# Fireman Carry replaced by Casualty Drag



## meni0n

As per CANLANGEN that came out this week, as of April 2010 the fireman carry is to be replaced by a 25m drag of a person weighting no less than 70kg by the tacvest. To be done on a grass surface.


----------



## dangerboy

Lets see how many of the "drag straps" on the back of the Tac Vest get ripped off.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Can someone provide Ref ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

75 kgs... so that equates to one soaking wet 16 year old in a tracksuit vs. an average wounded rifleman in full battle order (over 100kgs) right?


----------



## Dean22

meni0n said:
			
		

> As per CANLANGEN that came out this week, as of April 2010 the fireman carry is to be replaced by a 25m drag of a person weighting no less than 70kg by the tacvest. To be done on a grass surface.



I was actually looking forward to casualty carry as part of BFT.

This dragging a person has got to be one of the more stupid things I have heard especially since those straps on the back of the tac vest will not hold a person's weight.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

However, the chance of someone needing to drag someone in a firefight vs fireman carrying them is probably higher.

I did see a photo just the other day of Marine carrying another one on the latest OP in Afghanistan, so I guess it still happens!


----------



## Fusaki

I actually weighed myself once in full combat load: C9, 600rds 5.56 link, plates, water, helmet, ect.  At the time I weighed 150lbs bare-ass. Kitted up I rang in at 230.



> However, the chance of someone needing to drag someone in a firefight vs fireman carrying them is probably higher.



I like the idea in principle.  I'm just not sure the weight is very realistic.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Hull.Down said:
			
		

> I was actually looking forward to casualty carry as part of BFT.
> 
> This dragging a person has got to be one of the more stupid things I have heard especially since those straps on the back of the tac vest will not hold a person's weight.



So you were looking forward to the possibility of a blow knee, or back strains, or having your buddy drop you on your head?

If you were in a combat situation and buddy had an abdominal wound and was 220 pounds loaded would you prefer dragging him comfortably to cover or would you sling his injured abdomen over your shoulder like Rambo and make yourself a larger more immobile target?

Have you tried dragging a person by a TACVEST to attest to the durability of it's back strap?


----------



## Dean22

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> So you were looking forward to the possibility of a blow knee, or back strains, or having your buddy drop you on your head?
> 
> If you were in a combat situation and buddy had an abdominal wound and was 220 pounds loaded would you prefer dragging him comfortably to cover or would you sling his injured abdomen over your shoulder like Rambo and make yourself a larger more immobile target?
> 
> Have you tried dragging a person by a TACVEST to attest to the durability of it's back strap?



Just pulled on my "TACVEST" a tiny bit now and some of the seams came undone and it's practically brand new (minus one owner) so I doubt it's "defunct".



As for actually carrying a person, now I can understand someone being screwed to have to carry me but for carrying someone else 220? No problem.


Now, look at it this way:



Your in some hot Middle Eastern country and you just dragged your injured buddy with a wound to cover. You pat yourself on the back for your accomplishment and for following your training of "dragging someone" and radio in for a 9-Liner.

"2C this is 2A sorry but we aren't really fighting insurgents anymore this is an actual war. You'll have to casualty carry to safe zone at GR842972 for medical pick up over"

"2A this is 2C(you) what is a casualty carry? over"


The practicality of being able to transport/carry your dying friend to safety is far greater then the need for the ability to pull him 5 meters into some cover which, any stinking monkey can do 70kg.


Let's hope no one has to rely on people to carry them when they are dying and the soldiers are too unfit to carry a person.


----------



## Loachman

You are doing _*exactly*_ what you apologised for just a few days ago.


----------



## captloadie

In all honesty, I think we have to admit that the fireman's carry (which by the way, I don't think firemen do anymore) has caused more injuries than lives it has saved. Maybe doing like they do in a fireman's competition and dragging a dummy (or a partner) under the arms for a prescribed distance would be better. Because honestly, unless you are one of the bigger/fitter guys, you likely cant hoist a fully kitted out comrade onto your shoulder. If you are going to evacuate someone, you are going to drag them to cover. If you have to go a distance for casevac, you are going to create some kind of stretcher.
We used stretchers at the JSG as a trial, two man with 200lbs on it, over the length of a soccer field. The only down side was it was a killer on the wrists if the front guy dropped the stretcher before stopping.


----------



## PMedMoe

What's a "realistic" weight anyway?  With the fireman's carry, I only had to carry someone "close" to my own weight and believe me, I had a awful lot of bigger people carrying me.   :  Now I have to drag someone who weighs more than I do.  Neither scenario is realistic.  Figure the odds of me coming across a wounded person who only weighs so much and having to move them only a certain distance.  I realize they have to have a limit for testing purposes, but it still doesn't really mean anything.

For my last BFT, my unit also did the two-person stretcher carry.


----------



## MikeL

Hull.Down said:
			
		

> This dragging a person has got to be one of the more stupid things



Your basing this on your vast amount of Military experiance I assume....




			
				Hull.Down said:
			
		

> I have heard especially since those straps on the back of the tac vest will not hold a person's weight.



So you've heard things, wonderful.  I've pulled other guys by the strap on the tac vest and it held up. As for how long it can do that over time, I don't know.




			
				Hull.Down said:
			
		

> Just pulled on my "TACVEST" a tiny bit now and some of the seams came undone and it's practically brand new (minus one owner) so I doubt it's "defunct".



If seams are pulling apart take the vest to stores and I would assume a mat tech could fix it, or you shoudl be able to get a new vest



			
				Hull.Down said:
			
		

> As for actually carrying a person, now I can understand someone being screwed to have to carry me but for carrying someone else 220? No problem.



You've done how many BFT fireman carrys?




			
				Hull.Down said:
			
		

> Now, look at it this way:
> 
> Your in some hot Middle Eastern country and you just dragged your injured buddy with a wound to cover. You pat yourself on the back for your accomplishment and for following your training of "dragging someone" and radio in for a 9-Liner.
> 
> "2C this is 2A sorry but we aren't really fighting insurgents anymore this is an actual war. You'll have to casualty carry to safe zone at GR842972 for medical pick up over"
> 
> "2A this is 2C(you) what is a casualty carry? over"



No, you look at it this way. You have zero experiance in the CF, keep quiet and read and learn. You have no experiance to base anything on. You've never been on a tour, let alone day 1 of BMQ.




			
				Hull.Down said:
			
		

> The practicality of being able to transport/carry your dying friend to safety is far greater then the need for the ability to pull him 5 meters into some cover which, any stinking monkey can do 70kg.



You've been in TICs and moved wounded pers have you?



			
				Hull.Down said:
			
		

> Let's hope no one has to rely on people to carry them when they are dying and the soldiers are too unfit to carry a person.



A BFT is just a PT test its not the end all be all of PT.

 Theres a reason why units do daily PT and a lot of troops also do PT on their own time.   Also, during unit training and TMST you will practice taking care of wounded, carrything them to CCPs, onto helos/ambs, etc.


----------



## ModlrMike

Hull.Down said:
			
		

> The practicality of being able to transport/carry your dying friend to safety is far greater then the need for the ability to pull him 5 meters into some cover which, any stinking monkey can do 70kg.
> 
> 
> Let's hope no one has to rely on people to carry them when they are dying and the soldiers are too unfit to carry a person.



Perhaps, just maybe, 75kg was decided on because it demonstrates the ability in training to perform the task while reducing the injury potential.
[/quote]




Edit: *stupid work computer


----------



## vonGarvin

In order to dispel rumours:
"The casualty evacuation component of the LFCPFS is changing from the fireman's carry to the casualty drag effective 01 April 2010.
After performing the weight load march portion of the evaluation, soldiers will partner with a fellow soldier of similar weight (*no less than 70 kg*).
Each soldier will wear a helmet and webbing or tac vest.
The soldier performing the drag will carry both his/her weapon and that of their partner.  Gloves are permitted during the evaluation.
The casualty will begin by lying down on tehir back with their shoulders even with the start line.  The casualty will cross their arms and grasp the collar of their tac vest firmly (this will ensure the tac vest does not ride up and case the casualty discomfort).
The soldier performing the drag will squat and grasp the casualty by the tac vest with both hands (ensuring their knees are not locked out)
The soldier will perform a single lift of the casualty to assume the position of the drag.  The soldier will perform the drag by walking backwards in a continuous manner for a distance of 25m.
The casualty must be completely across the finish line before the drag is complete
 - No Time Limit
 - No pausing during drag
If the soldier is unsuccessful with a casualty exceding 70kg, that soldier will wait 10 minutes and be given a second attempt with a casualty who does not exceed the minimum standard of 70 kg
*The soldier cannot be failed for an unsuccessful drag of a casualty who exceeds the minimum standard of 70kg*


So, one continuous drag, no pauses.  Can't do it?  Try again after ten minutes.  You try with someone who is say 68 kg and can't do it?  Fail.

Anyway, there it is.


----------



## Journeyman

For the sake of the bleeding hearts and artists* who will endlessly bemoan this, rather than just getting on with it.....


			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> "The casualty must be completely across the finish line before the drag is complete


I don't think it's fair having to drag a tall person, because of the extra travel distance required to get those legs across  




* That was a Pink Floyd reference kids; a band even _older_ than Nickelback!  :nod:


----------



## PMedMoe

So typical of military "intelligence": "Soldiers will partner with a fellow soldier of similar weight (no less than 70 kg)."   :  Why not just say "Soldiers will partner with a fellow soldier weighing no less than 70 kg"?   ???  Or at the very least, change the word weight for build.  

JM, I'm with you, I'm gonna pick the short people.  Dammit, that means I'll get dragged as much as I was carried!


----------



## dangerboy

meni0n said:
			
		

> As per CANLANGEN that came out this week, as of April 2010 the fireman carry is to be replaced by a 25m drag of a person weighting no less than 70kg by the tacvest. To be done on a grass surface.



Are you sure it was in a CANLANGEN?  I am looking at them right now (http://lfcms.kingston.mil.ca/default.aspx?sectionid=143000440048395&type=D) and I don't see it.


----------



## vonGarvin

That which I posted is from something that was passed about here at the School of Cool.  I'm not sure of the reference, etc.


----------



## dangerboy

We were told the same thing here at LFWA TC and were not given a reference.  The OP said that it was in a CANLANGEN I could not see it and I checked CANFORGENS also with no luck.  Any other locations it could be?


----------



## meni0n

Yes, CANLANDGEN 009. I checked the site and it`s just not posted there yet. It came out only this wendsday so it might be a while before it`s there.


----------



## Occam

DWAN Link

R 241620Z FEB 10
FM NDHQ CLS OTTAWA
TO CANLANDGEN
BT
UNCLAS CANLANDGEN 009/10 CLS 009/10
SIC WAB
SUBJ: CANLANDGEN FEB 10 - IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CASUALTY DRAG WITHIN
BILINGUAL MESSAGE / MESSAGE BILINGUE
REFS: A. B-GL-382 -003/PT-001 ARMY FITNESS MANUAL (AFM) (2005-05-25)
B. ARMY FITNESS MANUAL (AFM) SUPPLEMENT: CASUALTY DRAG TRAINING 
PROGRAM
C. LFCO 24-02 PHYSICAL FITNESS
1. ON 23 NOV 09, ARMY COUNCIL APPROVED AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO 
REPLACE THE FIREMANS CARRY WITH A CASUALTY DRAG WITHIN THE CASUALTY 
EVACUATION COMPONENT OF THE LFCPFS.
2. EFFECTIVE 1 APR 10, THE FIREMANS CARRY WILL BE REPLACED WITH A 
TWO-HANDED DRAG OF A FELLOW SOLDIER OF EQUAL WEIGHT BUT WEIGHING NO 
LESS THAN 70KG BY THE TAC VEST/WEBBING ON A GRASSED SURFACE.  THE 
DISTANCE OF THE DRAG IS 25M AND MUST BE PERFORMED IN A CONTINOUS 
MANNER WHILE WALKING BACKWARDS. ALL INFORMATION REGARDING THE 
CHANGES, INCLUDING TRAINING PROGRAMS AND RATIONALE MAY BE VIEWED AT 
THE FOLLOWING LINK: 
HHTP://LFDTS.KINGSTON.MIL.CA/ARMYFITNESS/DEFAULT-ENG.ASP
3. THE AFM REMAINS THE REF THAT GOVERNS PHYSICAL FITNESS TRAINING 
AND TESTING FOR ALL LFC PERSONNEL. THE AFM IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE IN 
ONLINE FORMAT ONLY. THE AFM IS BEING REVISED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES 
TO THE LFCPFS AND THE ASSOCIATED TRAINING PROGRAMS.
4. IN ORDER TO SET UP ALL SOLDIERS TO SUCCESSFULLY ACHIEVE THE NEW 
STANDARD, A SUPPLEMENTAL STRENGTH TRAINING PROGRAM HAS BEEN 
DEVELOPED TO TARGET THE MUSCLE GROUPS INVOLVED WITH THE CASUALTY 
DRAG. THIS PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM IS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE AFM AND 
IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PHYSICAL FITNESS 
PROGRAM SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO LOCAL PSP STAFF.
5. THE LFCPFS WILL CONTINUE TO BE UPDATED AND SCIENTIFICALLY 
VALIDATED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND SOLDERING 
SKILLS OF THE CONTEMPORARY OPERATING ENVIRONMENT.  EFFECTIVE 1 APR 
10 AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE LFCPFS WILL CONSIST OF THE 
WEIGHTLOAD MARCH, TRENCH DIG AND CASUALTY DRAG COMPONENTS.  LFCO 
24-02 WILL BE AMENDED BY 1 APR 10 TO REFLECT IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
CASUALTY DRAG.
6. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PHYSICAL FITNESS STANDARD SHOULD BE 
DIRECTED TO THE ARMY PHYSICAL FITNESS MANAGER XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
 WITHIN DAT PD. QUESTIONS CONCERNING PHYSICAL FITNESS POLICY 
SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE ARMY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SIGNED LGEN A.B. LESLIE, CHIEF OF THE LAND STAFF
END OF ENGLISH TEXT/FRENCH TEXT AS FOLLOWS

edit:  removed contact names from para 6


----------



## mariomike

captloadie said:
			
		

> In all honesty, I think we have to admit that the fireman's carry (which by the way, I don't think firemen do anymore) has caused more injuries than lives it has saved.



The SCBA would get in the way. 
The smoke and heat at the level of the patient's head ( which would be about six feet above the floor, and who is not wearing SCBA or bunker gear ) could be fatal. 

In the city, you can "Drag and Drop" victims at the sidewalk. 
In a war? You may have to _carry_ your friend to help, which may, or may not, be close by. 

Your center of balance is thrown off in a Fireman's Carry. About the only time I recall seeing something similar was on ladders. And never alone. Unless the victim was child size and could be carried down in one arm. 
With the Fireman's Carry, their arms and legs, especially if flailing around in pain and panic, are likely to block doorways. Better to keep their body in line with yours.
People become hysterical. You don't need that happening around your face. You can avoid that with a short drag. 
In municipal service, many of our patients are frightened children and frail little old ladies. In such cases, they can be carried baby style in your arms. 
If you don't have control of the patients arms, sometimes they have a tendancy to reach out to grab hold of things / people. ie: You.
I did not see it, as we arrived about ten minutes after the fact. But, a civilian jumped in and carried a much bigger guy over his sholders in a "Fireman's Carry" from the subway tracks up to the platform. The third rail was still live. The subway motorman told us what happened. Said he almost ran over them. No mention of it in the paper. Just one of those things.
I've also seen construction workers carry their friends out.

Photo #3 and #4: "He ain't heavy. He's my brother."
Military carry. I can certainly see the necessity of an over the sholder carry if you had to carry a comrade any distance:
http://history.sandiego.edu/GEN/st/~pkaplan/_doares1rev.jpg

Looks like there is even a sport devoted to over the sholder carrying. 
Estonian style!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_carrying


----------



## LineJumper

Damn, and here I thought the CTOMS y-sling could come in handy for BFT's. I still see the same injury potential either method. Keep the abs strong and should be good to go.


----------



## aesop081

Hull.Down said:
			
		

> Just pulled on my "TACVEST" a tiny bit now and some of the seams came undone and it's practically brand new (minus one owner) so I doubt it's "defunct".
> 
> 
> 
> As for actually carrying a person, now I can understand someone being screwed to have to carry me but for carrying someone else 220? No problem.
> 
> 
> Now, look at it this way:
> 
> 
> 
> Your in some hot Middle Eastern country and you just dragged your injured buddy with a wound to cover. You pat yourself on the back for your accomplishment and for following your training of "dragging someone" and radio in for a 9-Liner.
> 
> "2C this is 2A sorry but we aren't really fighting insurgents anymore this is an actual war. You'll have to casualty carry to safe zone at GR842972 for medical pick up over"
> 
> "2A this is 2C(you) what is a casualty carry? over"
> 
> 
> The practicality of being able to transport/carry your dying friend to safety is far greater then the need for the ability to pull him 5 meters into some cover which, any stinking monkey can do 70kg.
> 
> 
> Let's hope no one has to rely on people to carry them when they are dying and the soldiers are too unfit to carry a person.



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/92248/post-912483.html#msg912483

You tried to stay in your lane. You failed. Change back to Dean22.........

-300 for you


----------



## SeanNewman

I must be reading that wrong, because I could swear it reads that you cannot fail (?)  Must be a dangling modifier or something.

Anyway, I can see the combat realism in this.  I'm a relatively big guy (6'2", 210) and I find it essentially impossible to get a (playing) dead guy off the ground and onto my shoulders.  To pull it off, you need to have him help you out.  Once they get up there it's fine, but a drag makes a lot more sense because it's much more natural and what I think more people attempt.

You can easily not break the tac vest (soon to be load carriage system) if you grab the entire shoulder strap in each hand, not just the little stitched in part.


----------



## Fusaki

Hull.Down said:
			
		

> Blah blah blah...



Buddy, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I honestly thought that with your apology thread you were going to turn a new leaf.  That lasted how long? A week?

You're a lost cause.


----------



## medaid

Dean22,

How do you like that TacVest 1 owner from eBay? I have taught a good number of tactical medical courses for LEOs and fireman's carry was not taught a single time.

Drag so you can still shoot back.


----------



## riggermade

The OPP drag as well....I have built harnesses for them so they can practice...when I did volunteer firefighting in AB you dragged as well


----------



## Bzzliteyr

mariomike.. Of course there are many different techniques and reasons for carrying someone on your shoulders...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_carrying


----------



## mariomike

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> mariomike.. Of course there are many different techniques and reasons for carrying someone on your shoulders...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife_carrying



Oh, I put it in at the bottom of my rather lengthy picture post, Bzzliteyr.  ;D 
Looks like fun! 
I'm retired now, but I was a BLS guy: *B*asic *L*ifting *S*ervice. Nothing fancy.
That Estonian Carry is one lift they didn't school us on, and it's too late to learn now! hahaha


----------



## danchapps

I was shown (over 2 years ago, back in basic) the Tacvest drag by my infantry Sgt. Basically what you did was stick your non shooting arm all the way through the tacvest, grab the vest on the far side, and drag away. This left your shooting hand free to return fire if needed. I guess they aren't going that route, just thought I'd throw that in there.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Must be the formatting of the computer (at work).  I was sure that I read over your post twice so I didn't look stupid.  My bad.


----------



## mariomike

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Must be the formatting of the computer (at work).  I was sure that I read over your post twice so I didn't look stupid.  My bad.



Not at all. I enjoy reading your posts because I learn from them.


----------



## SeanNewman

I still think overall it's not a bad idea to change to something more realistic that more people would do in more situations.  However, I feel that once again we are shifting the slider to making it easier, though (again).  Realistic or not, the fireman carry was the great equalizer where you could have the weak people who could work up to 13km (and then be NS for a month), but they couldn't pass the fireman carry and you could fail them.  Now, more weak people will pass.

I stick to my guns though that a true fireman carry (dead weight laying on the ground) is almost impossible.  It takes a very strong person doing the technique perfectly, which includes shifting the person around in order to set them up properly, which you don't really have time to do when getting shot at.  It's much faster in short bursts to do the drag.


----------



## mariomike

MedTech said:
			
		

> I have taught a good number of tactical medical courses for LEOs and fireman's carry was not taught a single time.
> Drag so you can still shoot back.



Are you an ETF Paramedic?:
http://www.torontoems.ca/main-site/service/etf.html

I see the OPP has them as well  in London, Orillia, Bolton and Kingston.
http://www.opp.ca/ecms/index.php?id=63

I have read that the cities of Edmonton and Calgary now have Tactical Paramedics.

Our Department teaches ITLS to certain members of Metro Police:
http://www.torontoems.ca/main-site/careers/itls.html


----------



## Jammer

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Realistic or not, the fireman carry was the great equalizer where you could have the weak people who could work up to 13km (and then be NS for a month), but they couldn't pass the fireman carry and you could fail them.  Now, more weak people will pass.


It sounds to me like you deliberately looked forward to failing people...it's not that "weak " people will pass, but IMHO a relection of casualty extraction that mimics what you would really do. having been in that position more than once i can say that doing a firemans carry in contact is not the desired method of extraction by either the carrier or the victim. Sure there are those who will come off catagory...do the BFT, pass it and go back on catagory. If I had a dime for as many time as I have seen that, I would be retired. Physical weakness does not determine strength of character. I have seen and known many a soul who are in outstanding physical condition who, when the metal met the meat, totally collapsed under the pressure.
There are always those who will sit in judgment of others however...sigh.


----------



## SeanNewman

Haha, yes sorry if the tone of my writing.  In actual fact, when I'm instructing I'm probably too compassionate on mentoring people to pass if anything.

It's not a matter of deliberately targeting the weak in order to weed them out, it's more about that being the only one thing that you can fail people on and punish them for.  I make no claims at being super fit, but I'm reasonably fit and I know I speak for a lot of other people who are disgusted when we see people marching around who know that someone we see could never pass even the most basic of fitness tests, but for some reason nobody has taken action against them.

For us, the Basic Fitness Test is the one thing that we "must" pass in a year.  For troops like Infantry and Engineers it's basically no different than morning PT, but there are some pers who must dedicate several months of their lives to work-up training in order to pass it, and then are so physically destroyed after doing it that they go on light duties for a month because their feet turn into one giant blister.

So, targeting deliberately = no.  Using it as a tool to fail those who deserve it = yes.


----------



## medaid

mariomike said:
			
		

> Are you an ETF Paramedic?:



Nope!



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> I have read that since then, the cities of Edmonton and Calgary now have Tactical Paramedics.



Not out here in BC.... the Tactical Medics on the teams are just memebers who've been cross trained... I've got mix feelings about that.



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> the only one thing that you can fail people on and* punish them for*.



Ah... I love your "MENTORING" mind set. Punish them? Please....



			
				Petamocto said:
			
		

> Using it as a tool to fail those who deserve it = yes.



 :


----------



## mariomike

MedTech said:
			
		

> Not out here in BC.... the Tactical Medics on the teams are just memebers who've been cross trained... I've got mix feelings about that.



I put in for the Toronto team, but failed the fitness test.  :-[


----------



## Jammer

Just so you don't get to engrossed in yourself Pet...we who are so humbled by your ilk are standing in awe of your status.
Wait a sec....There a some of us who do mulitple BFTs every year in the trg system. Usually because the soldiers on the crses we instruct are required to do one before graduating.
Me...43 yrs old and STILL able to come in under 2hrs...crushing troops half my age...sorry about bursting your narrow minded vision but I understand your limited exposure to the rest of the field force.


----------



## SeanNewman

What???  I have no idea why you just posted what you did.  In fact, I even deliberately stated that I make no claims to be super fit, yet your response is quite bitter.

There must be no doubt that while there are exceptions, certain trades are generally more fit than others.  That is not at all to say that to be in the infantry = more fit than Logistics.  In fact, there were several non-infanteers who beat me in the Ironman when I did it.  I got top third, but all sorts of people beat me.

As for multiple BFTs, that was my whole point.  There are some of us who do BFTs (by name) multiple times a year, and there are some of us who don't even call it a BFT, we just call it "trying to catch up to the British OC on Wednesday"  when we cover about 15 km in 90 minutes.

I'm still kind of stunned at why you responded the way you did, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  If anything, if you are fit, it is more than likely that you are just as upset when you see people going the other direction who you know there is no way that they could possibly pass any sort of physical test.

My post was not aimed at trades, but individual people who should be thinned from the herd but aren't.


----------



## aesop081

Petamocto said:
			
		

> For us, the Basic Fitness Test is the one thing that we "must" pass in a year.



Must be nice to have only one thing to pass each year......




> but there are some pers who must dedicate several months of their lives to work-up training in order to pass it, and then are so physically destroyed after doing it that they go on light duties for a month because their feet turn into one giant blister.



There some giant bags of shit out there, no argument. But then there are folks who are not so fortunate as to work in units able to have "morning PT". There are some people who have to put in 14+ hour days at their job just so the unit can stay afloat so when you factor in having to take care of things at home, PT has to take a backseat until you have to workup somehow just prior to the test.

I'm not making excuses for people but i'm a guy who is in a situation like that and as a single parent, its always a struggle to find time for working out. I do but it aint easy.


----------



## a_majoor

Throwing a little fuel on the fire:

I can see doing this drag as being more a more realistic means of dealing with casualties, but have a hard time picturing how I would grab the vest to ensure I have a firm hold and am able to actually pull the victim. At my weight and size I am fairly sure the person pulling me would have a strap in his/her hand at the finish line while I am lying (a bit disgruntled) on the ground 10 m away.

A more realistic means of dealing with a casualty would be to have *two* soldiers grabbing through the arm holes (one on each side) and pulling facing the direction of travel. This would not be an individual test but a fire team test.

Instead of having to guess at the weight of the casualty, a standard crash test dummy weighing at least 100 Kg should be the standard (to simulate the wieght of IPE and equipment).


----------



## Bzzliteyr

As it has been said by somebody above, I imagine the "dragging" technique qould be to actually slide your hand in horizontally between the vest and back (kind of like a shield would be held) and then grabbing and dragging?  

I imagine a two handed drag could also be done.. surely the soldiers will try out many different methods and surely there will be RSMs that have approved "by the book" ways (that aren't in the book but who are we to argue?) that we will have to deal with.  Just like there are troops with "high speed, non sparking" rucksacks and others with the good old unmodified 82 pattern.

Only time will tell!


----------



## George Wallace

You don't "fireman carry" a person out of a burning vehicle; you drag them.

You don't "fireman carry" a person under fire, using them as a "bullet stop"; you drag them.

Does a drag make any sense now?


----------



## Jarnhamar

Hulldown I was going to reply to your post but then I noticed your MP points so I figured never mind.

Hey Mike, I guess those points work after all!  ;D

As far as the OP goes I'd rather drag someone then fireman carry them.
Someone above made a good point, this sucker has probably hurt more people in the CF than it's saved.


----------



## ModlrMike

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Someone above made a good point, this sucker has probably hurt more people in the CF than it's saved.



That would be me, and to add another observation:

From a physics point of view, you can move greater weight by dragging than lifting. The first only requires that you overcome inertia, the second requires you overcome both inertia and gravity.


----------



## SeanNewman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But then there are folks who are not so fortunate as to work in units able to have "morning PT". There are some people who have to put in 14+ hour days at their job just so the unit can stay afloat so when you factor in having to take care of things at home, PT has to take a backseat until you have to workup somehow just prior to the test.



I disagree with that entirely.  PT should always be part of your routine, and if the CDS can find time to run around Ottawa, I think he is slightly busier than us.  I'm fairly busy and I do PT.  My boss is busier and he does PT.  And his boss the CO is really busy and he's a PT machine.

Fitness is a CDS-level directive, so if you work in a place that takes strides to avoid PT because you're "too busy", then I genuinely feel sorry for you because you are being done a disservice.


----------



## mariomike

It's probably been mentioned, and I know it's obvious, but, anytime you lift someone, there is a risk of dropping them. With a "two-handed drag <snip> by the tac vest/webbing" unsecured falls from a height can be avoided. 
By handling the casualty, who will be on the ground facing away from you, by straps only, it should be mentally easier on the rescuer. Especially if you know the victim. There was no nice way of saying that.
Similar to dragging by SCBA straps. In extreme cases, a 3/4 inch rope, or pike pole ( if available ) can be used for rescue/recovery.
It is probably a more comfortable position for the casualty to breathe, rather than the Fireman's Carry. Also, probably less likely to agravate trauma to the head, torso and arms. 
This discussion has "re-kindled" memories of old time firemen. Back when we had more fires.  The over-the-sholder carry back then, whether it makes sense or not, was a very impressive heroic sight. It used to remind me of the old Tarzan and Jane movies we watched as kids! Everyone was very excited. 
Sometimes, Policemen did it too, if first on scene.
"Smoke Eaters" kicked their shoes off and hopped on the back step of the truck as it screamed ( regardless of the hour! ) out of the hall, and stood on it hanging to the handrails for dear life in the open air all the way to the fire. They seldom wore SCBA ( even as late as the summer of 1993, the Chief himself of the old TFD collapsed from smoke inhalation at Kensington Market, and never really did recover ). So, often, there was no straps or equipment worn on their sholders and backs to interfere with the Fireman's Carry. The victims were often the very young or old ( big strong people seemed to _usually_ make it out ) and dressed in nothing more than bed clothes. Maybe a waist belt.
Gilbert Grape bariatric lifts were interesting, and are becoming much more common.
Sometimes, it looked like the firemen were going to barf up their lungs, so you had to keep an eye on them. Sometimes, people say they feel fine after taking smoke, then suddenly drop dead an hour later.
When you read stories about all these people treated and released for smoke inhalation, it implies that their injuries were not serious. But, that's not true.
Mostly, they just wanted a cigarette and an Orange Crush. ;D
Thanks for reading!


----------



## Jarnhamar

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I disagree with that entirely.  PT should always be part of your routine, and if the CDS can find time to run around Ottawa, I think he is slightly busier than us.


You're joking right?  Have you ever seen a CDS? They have a throng of officers who would push each other infront of a speeding bus just to do PT _FOR_ him lol.



> I'm fairly busy and I do PT.  My boss is busier and he does PT.  And his boss the CO is really busy and he's a PT machine.
> 
> Fitness is a CDS-level directive, so if you work in a place that takes strides to avoid PT because you're "too busy", then I genuinely feel sorry for you because you are being done a disservice.


I Agree that PT needs to be worked into a schedule but between being proactive at work and trying to find time to be a parent and make sure your kid recognizes you I can see how someones PT can suffer. (Mine is)


----------



## SeanNewman

I think the big picture for a lot of this is just basic professionalism and personal discipline.  Some people take Duty, quite literally and want to do everything they can to achieve their maximum potential/performance.

I am by no means the pinnacle of what it means to be a super soldier, but imagine the hypothetical one if you will:

They stay fit, they get their hair cut, and the shine the hell out of their boots, because the uniform means something to them and when they are seen in public they want people to think that soldiers in the CF are top notch people who are clean cut and the ideal of what someone can be...

...then that soldier, while in uniform, sees another person in uniform but this one has a gut pouring out over their belt, physically straining the buttons on their shirt.  Under that second person's headdress is a large quoif of hair bulging out that looks like it hasn't been cut in two months, and their uniform looks like junk.

If I were an average Canadian I probably wouldn't be that impressed with seeing that second person, and if I were a hard charger I'd probably be less willing to join because I don't want to be any part of that.  Further, putting myself in the boots of the first soldier, I would probably wish that the minimum standards were higher so people like that second person weren't allowed to embarrass the flag.

Most of us on this board are in the middle of that spectrum, but at least we don't bring shame to the uniform.  That's where I'm coming from with the fitness thing; does everyone have time to do 2 hours of PT per day?  Of course not, but you shouldn't give up on it, either.


----------



## armyvern

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I think the big picture for a lot of this is just basic professionalism and personal discipline.  Some people take Duty, quite literally and want to do everything they can to achieve their maximum potential/performance.
> 
> I am by no means the pinnacle of what it means to be a super soldier, but imagine the hypothetical one if you will:
> 
> They stay fit, they get their hair cut, and the shine the hell out of their boots, because the uniform means something to them and when they are seen in public they want people to think that soldiers in the CF are top notch people who are clean cut and the ideal of what someone can be...
> 
> ...then that soldier, while in uniform, sees another person in uniform but this one has a gut pouring out over their belt, physically straining the buttons on their shirt.  Under that second person's headdress is a large quoif of hair bulging out that looks like it hasn't been cut in two months, and their uniform looks like junk.
> 
> If I were an average Canadian I probably wouldn't be that impressed with seeing that second person, and if I were a hard charger I'd probably be less willing to join because I don't want to be any part of that.  Further, putting myself in the boots of the first soldier, I would probably wish that the minimum standards were higher so people like that second person weren't allowed to embarrass the flag.
> 
> Most of us on this board are in the middle of that spectrum, but at least we don't bring shame to the uniform.  That's where I'm coming from with the fitness thing; does everyone have time to do 2 hours of PT per day?  Of course not, but you shouldn't give up on it, either.



You are so out of touch with reality that it's fucking hilarious. You epitomize the "stereotypical" type of officer that we bottom-feeders love to hate.

You haven't got a clue. Step out of your office and come do our jobs before you run your ignorant mouth off about "who has time for what" and try to insinuate that you do have a clue when to the rest of us it is painfully obvious that you are "all about me".

Sure, the CDS is busy - I don't think anyone would dispute that - but here's a fact-check for you. I just left that place where you are now - you want to bounce around the idea that "we had even more time to do PT than the CDS because the CDS is busy too" - bounce this around your skull for a bit:

I did three BFTs on three sucessive Monday mornings. Now, why is that? Because "we" have to split our BFTs into three because gawd-forbid we actually went to "closing Tech Svcs" so that we could do it all as one big group. The very first person to bitch had we done that ... would have been someone exactly like you. "How come clothing is closed? How come the BOR is closed?" "My troops on courses need service and you aren't providing it by being closed!!" 

Monday mornings. Why? Because Friday's are tech Svcs busiest days of the week (because that's when the schools mostly let their students slide on a Friday afternoon so that they can get out to get their "adm" business handled. Back to work after lunch on Monday afternoon after the BFT too - because gawd forbid we be short staffed to serve those customers after lunch when the hike was in the morning.

By the way, we also did 10 weeks of work-ups. Why is that? Because the LFCO says it *SHALL* be so. I'm quite sure that you have a computer with which you can verify that little factoid which seems to be above your grasp. It's not that we "require" or even "need" to do the work-ups ... we do them because the rules say we HAVE to. Get that through your head.

Not a single person I marched with has ever been happy with the fact that we do the BFT WUs ... we all bitched and said "just give us our rifles already and let us be done with it."

As for "time in the day to do PT" and your insistance that "some" people just don't give a shit and, apparently, have all kinds of time (as opposed to the CDS). PM me your real name - I'm quite willing to arrange a week of work for you down here with us bottom-feeders in the real world; word up - it'll be at clothing stores where you don't get coffee breaks, where you'll get a 1/2 hour for lunch, where you'll get bitched at constantly by asshats like you because you "had" to go do a BFT or IBTS and thus a third of the staff are missing, and where you'll be expected to serve approx 1000 customers a week - a whole hell of a lot which will need complete kittings of operational kit (approx 75 items each).

Step out of your office - I think you've been walking around with your eyes wide shut for far too long because you actually believe the bullshit you spout.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I think the big picture for a lot of this is just basic professionalism and personal discipline.  Some people take Duty, quite literally and want to do everything they can to achieve their maximum potential/performance.
> 
> I am by no means the pinnacle of what it means to be a super soldier, but imagine the hypothetical one if you will:
> 
> They stay fit, they get their hair cut, and the shine the hell out of their boots, because the uniform means something to them and when they are seen in public they want people to think that soldiers in the CF are top notch people who are clean cut and the ideal of what someone can be...
> 
> ...then that soldier, while in uniform, sees another person in uniform but this one has a gut pouring out over their belt, physically straining the buttons on their shirt.  Under that second person's headdress is a large quoif of hair bulging out that looks like it hasn't been cut in two months, and their uniform looks like junk.
> 
> If I were an average Canadian I probably wouldn't be that impressed with seeing that second person, and if I were a hard charger I'd probably be less willing to join because I don't want to be any part of that.  Further, putting myself in the boots of the first soldier, I would probably wish that the minimum standards were higher so people like that second person weren't allowed to embarrass the flag.
> 
> Most of us on this board are in the middle of that spectrum, but at least we don't bring shame to the uniform.  That's where I'm coming from with the fitness thing; does everyone have time to do 2 hours of PT per day?  Of course not, but you shouldn't give up on it, either.




Do you ever stop to wonder why your fat bastard looks like that, or do you just default to lazy prick setting?  I screwed my back hard on Her Majesties Service in '97.  It took me a year to learn to walk upright again, I was unable to run on roads or lift weights, and my weight went way up.   I'm a guy who has a polar bear's metabolism, and can literally spend hours on a treadmill or eliptical and get nothing out of it.  I spent the next 6 years on "temporary" categories, and I contributed to the army to the best of my ability every day, probably more so than some of the high speed low drag super fit morons in the regiment.  Other than the gut, the slug you describe sounds like the JTF2 guys I've encountered.


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Do you ever stop to wonder why your fat bastard looks like that, or do you just default to lazy prick setting?  I screwed my back hard on Her Majesties Service in '97.  It took me a year to learn to walk upright again, I was unable to run on roads or lift weights, and my weight went way up.   I'm a guy who has a polar bear's metabolism, and can literally spend hours on a treadmill or eliptical and get nothing out of it.  I spent the next 6 years on "temporary" categories, and I contributed to the army to the best of my ability every day, probably more so than some of the high speed low drag super fit morons in the regiment.  Other than the gut, the slug you describe sounds like the JTF2 guys I've encountered.



Excellent point Kat.

Reminds me of a saying I used to state to my ex (an RCR type at the school) when he used to complain that I couldn't run as fast as he could: "Yeash, but I outshoot you on the range every year - and it just don't matter how fast you run ... my bullet IS going to catch your ass every single time".


----------



## Occam

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm quite willing to arrange a week of work for you down here with us bottom-feeders in the real world; word up - it'll be at clothing stores where you don't get coffee breaks, where you'll get a 1/2 hour for lunch, where you'll get bitched at constantly by asshats like you because you "had" to go do a BFT or IBTS and thus a third of the staff are missing, and where you'll be expected to serve approx 1000 customers a week - a whole hell of a lot which will need complete kittings of operational kit (approx 75 items each).



Gee, you need a better union at Gagetown.  The clothing stores in Ottawa is only open 0900-1400, and entirely closed on Fridays.  Come to think of it, clothing stores is closed on a Monday or a Friday on many bases.  That's not to suggest that those are the working hours of the clothing stores staff as I'm sure they put in a full day Mon-Thur (Nobody can be sure about Friday, as there are no customers around to know one way or the other).   I think they have plenty of time to fit in PT in their days.

I sure wish I had the freedom to say "Sorry, we're not accepting any trouble tickets or dealing with any clients on Fridays anymore, that's going to be our designated day for catching up on the backlog".


----------



## SeanNewman

It is specifically because I work in an office (now) that I can say I have seen things on both sides of the fence...and on both sides fitness has been important.

Five years ago as a platoon commander I was surrounded by light infantry hard-charging soldiers, and make no mistake...what they say about out of shape people in uniform is a hell of a lot more blunt and less political than the way I phrased it above.

It is specifically because I'm standing up for those soldiers' beliefs that I am saying what I am here.

Curse me if you want, but if you are as fit as you say you are then you should be just as unimpressed with out-of-shape people as I am.

I'm not sure what you're upset about, because I even stated it wasn't as simple as being trade specific, before further stressing that I have met all sorts of non-Infantry soldiers who were more fit than I am (and outperformed me).


----------



## SeanNewman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...and it just don't matter how fast you run ... my bullet IS going to catch your *** every single time".



A fat and out of shape person would never make it to the battlefield.  He would either get sick and worn down from climate changes, or pass out long before he got to the objective.

It has nothing to do with running fast, it's all about being fit.  And as with many other times, I have said that being in a trade does not mean you will or will not be fit.

Perhaps your bullet will catch a fit person when you're thumb smashing on Call of Duty, but in the real world you can expect to carry some weight for a while, and odds are if you have to struggle to do a BFT then you'll be in the back.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

The point of this thread is about the change from the Fireman's Carry to the drag. That's all, that's it.

If you feel the need to vent about someone that YOU think doesn't meet YOUR standard, go for a jog. We won't miss anything you have to say. We haven't so far.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## SeanNewman

recceguy said:
			
		

> The point of this thread is about the change from the Fireman's Carry to the drag. That's all, that's it.
> Milnet.ca Staff



Good point, and you're right.  Originally it got brought up because the change is good and more realistic, but hopefully it won't result in an easier test overall.

That's where I was coming from.  Kudos to you for thread un-jacking.


----------



## aesop081

anyone what to take a stab at how long it takes for someone to remove the drag because of excessive wear on uniforms and equipment ?

Or am i being to cynical ?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> anyone what to take a stab at how long it takes for someone to remove the drag because of excessive wear on uniforms and equipment ?
> 
> Or am i being to cynical ?



Nope. I'm already trying to figure out how to make the appropriate weighted drag dummy, locally, at minimal cost.

In the meantime, I think we can alleviate some of it by the dragee wearing coveralls.


----------



## SeanNewman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Or am i being to cynical ?



No, not at all, actually...which is why I think they have stressed the "on grass" part.

You are completely right that combat-PT style events (casualty drag specifically) if done on something like a dirt or gravel road will completely destroy the butt of the casualty's pants.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nope. I'm already trying to figure out how to make the appropriate weighted drag dummy, locally, at minimal cost.
> 
> In the meantime, I think we can alleviate some of it by the dragee wearing coveralls.



Sandbags stuffed in coveralls? Around 40-55 kg is what our man over board dummies weigh in at.

And Vern +1


----------



## Occam

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nope. I'm already trying to figure out how to make the appropriate weighted drag dummy, locally, at minimal cost.



I'm sure if you check with a Navy Bos'n, they'd only be too happy to give you the specs for Oscar.


----------



## SeanNewman

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...weighted drag dummy...dragee wearing coveralls.



We might not see eye to all on some threads, but that is a really good idea.  And there's no logical reason it can't be a dummy, either (if the guy being dragged is dead weight anyway).

It will be interesting to see if they don't set up little areas like they did with the gravel dig, where the unit signs out the key to the grassed area and the dummies.


----------



## Jammer

We have 170lb drag dummies here in K-Town...already perfecting techniques.


----------



## riggermade

OPP use a dummy...harness I made for them has loops on the shoulder to simulate under the arms and a loop in the middle to simulate a strap on a vest....reason being 170 lbs of sand does not really simulate a person except for weight...sand is alot more fluid than a human body


----------



## Scott

I am sorry that I was so blinded by some of the dumber comments in this thread (much earlier) that I missed mariomike's excellently informed post about why firefighters don't use the "fireman's carry". He was bang on.

As someone who trains all the time to use drags and carries I'll comment as such. Taking the time first to say that I believe I might feel differently with bullets being hucked at me. Having said that, I feel I can comment on a drag’s effectiveness and the stresses one goes through in training. I have employed drags during a real situation on a few occasions but it was never as practiced and never pretty and always about three times faster. But if you want to speak about it from a simple training perspective...

Single person drag: as shown in the pics waaaay above, put the casualty into an upright position with your knee in their back to keep them upright, then reach through their armpits and grasp the arms - left hand on left forearm, right hand on right forearm. Lift and drag. Getting the person as high as possible will aid in this drag but might not be feasible in combat or in a fire situation where it seems that in both scenarios getting higher equals exposing yourself to more danger.

Note: we do not subscribe to the theory that one should grasp opposite forearms or wrists of the casualty. This can create a choking hazard for the casualty and is harder, in terms of kinetics, to accomplish.

Two person drag: we always have casualties/dummies who are wearing coveralls, thankfully...Roll casualty’s collar down and zip the covies to about mid chest. Person on either side grasps roll made with collar about three inches from center of collar and drag victim out. Seems to me this would be the best if one wanted to stay low.

There is a variant of this that sees a single person rolling the covies down and performing the drag but, in my experience, this is the hardest to do and the most back breaking.

Two person carry: the person at the head does the same as they would if they were going to perform a single person drag except when they lift there is a person at the feet. The person at the feet will cross the casualty’s ankles and grasp the coveralls at the bottom ankle thereby giving them a handle of sorts. Again, same issues with the carry as the single person drag, height.

I can see why some of this might not be realistic in a shooting scenario because someone may have been relieved of limbs. But from a mere training perspective it is a good test of strength and one that firefighters have included into their sporting event, the Firefighter Combat Challenge. The final event in the race is the dummy drag and the high drag is used. Now this is a race, not a fire. Were I to perform this drag in a fire I’d cook my head and likely expose the casualty to tremendous heat and smoke.

As far as the grass/gravel/pavement debate goes: when we train to rescue downed firefighters we use a technique called “humping” because, em, it looks pretty sexual. Basically in a two rescuer scenario you would have the person at the feet throw the casualty’s legs over his shoulders and his job would be to keep the casualty sliding on his SCBA cylinder as the person at the head used a DRD (drag rescue device, incorporated into our jackets) to pull. It is hilarious to see this happen the first time. 

I mention it because a few fiscally minded Chiefs were concerned that too much training in this scenario caused damage, sometimes, to the cylinders and harnesses of the SCBA and at about 3 grand a crack they wanted to limit that. Those Chiefs are idiots. Is there a concern, yes. But it’s very minor. Point is, if you’re using drags to test someone’s strength then you can allow some latitude. But if you want them to learn this so as to use it in a real situation then you should amp it up and make it as real as possible.

As far as what has been easier for me, having done the military’s version of the fireman’s carry as well as the drags I use now for work: they both fucking suck. They both kick your ass. The carry involves a good heave and then steady motion and you can easily frig your back with that heave.. The drag leaves your knees feeling like you’ve just done up-he-sees-me-down for a mile (if done properly) 

Dummies: there are tons of ways to make/buy one. There’s the Rescue Randy series, a pre made dummy meant for this type of thing. There’s the bundle of fire hoses in coveralls. Sandbags. Whatever. One of my best mates, who is elite level in the Combat Challenge (sub 1:45 time) drags skidder tires around, it works for him.

The thing I was fortunate enough to learn very early is that there are easy ways to do it all and if you were to watch someone who is highly trained in confined space rescue you’d see how they “manipulate” the victim to get them through passages the easiest. The body will bend and turn certain ways and will snap if you try others. As much as we say “life over limb” we also try to preserve your previous quality of life as much as possible. I could go further into confined spaces but it’s a deep subject and I do not think it relates, if you have questions though, ask me.

So, there, a full read on drags. Do with it what you will. As said, I don’t have to worry about a battlefield when I do this. However I do have to worry about exposure to heat and all things associated with that plus the fact that my casualty faces increased risk of getting dead the longer it takes me to get them out.


----------



## mariomike

TFD and T-EMS on scene.
This is how it was. 
A family of five died in this one. 
Viewer discretion is advised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwwyfnZdgAc&feature=related


----------



## daftandbarmy

I find it odd that we seem to be confusing 'battle fitness training' with 'preparing for battle'. If we're focusing on the former we don't need to drag anyone around, dummy or not  ;D

And FWIW, I've never seen anything like this in any of several different BFTs I've done in the past with other armies. I HAVE done the dragging thing as part of battle PT sessions before, though it was more for the purposes of administering a good old fashioned beasting than a test.


----------



## SeanNewman

I am in the same boat in terms of it having been done in PT before either on a course on in a unit.

It is a fairly good initiative though, especially if it's been shown that the vast majority of the time if someone is hurt the buddy is going to try to drag them first.

My concern was that as long as it's not easier I'm all for it, because 25m doesn't seem like that far (compared to 100m of spine compression).


----------



## mariomike

The subject reminds me of "All Quiet on The Western Front". The scene, *near the very end *of the movie, where the younger soldier carries his wounded comrade, over his sholder, to safety ( not knowing he is already dead ).
"Looks like the old bread wagon broke down. I guess I don't walk the rest of the way.":
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7300946306109319965&hl=en#


----------



## mariomike

Pentagon Seeks Robo-EMS to Rescue Wounded Warriors:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/pentagon-seeks-robo-ems-to-rescue-wounded-warriors/


Battlefield Extraction-Assist Robot B.E.A.R. :
http://www.botmag.com/articles/04-25-07_vecna_bear.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6729745.stm
http://vecnarobotics.com/solutions/bear/index.shtml

I know it's "just a robot", but the walking cradle carry has the most calming effect of all the Lifts and Carries. My all time fav!

Robots used to be popular in sci-fi movies:
http://amysrobot.com/files/forbidden_planet.JPG

Japan Emergency Services in the pic below.


----------



## BDTyre

I've never had to drag or carry a casualty in combat.
I'm not a medic, EMT, paramedic, firefighter, policemen etc. civy side.

I have however, done a fair number of BFTs.  Each and every one I've done we did not fireman carry the casualty from a laying position because of the risk of injury.  They always "climbed" on to us.

I have also witnessed one person blow a knee out two years ago and as a result, he has been unable to progress in his career so far.  I've also know someone who had their wrist broken as the result of a fall during the fireman's carry.

I recall the firemen who taught my first aid on BMQ telling us that they don't do the fireman's carry anymore and they showed us several other methods (none of which I can recall at the moment).

As for the tacvest - well, I've been dragged around by mine and have dragged others around at least 3 times a week for 4 weeks straight in Wainwright, and no one's broke.

My only concern is that my unit will make us do the drag across the mystery substance that composes our parade square leaving all of us with large black streaks on our asses  for the rest of the night.


----------



## Spanky

Well, it *is supposed to be done on grass.  I guess all those pants with the butts worn through would look too much like chaps.  *


----------



## Journeyman

Spanky said:
			
		

> *...all those pants with the butts worn through would look too much like chaps.*


op:  Vern will be along any second now.


----------



## mariomike

Video on the subject. I don't think was posted, yet. 

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4165


----------



## DiamondDarryl

Well as long as we are going for realism on the BFT we might as well replace the ruck march with a 13km LAV ride displaying moderate vigilance.


----------



## daftandbarmy

mariomike said:
			
		

> Video on the subject. I don't think was posted, yet.
> 
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4165



I’ve always wanted the title ‘OPI Drag Implementation’, although up to now I thought that it would have something to do with women’s clothing…
 ;D


----------



## mysteriousmind

To my humble opinion, for what its worth, I think its a great thing that they change it. I am big and tall, doing the trench and the 13k never has been a problem for me. The fireman carry, that was more of a problem. I think it was hard and dangerous. thing a guy of my stature was some what a big challenge.

As for us in Valcartier, well the dummy thing might pose a problem..as we always do the BFT on a large scale...all nonessential people are to do it so...we end up being 400 and more...I cannot imagine every one waiting for the dummy. Taking someone would make much more sense to me. 

So I cannot wait to see when it will be implemented. I have heard this rumor for the past 2 years i think.


----------



## carl_gustav317

captloadie said:
			
		

> In all honesty, I think we have to admit that the fireman's carry (which by the way, I don't think firemen do anymore) has caused more injuries than lives it has saved. Maybe doing like they do in a fireman's competition and dragging a dummy (or a partner) under the arms for a prescribed distance would be better. Because honestly, unless you are one of the bigger/fitter guys, you likely cant hoist a fully kitted out comrade onto your shoulder. If you are going to evacuate someone, you are going to drag them to cover. If you have to go a distance for casevac, you are going to create some kind of stretcher.
> We used stretchers at the JSG as a trial, two man with 200lbs on it, over the length of a soccer field. The only down side was it was a killer on the wrists if the front guy dropped the stretcher before stopping.



you are absolutely correct, we do not throw anyone over our shoulders to carry them off to safety. this carry leads to injuries for both the firefighter and the casualty. the preferred method is to drag the casualty. I agree that this new policy for the drag vs. carry is more practical but the back strap on the tac vest will more than likely break. instead, should try to convince psp staff to let you carry by the shoulder pieces of the vest. Or get a length of rope or tubular nylon to place under the armpits/across the chest to help drag.


----------



## dangerboy

carl_gustav317 said:
			
		

> you are absolutely correct, we do not throw anyone over our shoulders to carry them off to safety. this carry leads to injuries for both the firefighter and the casualty. the preferred method is to drag the casualty. I agree that this new policy for the drag vs. carry is more practical but the back strap on the tac vest will more than likely break. instead, should try to convince psp staff to let you carry by the shoulder pieces of the vest. Or get a length of rope or tubular nylon to place under the armpits/across the chest to help drag.



You will not be able to convince PSP on how you want to do the drag as there is offical policy LFCO 24-02



> The casualty will lie down on their back with their shoulders even with the start line while crossing their arms across their chest and grabbing the collar of their tac vest or webbing firmly.  This will prevent the tac vest from possibly riding up and causing discomfort.  The soldier will squat down and grasp the casualty by the tac vest with both hands, making sure lift with the legs and not the back.  The soldier will perform a single lift of the injured soldier to assume the position for the drag.
> 
> 28.	The soldier will perform the drag by walking backwards in a continuous manner for a distance of 25m.  There is no time limit for this evaluation, however if the soldier pauses, it will be considered an unsuccessful attempt.  The drag will be complete when the feet of the casualty cross the 25m line.


----------



## ekpiper

dangerboy said:
			
		

> You will not be able to convince PSP on how you want to do the drag as there is offical policy LFCO 24-02



I'm guessing that by convince, he meant get the entire department to change the official policy.


----------



## Fusaki

carl_gustav317 said:
			
		

> I agree that this new policy for the drag vs. carry is more practical but the back strap on the tac vest will more than likely break. instead, should try to convince psp staff to let you carry by the shoulder pieces of the vest.





			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Video on the subject. I don't think was posted, yet.
> 
> http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4165



According to the above video, the drag is to be performed by grabbing shoulder straps in the way you've described.  No one believes that the cheap piece of fabric on the back of the TV (where the drag handle _should_ be) is going to hold anyone's weight.


----------



## kadrury

I am so glad that they changed it from the fireman carry to the casualty drag. Last year I was being carried by someone during bmq and they dropped me. I landed on my foot the wrong way and I broke my foot in 3 places. I was on PAT platoon for months from surgery to physio. Now I just starting to get my career back on track. So as I said before I am VERY glad they changed this. Maybe no one else will get hurt the same way I did. =)


----------



## Fishbone Jones

mariomike said:
			
		

> Here's a couple of demos from TFD around the 00:55 mark:



Please don't muddy the waters. There are official DND videos out on how to do the DND recognized casualty drag. What, or how, anyone else does it only confuses people.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## MedTechStudent

kadrury said:
			
		

> I am so glad that they changed it from the fireman carry to the casualty drag. Last year I was being carried by someone during bmq and they dropped me. I landed on my foot the wrong way and I broke my foot in 3 places. I was on PAT platoon for months from surgery to physio. Now I just starting to get my career back on track. So as I said before I am VERY glad they changed this. Maybe no one else will get hurt the same way I did. =)



I think you're missing the take-away point as to why they changed it.  
I doubt very much that the potential for injury during training is why its been changed.  I would assume its more so to do with the real world application.  If they just took out all the things you have to do on BMQ that could get you hurt well then, goodbye Obstacle Course (Confidence Course now or something?), PT, Field Time, the Range, ect ect.


----------



## George Wallace

MedKAWD said:
			
		

> I think you're missing the take-away point as to why they changed it.
> I doubt very much that the potential for injury during training is why its been changed.  I would assume its more so to do with the real world application.  If they just took out all the things you have to do on BMQ that could get you hurt well then, goodbye Obstacle Course (Confidence Course now or something?), PT, Field Time, the Range, ect ect.



Whoa!  Whoa!  Whoa!  You know darn well that many would still be injured with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS),  or tennis elbow, or some other injury due to inactivity....... Couch Potatoes is not what we want to become.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I like that they have replaced the fireman carry with a drag, I always found the fireman carry was a pointless exercise which when wearing full battle gear and trying to lift an average sized man would be damn near impossible.  

As for the drag why don't they just get some of these bad boys 







 I use them already in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and you can get them in different sizes, plus it would alleviate the need to use your own troops and possibly wreck equipment and injure personnel.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Stymiest said:
			
		

> I like that they have replaced the fireman carry with a drag, I always found the fireman carry was a pointless exercise which when wearing full battle gear and trying to lift an average sized man would be damn near impossible.
> 
> As for the drag why don't they just get some of these bad boys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use them already in Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and you can get them in different sizes, plus it would alleviate the need to use your own troops and possibly wreck equipment and injure personnel.



Do they have them in blonde, chest size around 36B?  ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Do they have them in blonde, chest size around 36B?  ;D



LOL I was going to post something but then I thought twice about it  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser

The picture of that grappling dummy just brought back some scary memories of my CQC course, and our "dummy PT". Coincidentally, I know now I'll never ever want to carry someone on my shoulders for any distance. They're getting dragged.


----------



## carl_gustav317

Stymiest said:
			
		

> LOL I was going to post something but then I thought twice about it  ;D



hahaha! i was thinking the same thing!

i am glad they got rid of the fireman's carry. the drag is much more practical.


----------



## MedTechStudent

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The picture of that grappling dummy just brought back some scary memories of my CQC course, and our "dummy PT". Coincidentally, I know now I'll never ever want to carry someone on my shoulders for any distance. They're getting dragged.



My most vivid CQC memory is the hour long "warm up" before the 6-8 hours of high kicks and wrist locks.....


----------



## carl_gustav317

i have some fond memories of the guy in the red-man suite. unleashing his fury on me! until i realized that he wouldn't be hurt. then the head stuns, punches, kicks, and arm bars came into play.


----------



## SeanNewman

What I have just had clarified is the worry about losing the butt of your pants, because the casualty is not being dragged on their butt, but their heals.

Originally I imagined (as did others) thought the drag meant pulling on the Tac Vest alone, but the way this is to be done includes an initial lift with the casualty's head at the level of your head (almost like a back to front bear hug with your arms under their arms).

Edit: Corrected as per below.  The wording includes the word "lift" which is the direction I was given by e-mail and caused my confusion.  As the poster below points out, an official photo still shows it as a butt drag and not a boot drag.  My error of interpretation.


----------



## Haggis

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Originally I imagined (as did others) thought the drag meant pulling on the Tac Vest alone, *but the way this is to be done includes an initial lift with the casualty's head at the level of your head (almost like a back to front bear hug with your arms under their arms).*



Sorry, but that's incorrect.

Here the correct protocol is described as: "The casualty will lie down on their back with their shoulders even with the start line while crossing their arms across their chest and grabbing the collar of their tac vest or webbing firmly.  This will prevent the tac vest from possibly riding up and causing discomfort.  The soldier will squat down and grasp the casualty by the tac vest with both hands, making sure lift with the legs and not the back. "


----------



## SeanNewman

That is bizarre because I was just given that text as my direction, and if you read the text without seeing the picture, the part that may cause confusion is (to quote) "...ensuring their knees are not locked out.  The soldier will perform a single lift..."

When I read that, I see "lift" to mean "lift" as in get them off the ground.  If you are still dragging them on their butt, there is no "lift" involved.

So it was the way I originally thought it would be, and people will now be back to tearing up the butts of their combat pants en masse if a grassy surface is not used.


----------



## PMedMoe

Well, you still have to "lift" to get their upper body off the ground.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> "*The casualty will lie down on their back with their shoulders even with the start line while crossing their arms across their chest and grabbing the collar of their tac vest or webbing firmly*.  This will prevent the tac vest from possibly riding up and causing discomfort.  The soldier will squat down and grasp the casualty by the tac vest with both hands, making sure lift with the legs and not the back. "



Yeah, because that's how you'll find the casualty.   :  I suppose they have to have a standard, though.


----------



## dapaterson

MedKAWD said:
			
		

> My most vivid CQC memory is the hour long "warm up" before the 6-8 hours of high kicks and wrist locks.....



Admission:  At first I thought you were talking about the Chief Warrant Officer's Qualification Course (CQC), and not the Close Quarters Combat (Course (CQC).

Although, giving RSMs eight hours of instruction on high kicks and wrist locks might not be such a bad idea...


----------



## SeanNewman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Although, giving RSMs eight hours of instruction on high kicks and wrist locks might not be such a bad idea...



From the stories of MWOs (granted, not CWOs) I am surrounded by, I am under the understanding they received that training on their QL3 and ISCC through osmosis.


----------



## SocialyDistorted

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Do they have them in blonde, chest size around 36B 36D?  ;D



Fixed that for ya mate 

But wouldn't dragging the wounded person make them more vulnerable to killshots than the carry? Although I suppose it is much easier


----------



## SevenSixTwo

;D I wonder how many people are going to be pants'd when they get "casualty dragged".

Tighten those belts


----------



## Haggis

Did mine last week.  Kept my pants firmly in place with only a belt.  "Trouser drop" is not an issue if you maintained a waistline and hips. ;D


----------



## SeanNewman

I'm not worried so much about the pants falling off as I am the butts getting gouged/torn out of them.

The regs call for grass if you can, but I would make that day your faded field combats and not your new dark green ones to be safe (lesson learned from past impromptu combat PT sessions on the road involving drags).


----------



## medicineman

I thought that was why we were issued sewing kits, and barring that, why we had clothing stores on or near bases.  I'd much rather be worried about the ass on my combats getting a little wrecked that having to have medical support on site in case someone blew a disc or snapped a leg tripping with someone on their back.  I'd say the cost/benefit analysis comes out better - new pants vs training new soldier and paying off broken one(s). 

:2c:

MM


----------



## SeanNewman

Have never once seen a fit soldier injured due to the BFT.   

I have seen plenty injured on para landings or people rolling their ankles walking around in the middle of the night, but never on the fireman carry.

No trying to be a party pooper, just saying that if people are getting injured carrying someone else, perhaps they aren't staying fit enough or they picked the wrong profession.


----------



## PMedMoe

I think I got hurt more _being_ carried, than carrying.  But twisting one's ankle on a casualty carry does not make one unfit.


----------



## SeanNewman

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> But twisting one's ankle on a casualty carry does not make one unfit.



Fully agreed with you, but I've never seen it because it's on level ground (doesn't at all mean it doesn't happen).

But if we're dropping the fireman carry because of risk of injury, what's next?  Not walking in the field where there might be ruts?  Not walking around trees?  

Don't get me wrong, if you can increase workplace safety for nil investment then of course.  It would be crazy to hurt people when you don't have to, but I have literally seen hundreds more people injured playing sports than the fireman carry.


----------



## medicineman

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Have never once seen a fit soldier injured due to the BFT.
> 
> I have seen plenty injured on para landings or people rolling their ankles walking around in the middle of the night, but never on the fireman carry.
> 
> No trying to be a party pooper, just saying that if people are getting injured carrying someone else, perhaps they aren't staying fit enough or they picked the wrong profession.



Seen lots - and fit ones at that.  The reasons I see/saw them and you didn't: (1) they sure weren't going to tell you they hurt themselves, and (2) I have been doing this for 20 something years.  Seen very fit firefighters do the same thing - hence one of the reasons they drag people now too  .  


MM


----------



## SeanNewman

MM,

I 100% believe you and trust you, so worries and thank you.


----------



## VIChris

Done the drag three times now. Once on a concrete parade square, and twice on grass. The drag vs. lift really depends on the torso length ratio of you and your partner. It's tough if you're short to lift a taller guy high enough off the ground, and still be able to pull him along. For some it's one or the other, and when you MUST move, well the choice is made for you. My pants survived just fine, it was the tail of my combat shirt instead that was ruined when we went on concrete. My partner couldn't get me high enough off the ground and still lean into it enough to move rearward. This can be cheated a little though if the partner on th ground stiffens up a bit, and digs the heals down, like when you're on a waterslide. Though some consider this cheating a bit, as the partner hasn't gone completely limp, simulating an injured person. 

Clothing considerations aside, I felt more in control of my partner doing the drag vs. the firemans carry. I've done many carries through various sports training sessions over the years, and while it's a good workout, I wouldn't want to try to maneuver through rough terrain doing that while juggling a hurt person and a heavy load of gear.

Just my newbie  :2c:


----------



## mariomike

VIChris said:
			
		

> My partner couldn't get me high enough off the ground and still lean into it enough to move rearward. This can be cheated a little though if the partner on th ground stiffens up a bit, and digs the heals down, like when you're on a waterslide. Though some consider this cheating a bit, as the partner hasn't gone completely limp, simulating an injured person.



You never know how a real casualty will react. Some are unconscious or semi-conscious. Some are alert and compliant. Others may be combative, perhaps because of a head injury.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Admission:  At first I thought you were talking about the Chief Warrant Officer's Qualification Course (CQC), and not the Close Quarters Combat (Course (CQC).
> 
> Although, giving RSMs eight hours of instruction on high kicks and wrist locks might not be such a bad idea...



This would actually be my dream course 

Stymiest vs RSM  = Winner Stymiest via Heel Hook 

Yank.... This is what I think of standards 

Note=I am not being serious I do not want to injure my Sgt Major


----------



## VIChris

mariomike said:
			
		

> You never know how a real casualty will react. Some are unconscious or semi-conscious. Some are alert and compliant. Others may be combative, perhaps because of a head injury.


Very good point.


----------



## carl_gustav317

that is a good point. due to shock, the casualty could become quite combative. if completely unconscious, would be nothing than dead weight.

the way this test is supposed to be run, the "drag-ee" should simulate the unconscious casualty. admittedly, i have never been put in this scenario, but still fully support this change over the "fireman's carry" (that is not used by firemen, by the way).


----------



## C.Balogh

What is a good way to train for doing casualty drags? As a smaller person I tend to end up dragging people bigger than me and am considerably slower than my peers. What are some good exercises to do that would help me improve?


----------



## ballz

Your legs could do the drag forever, its generally the upper body that has a hard time holding on to someone who seems to get increasingly heavier each meter. I've seen people hugging and crossing arms and all kinds of stuff trying to hold onto someone.

The best method I'd found for this is something I learned in jiu jitsu for maintaining back control using leverage instead of strength. Reach under their armpits and grab the shoulder straps of their tac-vest as high as you can (up by their ears if you can reach). Do not cross your arms, your right hand grabs the right shoulder strap, left grabs the left. Now when you stand up, the back of their tac-vest will pull taught and you'll have a stable platform to hold onto. You'll be able to hold this and drag for quite a while without your upper body.


----------



## C.Balogh

Ok thanks, I'll try that next time!


----------



## daftandbarmy

C.Balogh said:
			
		

> Ok thanks, I'll try that next time!



Go to a beach with a length of rope, and a pair of gloves.

Tie it around a log.

Tow the log backwards along the beach. The stronger you get, the bigger the log you can select.

You can do the same in a grassy park with a full jerry can, and you can easily work it into a nice little circuit training routine with a few other simple exercises (sprints, squats, pushups etc).


----------

