# Div restrictions on TCV



## blackberet17 (21 Jul 2015)

Received in an e-mail a couple weeks ago:



> TD 522 Troop Carrying has been amended so that use of roads outside DND property requires the approval of the Div Comd.  These requests must follow the C o C and therefore arrive at this HQ with at least a 6 week lead time.
> 
> The reference for your CO’s letter shall include:
> 
> ...



We're having fun with this one...

"A route or alternate route that uses any part (including crossing) a hwy with a speed limit exceeding 80 kph will not be supported."


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2015)

Nothing new in there; the rules for TCV have always been there; it's just that many folks choose to ignore them.  And therefore enforcement becomes more harsh on everyone - including those who followed the rules.


----------



## blackberet17 (21 Jul 2015)

Interesting. It was made to sound like "new" direction from Div.

The main issue we are facing here is there is no Crown land on PEI, so no training area _à la Gagetown_, for example.

We use our provincial parks as Sqn harbour locs, OP sites, etc., during exercises. As soon as you get out of the city limits, IOT get to a provincial park, you have no choice BUT to travel on the highway, or on a route which at some point in its length will have a section with an 80kph posted speed limit.

I'll have to go through the references indicated to be sure, but in years past, I understand there was some discretion left to local unit Comds, whereby they would accept the risks of using TCVs on high speed routes.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jul 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Interesting. It was made to sound like "new" direction from Div.
> 
> The main issue we are facing here is there is no Crown land on PEI, so no training area _à la Gagetown_, for example.
> 
> ...



Ah.  Seen.  However, TCV generally refers to soldiers in the back of MSVS or such; if they're in a veh with seat & seatbelt, it should not be an issue.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jul 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> The main issue we are facing here is there is no Crown land on PEI, so no training area _à la Gagetown_, for example.



Is there not a Rifle range East of Charlottetown anymore?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (21 Jul 2015)

Hang on. You mean to tell me that a Division Commander has to approve movement of troops using vehicles designed to carry troops?

The mind boggles.


----------



## MJP (21 Jul 2015)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Hang on. You mean to tell me that a Division Commander has to approve movement of troops using vehicles designed to carry troops?
> 
> The mind boggles.



The use of vehs carrying troops in the back on public roadways has been a restriction for years.  It has been waived before dependant on the plan and mitigation strategies


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> The use of vehs carrying troops in the back on public roadways has been a restriction for years.  It has been waived before dependant on the plan and mitigation strategies



Not only that, it's inherently dangerous to transport troops in the back of trucks.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jul 2015)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Hang on. You mean to tell me that a Division Commander has to approve movement of troops using vehicles designed to carry troops?
> 
> The mind boggles.



Give over.  You didn't really think TCV stood for Troop Carrying Vehicle did you?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Not only that, it's inherently dangerous to transport troops in the back of trucks.



Then .....you are saying that the calibre of our drivers has declined.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then .....you are saying that the calibre of our drivers has declined.



When they rarely transport troops in the back then yes their skills are not where they should be.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> When they rarely transport troops in the back then yes their skills are not where they should be.



Nothing like a Catch 22.  They can't carry troops because they are not permitted due to the fact they don't have the time required to transport troops, as units burn up their budgets hiring school buses, leaving fewer and fewer Troop Lift qualified drivers, necessitating the requirement of the units to contract buses..........................WHEEEEEEE! Down the Rabbit Hole.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jul 2015)

When did the "troop carrying certification" come in? We used to ride in the back of our Deuces all the way from Vancouver to Yakima, cam nets made a good bed.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> When did the "troop carrying certification" come in?



Not sure when it began, but as a Transport Operator ( MSEOp ) I got my Troop Carrying Endorsement ( TCE ) in 1971, when I was 17. They typed "Troop Carrying Endorsement" on your 404. Most of the trucks were older than we were.  



> "A route or alternate route that uses any part (including crossing) a hwy with a speed limit exceeding 80 kph will not be supported."


Back then, the speed limit on the 400 series highways was 70 mph for cars and buses, and 60 mph for trucks. The local expressways were 55 mph. We avoided the centre-core and stayed in the collector lanes, when possible. But, it was hardly possible to avoid highways in the GTA.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jul 2015)

I still have mine somewhere, I don't recall any "Troop carrying" add on. It was assumed if you drove a deuce, you be carrying troops.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I still have mine somewhere, I don't recall any "Troop carrying" add on. It was assumed if you drove a deuce, you be carrying troops.



You had to have a certain amount of hours on the vehicle.  It would have been put on your 404's if you were qualified Troop Carrying.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I still have mine somewhere, I don't recall any "Troop carrying" add on. It was assumed if you drove a deuce, you be carrying troops.



As an MSEOp ( RCASC militia ) back then, getting your TCE was a big deal. And they did not hesitate to XXX TCE status off guys 404's.
You could still drive a deuce, but you wouldn't be transporting troops.


----------



## blackberet17 (23 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is there not a Rifle range East of Charlottetown anymore?



There is. However, the Keppoch/Pownal Road, which leads to the range road, has a posted 80kph speed limit. Not for it's entire length in getting to the range, but for a stretch along the front of the range road.

Add to this the requirement to have bypass routes as part of the road move, and you're on the 80kph posted portion for longer than bending the rules may allow, and/or you're travelling on the TCH to get to one of the lateral routes.


----------



## Robert0288 (24 Jul 2015)

I seem to remember the following conundrum at one point.

The road is too icy, and the vehicles need chains.  However if you have chains on the vehicle it is too dangerous for troop transport.  
Solution: Don't put chains on and do troop transport anyways. :facepalm:


----------



## blackberet17 (24 Jul 2015)

One solution we (jokingly) discussed was to:

1) approach the highway crossing;
2) dismount all personnel from the TCV;
3) have the TCV cross the highway;
4) have the personnel cross the highway on foot;
5) mount up the personnel back onto the TCV;
6) carry on with road move.

Oh, and I almost forgot 7):

6) film the whole thing for posterity.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jul 2015)

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> One solution we (jokingly) discussed was to:
> 
> Oh, and I almost forgot 7):
> 
> 7) film the whole thing for posterity.



Just as long as posterity doesn't come back to kick you in the posterior.     >


----------



## blackberet17 (27 Jul 2015)

:rofl:


----------

