I see your point, and do agree in part, but I think this is one of those times where looking at it a bit more sensibly is needed. Clearly who ever is writing these IBNs isn’t great at explaining them selves. Given they have said “Under no circumstance is an untrained person to use or have access to the Tourniquet.” you could argue that it is actually implying that you need someone on site that is actually trained! Obviously that isn’t the case though.
No food or drink on a range though remember!
1 Like
That’s literally the job of the person writing the policy. It’s clearly poorly written and/or poorly thought out.
I don’t think it’s obvious, especially given they are going to offer CFAV tourniquet training. It’s impossible to follow the policy without the first aider being trained in its use.
This. This is the second example recently of complete trash from shooting policy (see the CTR21 thread for my opinions on the other bits of trash).
The policy should be clear, unambiguous, and followable.
I agree, but this is exactly the problem. If we’re having to accept the rules as more like guidelines then the rules are ineffective. That leads to safety issues.
2 Likes
I can’t disagree with that, spot on. 
2 Likes
Well that’s interesting, on my recent AFA refresher we were told that we should not use a tourniquet 
They seem to go in and out of favour.
I had thought they were, generally, back in favour, assuming correct use.
I once smashed a burger King whilst sat on a 22 range 
2 Likes
Might want to work on your aim a bit there buddy
3 Likes
Good thing I’ve never shot anything more powerful than that dust buster
1 Like
Playing devil’s advocate here…
What is a suitable “off the shelf”* qualification to have to deal with such injury…? And its is practical for volunteers to achieve?
*and by this I mean achievable without any prerequisite such as 2 years of medical school or similar abd teachable to people “off the street” in a “short” (<24 hrs contact time)
Incidentally, we get given the tourniquet training as an add-on package. It isn’t an insurmountable problem.
1 Like
There are providers that offer specific ballistic trauma courses. I had to do one for a previous employer where we were working on test ranges a lot and it was only a couple of days. Interesting course though.
1 Like
Search something along the lines of “catastrophic bleeding control course”. There’s plenty of people that do offer such courses, normally as an add on to what ever first aid qualification you already have.
Again, though. Am I really likely to end up with a catastrophic bleed on an air rifle range?
Genuine question - I don’t think I really appreciate how much damage an AR pellet would do.
impressive they cover all that you say we should have as Range First Aiders in three hours…
(although based on ALARP are those three hours for every Range first aider a good use of their time given the history of no Cadets or Staff getting shot on a range…?
we have a safety system in place, there would be a list of elements that go wrong before that situation could happen…
The NSRA has run them in the past (but based on the EFAW course so not accepted by CTR or our regs) https://www.nsra.co.uk/index.php/news/2492-fully-accredited-emergency-first-aid-at-work-course
I completed a commercial off the shelf forestry first aid course several years ago which covered chainsaw related injuries, crush injuries but, interestingly, also covered ballistic trauma based on the incidents of accidental shootings in woodlands environment!
Whether you need this for an .177 air rifle range is debatable though!
This was not a NSRA course, but one organised by a rifle club. It appeared in the courses calendar in the same way as other third party courses do.
The only reference to First Aid in the NSRA Club Risk Assessment is:
A First Aid kit is to be available in the vicinity of the range
exmpa
I think it’s clear that the updated CTR 21 medical paragraphs did not match up with what the RAFAC are delivering from a first aid perspective. They however are very clear in saying FAAW as a minimum but they have added a caveat for single service policy. That single service policy is the bit that is lacking and the updated IBN should help that clarity until something more robust is issued by the first aid people.
It has taken the RAFAC first aid people by surprise a little how much of a storm formed after this and they are working on some solutions to the problems that have been presented to them.
1 Like