I think that in this case for the Vigilants, it was declared too expensive to re-engine them, etc. However, same result for lack of availability / resources.
1 Like
Yeah. Sorry, being a bit facetious there.
1 Like
I find the Catch-22 in these situations fascinating but leave it to the legal brains to come up with a definitive solution butā¦
The majority of our tents have been sourced/begged/acquired in such a way that there is no āownershipā by the RAF. Whilst they were originally Mil Equipment they are now privately owned. Therefore, can the RAF mandate their usage by us? What about all the other private sourced kit we use that they do not even know about - they do not safety assess that.
Counter argument is that if we are doing a listed core activity and there is an incident then I suppose they could refuse liability as we were using equipment specifically advised as unsafe. However, my comment on other kit still stands - who checks that?
Stands back to observeā¦
3 Likes
Arguably, you (or whoever buys it). Given it is privately purchased for use with other peopleās kids then I suspect there is a duty of care to ensure that equipment is suitable and safe for the intended use. Normally when buying from commercial sources that is taken care of via the various kitemarking organisations (UKCA / CE etc) and in use inspections for qualified staff - particularly for PPE but I guess it applies to any other kit which is used for a specific task / activity.
Given that weāve been specifically advised that they donāt meet British Standards for fire retardance I think there would be some awkward questions to answer should they continue to be used and one happened to catch fire with people inside - nobody would care a jot who ātechnicallyā owned it.
5 Likes
No matter what equipment weāre using, be it private, military or other, almost all our RAs will say something about kit being āfit for purposeā or similar. If weāre being told these tents are a fire hazard then they are not really fit for purpose. So it doesnāt really matter who owns themā¦
My issue here is wether they are actually a danger or notā¦
1 Like
Youāre better at words than me. Iām thinking along the same lines but you put it better 
1 Like
Safe System of Training.
Weāve been told something is unsafe (whether it is tents, or gas stoves or anything else) so using it is outside the SST.
The broader question of whether privately purchased kit, generally, is covered by the SST is perhaps another thread.
More importantly are the RAFAC going to be helping Squadrons to replace the kit that they should be destroying and not reselling onwards as they are deemed a fire hazard?
SST is just a model for considering the components which make an activity safe. So you can apply it to anything if you choose.
1 Like
Indeed, and it is good practice to do so. Iām sure we pretty much all do, even if not calling it that formally.
Just not by burningā¦
1 Like
Another example where someone afflicted with common sense points out the staggering lack of common sense shared by all at HQACā¦
Iām sure this has already been mentioned in other threads, but until such time as the RAF / HQAC start providing such equipment, then unless thereās an immediate threat to life - such as a faulty weapon system, then itās only reasonable that a series of deadlines be usedā¦
Not to be used in conjunction with xxx such as fires / methods of ignitionā¦
Cease using immediately - āwhere possibleā
Cease using by xxx dateā¦
And even possibly look to provide a group purchasing discountā¦ if you had xxx tents on order via x Wings / Regions, then the price would be far cheaperā¦
Another disconnect between Regular and Volunteersā¦
4 Likes
FWIW - I havenāt read the email(s) myself, but could there not be a repurposed use of them for tenting within a structureā¦
For example, construction of tented accommodations within a hangar, to provide segregated accommodations by age / sex to meet the requirements from HQACā¦
For example, under 16s M/F, under 18s M/F, Staff cadets, M/F, Adult Staff M/Fā¦
That is how i use them for my fieldcraft exercisesā¦ put up within a barn.
All cooking outside in the open. Fire extinguishers still presentā¦
So now puts the spanner in that.
Other option is stringing up some parachutes to give the same ideaā¦
ā¦anyone know if they are BS compliantā¦? 
2 Likes
This has prompted me to dig out my tentā¦if you are looking for largish (8 person) tents that are splid, easy to construct and dont requite a 7.5 tonner the coleman 8 man octagon ones are great
The great tent pause is just the latest in a series of utterly tone-deaf edicts from the Gods on their lofty Olympus.
Whilst i completely get why it may be a good idea within the real armed forces to prevent users from operating less safe tentage in its inventory, to roll this diktat out to cadet units is meaningless.
Those who have 12x12s have bought them with their own funds.
The alternative tent that one can pitch and stand up in that is currently commercially available is likely to be far more flammable.
As such the ruling fails in its primary aim of improving safety.
Units previously used private purchase 12x12s as shelters to increase safety (climactic injuries anyone?) are now faced with being forced to use something less robust and ultimately (imo) less safe, or nothing at all.
Well done Head-Shed, youāve broken the bovine excrement-o-meter. .
2 Likes
Itās the MOD, not HQAC!
Currently for us itās ādo you have any because we shouldnāt be using them?ā followed by āare you planning to use any?ā.
Now I donāt know what the plan or options are for those declaring that they were about to use them - unless anyone else here has owned up, then we donāt know that there arenāt mitigations or alternatives available to prevent loss of activity.
Have you mentioned this to your wing committee? Itās very much in the wheelhouse of the charity arm. BUT before anything like that can be done we need to know how many exist through, perhaps, an audit or something like thatā¦
Ehhhā¦
Tenting is tenting and fire hazard is fire hazard?
That sounds a lot like advocating for higher safety standards for adults than children
If you can find retailing units that donāt meet the required safety standards then feel free to report it to trading standards
ā¦
The ONE thing, I can objectively criticise if Iām correct is that the notice was released in December (going from memory) and it reached us at the end of March.
3 Likes
Itās the MOD, not HQAC!
Mine was notified from HQAC - Iām quite aware of the origin thanks, but I think you are wilfully missing the point. We - a body of volunteers who have purchased said equipment with our own funds - are being prevented from using privately owned kit due to a perceived safety issue.
That sounds a lot like advocating for higher safety standards for adults than children.
Maybe so - so why does it feel like somebody is taking away my parachute as I am boarding the plane because its 24 hours out of testā¦
If I were really advocating safety for children I might, just might, reconsider taking them out of proofed cotton tents that donāt burn and putting them in polyester tents that do. But thatās just me being silly.
If you can find retailing units that donāt meet the required safety standards then feel free to report it to trading standards.
Very cleverly put, but I have seen compliant tents burn (they are mostly polyester and comply with whatever the standards the retail body has come up with); if you are saying that a modern retail tent is more flame retardant that 20 year old proofed cotton duck, Iām afraid we will have to agree to disagree.
As one retailer eloquently puts it " ** There is no such thing as a fireproof tent . All tents exposed to an open flame will burn whether theyāve been treated with a fire retardant or not."**
This seems to fly in the face of British Standards BS 5852 Simulated Fire Source 0 & 1 but there you go.
Now I have spent quite a lot of time in 12x12s and not once, ever have I seen one burn, or even smoulder, even under severe mistreatment. Hell - we even used them for field kitchens filled with propane burners (Army not Air Cadets for clarity).
Anyway I think I have laid out my point as well as I can. Disagree if you must.
My point - some units have 12 x 12 tents.
In my experience these easily meet or exceed BS 5852 for Source 0 & 1, theyāve just never been tested.
They are serviceable inasmuch as they keep most of the rain out and the all the wind off.
They are less likely - by any objective standard - to burn as easily as a āsafeā modern tent that MUST now replace it due to this order (Point 3. of which says MUST NOT BE USED.)
Addendum. The new standard being applied is BS 7837:1996 (for fabrics used in tents and marquees) the old standard was BS 5852 which was a general fireproofing standard for fabrics.
Now I may well be wrong - but the Mk 1 and Mk 2 tents only comply with the standard in force at manufacture - there is every chance that they will meet or exceed the new standard, but nobody can be arsā¦ bothered - they just jumped on the new standard and rang the fire alarm.
If I were a cynic Iād probably think this was all ādiscoveredā by an opportunistic military tent salesman.
Happy Easter all, when will the next clog fall from the mountain?
The issue on flammability may not be the tents burning down but more of the fumes created from the proofing the MoD has used to keep them proofed.
Even as a moulding tent that doesnāt have burnt canvas could kill if the fumes are toxic.
Wider question though - as this is MoD wide, how have the army cadets, Sea Cadets & CCFs (who work under school liability anyway) dealing with this situation.
Does make you wonder if there is other old stuff passed off to the cadets through ease & avoiding the need to dispose of properly out there on squadrons (any one got any of the old mess furniture for example?)
1 Like
Ha ha ha ha ha - wouldnāt be the first time someone had a vested interestā¦