# Odd question about...On base parking!



## ixium (3 Jul 2014)

Mybe not the right place for this, but unsure where else to ask.

Without knowing any back ground...Is there a DAOD/QRO/Base SOP that says that civilian vehicles (POMV, like ones you drive to and from work, not DND civi pattern) HAVE to be backed into a parking spot?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2014)

ixium said:
			
		

> Mybe not the right place for this, but unsure where else to ask.
> 
> Without knowing any back ground...Is there a DAOD/QRO/Base SOP that says that civilian vehicles (POMV, like ones you drive to and from work, not DND civi pattern) HAVE to be backed into a parking spot?



On some Bases:  YES.

CFB Gagetown has/had one such Order on its Base Routine Orders.  That was to facilitate the towing of vehicles if necessary and the access to the batteries for boosting during winter months.  One may also cite 'Safety', in that it was safer to drive out of a parking spot than to back out into the unknown; but that may be stretching it a bit.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jul 2014)

I believe CFB Halifax is the same.  The parking reg's for Hfx was a 29 page document the last time I saw it, so should be easy to find.

* parking spaces are now being paid for by the mbr in CFB Halifax too.  I saw the HALGEN or whatever it is called.  Most expensive $/month I saw was $110 for RA Park.  Based on "fair market value" stuff.


----------



## JesseWZ (3 Jul 2014)

Parking is normally regulated in part by Base Standing/Routine orders and they will vary base to base. In Esquimalt, it is recommended but not required for civilian POMV's but mandatory for government vehicles. When I was posted to Gagetown it was mandatory and I believe was governed by a Base Standing Order.


----------



## ixium (3 Jul 2014)

Interesting. Is there a place that will actually show it? I've been searching the DIN for both of your suggestions but nothing specifically about reversing into a parking spot.

I'm also looking for information about specifically 8 Wing Trenton.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jul 2014)

You would have to go to the 8 Wing DIN site and check ROs.  Or, call the Wing Transport or MP flight, they'd likely know the score.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jul 2014)

ixium said:
			
		

> Interesting. Is there a place that will actually show it? I've been searching the DIN for both of your suggestions but nothing specifically about reversing into a parking spot.
> 
> I'm also looking for information about specifically 8 Wing Trenton.



Get a ticket did we?


----------



## ixium (3 Jul 2014)

Hah, no. A higher up is saying that he's going to start enforcing it saying it's in the regs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jul 2014)

Pick the hill you die on  ;D


----------



## my72jeep (3 Jul 2014)

At some point in the parking experience you need to back up, so why fight doing it at the start?


----------



## Tibbson (3 Jul 2014)

ixium said:
			
		

> Hah, no. A higher up is saying that he's going to start enforcing it saying it's in the regs.



Two thoughts on the subject in general:

1)  its unenforceable for civie vehicles since there is no way to tell if the vehicle is driven by a military member who should know the reg (and is subject to the CSD), a civilian employee who should know or a civilian visitor who would have no clue.  By not having it enforced equally its unfair to thkse who get picked on;  and

2)  Once all basex go to pay parking, like Halifax just did, the issue will get even more clouded.

If you have a supervisor looking to enforce some regulation then you have every right to respectfully ask to see that regulation.  After all, one of the elements of the offence to show YOU were not following a regulation or order is that it must be proven you knew about the regulation/order.  If he/she can't,  or won't,  show it to you or tell you where to find it...and you cant find it, it doesn't exist.


----------



## MJP (3 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Two thoughts on the subject in general:
> 
> 1)  its unenforceable for civie vehicles since there is no way to tell if the vehicle is driven by a military member who should know the reg (and is subject to the CSD), a civilian employee who should know or a civilian visitor who would have no clue.  By not having it enforced equally its unfair to thkse who get picked on;  and
> 
> ...



Good post.  I find asking someone to show me the ref or reg sorts out many of these useless bunfights.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jul 2014)

I think a read of the MARLANTORD on the parking regs in Hfx would show you it's enforceable for civie vehicles and both military and civil servants.  There is even a traffic enforcement / parking cops patrol.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Two thoughts on the subject in general:
> 
> 1)  its unenforceable for civie vehicles since there is no way to tell if the vehicle is driven by a military member who should know the reg (and is subject to the CSD), a civilian employee who should know or a civilian visitor who would have no clue.  By not having it enforced equally its unfair to thkse who get picked on;  and
> 
> ...



Two points: 

1. Your point 1 may not be valid if the regulation holds bylaw status for the jurisdiction in question and is signed appropriately, although it seems this may not to be the case in the situation the OP is referring to; and

2. Your point that I have highlighted above is not entirely accurate.  Wording of the basis of many contraventions is based on the phrase "ought reasonably to have known about the rule/regulation/order."  This is particularly the case with regulations based on, or supportive of the National Defence Act.  If a regulation is published in 8 Wing's Routine Orders, for example, wherein the requirement to back vehicles into parking spaces (or pull through double spaces) is stated, then a member could not say, "I didn't know about that rule," as it was in fact published in orders that policy states all shall be familiar with.

I do concur with the general understanding wherein regulations that members are to be held to account for, must be made reasonably available and/or published, in order to have a basis of enforceability.   Consider, however, that such regulations would apply to all who chose willingly to set foot (tire) on a Defence Establishment (similar to the 'subject to search' condition on all DND establishments).

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## The_Falcon (3 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> After all, one of the elements of the offence to show YOU were not following a regulation or order is that it must be proven you knew about the regulation/order.



Incorrect.  All that needs to be proven (for strict liablity offences, which parking infractions are) is that a regulation/law/order (civy or military) exists, and was valid/in force at the time of the infraction, and that the person commited the requisite act for the infraction.  Whether or not a person is/was aware of that law/reg etc. is immaterial.


----------



## my72jeep (3 Jul 2014)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Parking is normally regulated in part by Base Standing/Routine orders and they will vary base to base. In Esquimalt, it is recommended but not required for civilian POMV's but mandatory for government vehicles.* When I was posted to Gagetown it was mandatory and I believe was governed by a Base Standing Order.
> *


Back in the mid to late 80s Gagetown had sign's in all parking areas stating back in parking was mandatory.


----------



## Happy Guy (3 Jul 2014)

I was a Transportation Officer on a large Army base and I, along with the Base MP, was charged by the Base Commander to promote safe driving on the base.  The MPs to enforce traffic regulations and Base Transport to promote safe driving practices like providing the safe backing course.

For the reasons stated by Good2Golf, the Base Commander is well within their rights to charge anyone, on the base (DND property) with any driving infractions.  The rules about backing all vehicles into parking stalls, less PMQs, is published in Base routine orders, unit routine orders and is periodically passed down through the chain of command (CO and RSM net) particularly during APS.  In additions there are usually signs warning people.  Ignorance is no excuse.

As mentioned before in previous posts, I would recommend that you find another cause to fight.


----------



## McG (4 Jul 2014)

ixium said:
			
		

> ...Is there a DAOD/QRO/Base SOP that says that civilian vehicles ... HAVE to be backed into a parking spot?


No DAOD.  No QR&O.  Some bases do have a standing order to this end and others do not.

Some bases have stopped publishing routine orders and don't have standing orders to be found.  On such bases, one would have a reasonable 129 defence if there were no signage.  But, of the bases that I know, those who have backing policies have not abdicated the role of publishing orders.


----------



## Tibbson (4 Jul 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Two points:
> 
> 1. Your point 1 may not be valid if the regulation holds bylaw status for the jurisdiction in question and is signed appropriately, although it seems this may not to be the case in the situation the OP is referring to; and
> 
> ...



You missed my point.  If the supervisor is unable to provide a reference and the member is unable to find it then the relevent element of the offence cannot be proven, that being that the member was aware of the regulation.  I continually deal with RMPs and can draw upon numerous examples where charges have been dropped or tickets cancelled for those reasons.  It was published in ROs...oh, the member was deployed at that time...dropped.  It's on the base/unit DIN page but the member does not have regular access to a computer....dropped.  The individual is a civilian visiting base and the "backing in bylaw" is outside the norm of what a driver in the provice would expect and since they dont get ROs to read when they come on base....dropped.  

Bottom line, if such an order or "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it then any member is well within their rights to request the reference and have an opportunity to review it for reference.  If the supervisor cannot provide the reference, and the member cant find it on their own, then there isnt anything to enforce nd it can be successfully challenged.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Bottom line, if such an order or "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it then any member is well within their rights to request the reference and have an opportunity to review it for reference.  If the supervisor cannot provide the reference, and the member cant find it on their own, then there isnt anything to enforce nd it can be successfully challenged.



READ what you posted again.

IF a "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it, the member had better follow the "bylaw" that EXISTS.   If not, then the member had better be prepared to suffer the consequences.  SIMPLE.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> You missed my point.  If the supervisor is unable to provide a reference and the member is unable to find it then the relevent element of the offence cannot be proven, that being that the member was aware of the regulation.  I continually deal with RMPs and can draw upon numerous examples where charges have been dropped or tickets cancelled for those reasons.  It was published in ROs...oh, the member was deployed at that time...dropped.  It's on the base/unit DIN page but the member does not have regular access to a computer....dropped.  The individual is a civilian visiting base and the "backing in bylaw" is outside the norm of what a driver in the provice would expect and since they dont get ROs to read when they come on base....dropped.
> 
> Bottom line, if such an order or "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it then any member is well within their rights to request the reference and have an opportunity to review it for reference.  If the supervisor cannot provide the reference, and the member cant find it on their own, then there isnt anything to enforce nd it can be successfully challenged.



What you are describing is discretion.  To infer that such discretion is universal and will always occur is misleading.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jul 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> You missed my point.  If the supervisor is unable to provide a reference and the member is unable to find it then the relevent element of the offence cannot be proven, that being that the member was aware of the regulation.  I continually deal with RMPs and can draw upon numerous examples where charges have been dropped or tickets cancelled for those reasons.  It was published in ROs...oh, the member was deployed at that time...dropped.  It's on the base/unit DIN page but the member does not have regular access to a computer....dropped.  The individual is a civilian visiting base and the "backing in bylaw" is outside the norm of what a driver in the provice would expect and since they dont get ROs to read when they come on base....dropped.
> 
> Bottom line, if such an order or "bylaw" exists on Base X and a supervisor says he is going to enforce it then any member is well within their rights to request the reference and have an opportunity to review it for reference.  If the supervisor cannot provide the reference, and the member cant find it on their own, then there isnt anything to enforce nd it can be successfully challenged.



No, I got it, but that doesn't mean your point is the liberating panacea you make it out to be.  Should the CoC make clear to personnel what the policy is, providing references where appropriate?  Yes.  None of us above has debated that.  We also have not heard back from the OP as to whether he was or wasn't provided a reference.  Is he within his rights to seek clarification of the policy/regulation?  Certainly.  Your provision of a number of exceptions to prosecutorial action is, as Hatchet Man says, exemplary of discretion, wherein culpability of an individual may not be in question, but mitigating factors served to moderate or support leniency.  

If the OP is provided the reference to the policy, then I would say that he is bound to comply with it.   Until we hear back from the OP as to whether he was provided a reference or not, and what his actions were after being so informed, anything else is simply conjecture of a hypothetical situation.

 :2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Franko (4 Jul 2014)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Parking is normally regulated in part by Base Standing/Routine orders and they will vary base to base. In Esquimalt, it is recommended but not required for civilian POMV's but mandatory for government vehicles. When I was posted to Gagetown it was mandatory and I believe was governed by a Base Standing Order.



It is still in ROs in Gagetown and passed down on a regular basis and enforced.

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jul 2014)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> It is still in ROs in Gagetown and passed down on a regular basis and enforced.
> 
> Regards



But yet people do not follow it and on a side note I just love all those people "creating parking spots" right next to H33 during meal times....


----------



## captloadie (4 Jul 2014)

Oddly enough, a study done in Cold Lake showed that backing into parking spots actually led to more vehicle collisions than driving in. Granted, the study was skewed due to the years the specific data was collected, but it was the basis for the Wing to reconsider the policy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jul 2014)

Jesus Christ.  Bylaws?  Demanding a supervisor present a reference before you do what you've been told?   :facepalm:  What the fuck is going wrong with our Forces today, if THIS is the prevailing attitude towards something as trivial as what end of a fucking car is facing the curb in a parking spot?  IF it is and this is the new 'standard', I think we are in a bit of a bad spot as a military.

If the car is on National Defence property, it's not the same as the parking lot as the mall.   If you don't think the direction you are given is a lawful command, or that ignorance is a valid defence, roll your dice; ignore it and pay the consequences, if there are any.

A friend of mine played the game with the Parking Enforcement folks in CFB Halifax.  He had a valid parking pass, but was parking his car in a spot that was not a designated parking spot.  The 1st day they noticed, he got a ticket.  2 day, ticket.  3rd day, when he went outside to leave at noon, SURPRISE...no car.  They had it towed.  When he tried to play the "I'm a SNCO you can't do this" crap, they produced the copies of the tickets the 2 previous days and the orders on parking.  Cost him just under $300 for the towing and impound fees IIRC.   It didn't matter that he wasn't aware of all 29 pages in the MARLANTORD about parking.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jul 2014)

A very long time ago I knew of a major in the organization I was posted to in NDHQ who decided, based on dubious legal advice, that the Department's parking regulations had no basis in law. He was on shaky ground already for some of his escapades in his previous posting, which probably had some bearing on future events. Anyway he soon had a collection of tickets as he took to parking wherever he liked, and steadfastly maintained these were invalid and unenforceable. 

He was of course wrong and the rest of the story, like his subsequent career, was short.


----------



## MJP (4 Jul 2014)

Before anyone jumps on me for the rest of the post I will preface comments with 1) I already back into my spot everyday 2) if this was an order on my base I would follow it regardless of my personal thoughts. 

That said to me this kind of order is on the same scale as not being allowed to wear a fleece toque.  It is this nit picky crap that make people reconsider their careers.   Not one thing alone ofcourse but when you add the silliness up quite frankly people look elsewhere.   For some of you that is obviously not a bad thing losing someone who is clearly not dedicated to the job.  If they were they would put up with it in silence.  Despite what some of you think the CAF is just another job to a lot of our folks and we need them more than you think we do.  I honestly think leadership at all levels should be asking themselves is what I am doing chicken shit and if so ( and if possible) eliminate it.  Not everything we do will be fun,  or will please the troops,  is the nature of the organization I fully realize that.   But choosing the hill we die on applies to the tribal elders as much as it does to the soldier.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> Before anyone jumps on me for the rest of the post I will preface comments with 1) I already back into my spot everyday 2) if this was an order on my base I would follow it regardless of my personal thoughts.



I also back into my spot, or at the Mall, find a spot I can drive through.  I rather back into a spot that I have "recce'd" as opposed to backing out of that spot into the unknown.  I also, park so that if I need a boost, I don't have to push my vehicle out to allow the batteries to be connected to another vehicle.  To me it is both common sense and safety.




			
				MJP said:
			
		

> That said to me this kind of order is on the same scale as not being allowed to wear a fleece toque.  It is this nit picky crap that make people reconsider their careers.   Not one thing alone ofcourse but when you add the silliness up quite frankly people look elsewhere.   For some of you that is obviously not a bad thing losing someone who is clearly not dedicated to the job.  If they were they would put up with it in silence.  Despite what some of you think the CAF is just another job to a lot of our folks and we need them more than you think we do.  I honestly think leadership at all levels should be asking themselves is what I am doing chicken shit and if so ( and if possible) eliminate it.  Not everything we do will be fun,  or will please the troops,  is the nature of the organization I fully realize that.   But choosing the hill we die on applies to the tribal elders as much as it does to the soldier.



I disagree in part.  These rules/orders have to be applied; not as "because I say so", but by explaining the significance of them.  If the more educated, younger soldiers are told why they are being given an Order or rule to follow and the logic behind it, it usually educates them to why it is done that way.  Of course, we have the thick, anarchists in their ranks as well, and all the logic in the world will not satisfy them, but thankfully they are in a minority.  The problem is: too many of the older soldiers giving orders have never had the reasoning behind the orders explained to them, and often don't have the patience or imaginations to explain the reasoning to their subordinates.   

Simple example:  Drill.  Young soldier asks a NCO why he has to do Drill.  NCO who answers "Because we always did it that way." as opposed to educating the young soldier that "Drill is a method to teach soldiers to react instinctively to a familiar order." will only perpetuate the questioning of orders by young soldiers with no concepts as to why things are done a certain way.  You can not have an organization like the CAF made up of members who constantly question orders.  


Don't place your hand on the hot stove plate............Why?
Because you will burn your hand.


----------



## ixium (4 Jul 2014)

It turns out it wasn't because of regs or anything passed down, it was because it looks nicer.

I wasn't refusing to listen to orders when I asked the question. All I was told yesterday was that every vehicle had to be reversed in, including bikes. First question anyone should have is why. Why all of a sudden, why just this unit, etc, etc. Whether they ask the question out loud is a different story.

Eye in the Sky: If there is a justifiable reason for something I have no problems following orders. I -HATE- the saying "because I said so." I'll listen and follow closer to a supervisor that explains or admits it's a silly order that they disagree with(but came from higher and do it anyways).
It wasn't a case of someone not listening multiple times or someone parking in a reserved spot. It was how you park your vehicle. It's like telling someone which shoe to put on first. It doesn't matter either way.

We live in a world where a $100k job is just a few phone calls away if you're willing to goto AB. Many from Edmonton have. It's not a far stretch to realize that times change and that older people need to change from the mentality of "do what I say no matter what."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2014)

OK, nice discussion.

However, let's not lose sight of the OP's question.

He's asking for a reference about parking in Trenton.

Let's try take care of that one first before it gets lost in another multi page, legalistic, personal, 'what if' based scenarios that will have no satisfactory outcome for the question asked.

---Staff---


----------



## Franko (4 Jul 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> But yet people do not follow it and on a side note I just love all those people "creating parking spots" right next to H33 during meal times....



They get ticketed or towed.  Besides' if your in a leadership position, you should correct them as they get out their car if you see it. Yes, it may take a few seconds when you're in a rush, but orders are orders.


----------



## dan005e (4 Jul 2014)

For all the talk of Gagetown being a must back in for every parking spot, you rarely see it enforced. J7, many of the shacks as well as the gym you see tons of cars drive straight into the spot and back out. The exception being any military vehicle, green or blue. I do know however the days of people making their own parking spot around some of the shacks appear to be over. Plenty of tickets seem to be issued now to vehicles parked on the side of the road where they arent supposed to be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jul 2014)

Curious how does a "ticket" become enforceable when it's tied to paragraph in a RO. Does the Ticket reference the RO and page/paragraph?


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Jul 2014)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Curious how does a "ticket" become enforceable when it's tied to paragraph in a RO. Does the Ticket reference the RO and page/paragraph?



http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._887/

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-6/page-1.html

And since it's pertinent, the saying "ignorance is no excuse" well that is actually codified into the NDA

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-25.html#h-51



> Ignorance of the Law
> 
> Ignorance not to constitute excuse
> 
> 72.2 The fact that a person is ignorant of the provisions of this Act, or of any regulations or of any order or instruction duly notified under this Act, is no excuse for any offence committed by the person.


----------



## Franko (4 Jul 2014)

dan005e said:
			
		

> For all the talk of Gagetown being a must back in for every parking spot, you rarely see it enforced. J7, many of the shacks as well as the gym you see tons of cars drive straight into the spot and back out. The exception being any military vehicle, green or blue. I do know however the days of people making their own parking spot around some of the shacks appear to be over. Plenty of tickets seem to be issued now to vehicles parked on the side of the road where they arent supposed to be.



Strange, I've seen the 2RCR DSM getting plates last winter of all the cars not backed in and that was in front of D57.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jul 2014)

In the day we had the backing in policy enforced in Pet, unless it was winter and you were parked at an outlet.

Anyway, I sent an email to the PAFFO 8 Wing to ask for clarification. Let's see if I get a reply.


----------



## Shamrock (4 Jul 2014)

Has anyone thought to read the government property traffic act and regulations?


----------



## SupersonicMax (4 Jul 2014)

Here:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/G-6.pdf

And it doesn't specify you can impose a parking direction, however the first para states: 

"The Governor in Council may make regulations for the control of traffic on any lands belonging to or occupied by Her Majesty in right of Canada and, in particular, but without restricting the generality of the foregoing, may make regulations"

Having said that, unless there are significant safety or overarching concerns wrt backing out into a parking spot (and I don't think there are any grounds to that, after all, I have never seen a place where you NEED to back into a parking space before), I don't think the act covers that.


----------



## smale436 (5 Jul 2014)

If there was ever a thread that pointed out how Cold Lake, despite its issues, is not so bad in certain ways this might very well be the one. Here on base you can park however the hell you want, front-in, back-in as long as it's not in a fire lane, etc.

Road excavations all summer long for sewer replacements have rendered a lot of our parking lots unusable to the point people are parking in overflow fields that had gravel put down. The guys in Jeeps with lift kits and mud tires are really loving it though as there have been a few parked on slopes at some pretty extreme vertical angles. I can't imagine the reaction of the people in charge of parking in Gagetown if they came down here for a visit. People here even drive to work with horse trailers hooked up to their truck if they are heading to the base stables immediately after work.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jul 2014)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._887/
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/G-6/page-1.html
> 
> ...



Thanks a quick review does not show a link to the RO. A RO would not be a regulation as that requires a OIC. It would have to be a contravention of a order given by someone who designated by a section in one of the Acts to create such an order. Any chance someone can post an image of what a ticket issued against a breech of a RO looks like? I am curious about the wording.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jul 2014)

CDNAIRFORCE said:
			
		

> If there was ever a thread that pointed out how Cold Lake, despite its issues, is not so bad in certain ways ......


Yes, but I've also seen you Air Force people sauntering across hallowed ground parade squares!


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2014)

I wasn't going to join this thread, but the _fetish_ for backing in all vehicles, all the time, actually has an *operational* origin. We used to believe in "crashing out" of a hide or harbour and that necessitated _*a)*_ having backed every vehicle into position, and _*b)*_ by extension, knowing how to back up.

We took a lot of measures, even in mechanized units which still had 100+ wheeled vehicles, many (most?) with trailers, to convince soldiers to learn how to back into position and how to back up their trailers. I, for example, when I was a regimental CO, adopted a technique from a chum and held little "backing rodeos" before major exercise: soldiers who could not back their vehicle and trailer into (not too difficult) slots could not have the trailer (hard on creature comforts) or were given considerable extra training, in their 'free' time.

Back in the last century we tried to make backing into parking spots 'normal' for all vehicles, all the time. The aim  was to make it automatic for soldiers, not something about which one had to think ~ a sort of mental 'muscle memory' thing.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wasn't going to join this thread, but the _fetish_ for backing in all vehicles, all the time, actually has an *operational* origin. We used to believe in "crashing out" of a hide or harbour and that necessitated _*a)*_ having backed every vehicle into position, and _*b)*_ by extension, knowing how to back up.
> 
> We took a lot of measures, even in mechanized units which still had 100+ wheeled vehicles, many (most?) with trailers, to convince soldiers to learn how to back into position and how to back up their trailers. I, for example, when I was a regimental CO, adopted a technique from a chum and held little "backing rodeos" before major exercise: soldiers who could not back their vehicle and trailer into (not too difficult) slots could not have the trailer (hard on creature comforts) or were given considerable extra training, in their 'free' time.
> 
> Back in the last century we tried to make backing into parking spots 'normal' for all vehicles, all the time. The aim  was to make it automatic for soldiers, not something about which one had to think ~ a sort of mental 'muscle memory' thing.



Thanks for that ERC.  I guess old habits die hard.  At the same time, this, if you look at it, was a Drill to teach members an instinctive reaction to a common 'task/occurance'.

 >

I wonder if I could ask Max and CDNAIRFORCE if they back their aircraft into Hangars, or hardened shelters, or just 'drive' them in?


 ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2014)

QRA hangars I've seen are all "pass-through", so no backing.  Only RCAF aircraft I know of that can be (and sometimes is) backed up into a parking spot  is a Chinook...which happens to comply with Petawawa's "all CFRs will back in to parking spots" policy (which is a BComd order, BTW -- maptac'd onto the MSE Safety desk so you can't miss it when you clear in to the base.). Technically, there's no reason that C-17s, Hercs, Auroras and Buffaloes couldn't also back into their spots, but I've only seen them back up on runways at airshows.

Regards
G2G


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> QRA hangars I've seen are all "pass-through", so no backing.  Only RCAF aircraft I know of that can be (and sometimes is) backed up into a parking spot  is a Chinook...which happens to comply with Petawawa's "all CFRs will back in to parking spots" policy (which is a BComd order, BTW -- maptac'd onto the MSE Safety desk so you can't miss it when you clear in to the base.). Technically, there's no reason that C-17s, Hercs, Auroras and Buffaloes couldn't also back into their spots, but I've only seen them back up on runways at airshows.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



My apologies.   I was taking a narrow minded reminisce of my CFE days with the hardened shelters for fighters, and the Alert hangars/shelters, forgetting the problems faced with smaller hangars and larger tails on some of the larger transports and Maritime surveillance aircraft.


----------

