very different from the poor duty of care related to the current raft hearing loss claims by military personnel - this is probably one of the driving factors for this issue.

Has anyone looked at this waiver option, to refine it to the necessary “legal” standards? I doubt it.

Has anyone liaised with a consultant audiologist (military or otherwise) to determine the different HAT / potential safety risks & ways to mitigate them? I doubt it again (as I would hope that this would have been included in the original, & subsequent, communication.

Not an audiologist, but i suspect that noise-cancelling ear defenders would solve 99% of all the perceived issues.

1 Like
40

Once again, this is not the concern highlighted within the Safety Notice which is about the interaction of the Ear Defender + HAT and the ability for words of command to be heard.

may be unable to hear safety commands

42

Isn’t this why the RCO use to shout “raise your right hand if you can hear me?”

4 Likes
43

This phrase concerns me. It implies it’s been raised by the RAF / RAFAC when it could well be something the other cadet forces /services are aware of & addressed ages ago.

It’s like fiasco with the 12x12 tents where everyone else had reviewed & dealt with the issue 12 mths before RAF AC.

I assume there’s nothing in Cadet training ranges or Pam21 re hearing aids?

2 Likes
44

i doubt it also.

remember ACTO035? that had a waiver as part of the process and yet that was still dismissed as viable

1 Like
45

Not yet, that will come though.