Going back to St Jean

[ballz]

That's one effed up leg. I'm amazed that happened on the obstacle course to be honest.

My point still stands, however, and there's nothing in it to be offended about, nor was it "making light" of anything. It was suggested that the standards be lowered to accommodate more people, and I don't agree with that sentiment.

 

[Jammer]

Hang in there LilT.
It'll all be worth it

 

[Lil_T]

ballz - as I said, I'm not offended, but I do feel you were making light considering past comments.  Now, I can understand how you wouldn't grasp the intensity of my injury and how it could happen on the OC, but it did - and does to others as well, almost regularly.  I do not feel that the standards should be lowered, quite the opposite in fact.  But I will agree with Celticgirl in that I don't believe we should be risking a serious injury with career implications so close to graduation.  Unfortunately, until the day comes where I work within the training system and I can affect how the course unfolds, I simply can't control that.



Jammer - thank you, I know it will be in the end.  I'm just looking forward to the day when I can run again.  And climb all those GD stairs.

 

[Kat Stevens]

At the risk of putting my neck in the noose yet again, here I go.  All training has a physical component that has the possibility of injury, possibly career ending.  The number of washouts on my CLC due to physical injury was astronomical.  Same for TQ3, TQ5, Hel Ops, Basic Para (me included) Leo D&M, ad nauseum.  Crappy that it happened to you, or anyone for that matter, but happen it will.

 

[Lil_T]

Oh, I'm fully aware of that Kat, and I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.  That being said, there is already a rather physically demanding curriculum during the last few weeks of BMQ that the OC isn't necessarily necessary.  I *personally* don't think having 2+ platoons worth of sleep  deprived recruits running an obstacle course in FFO is a particularly great idea.  That's all.  I know my former platoon did the damn thing at least once a week. 

 

[Nauticus]

Oh, I'm fully aware of that Kat, and I'd be foolish to expect otherwise.  That being said, there is already a rather physically demanding curriculum during the last few weeks of BMQ that the OC isn't necessarily necessary.  I *personally* don't think having 2+ platoons worth of sleep  deprived recruits running an obstacle course in FFO is a particularly great idea.  That's all.  I know my former platoon did the damn thing at least once a week.

I feel bad for your injury... but why not? Why does the proximity to graduation matter?

The fact of the matter is there isn't a graduation in war. BMQ should challenge all recruits, and I feel it should be even harder than it currently is. Most people who get injured in BMQ simply lack the fitness they need; others are just unlucky. Those who are unlucky always get a second chance. Those who are simply not in good enough shape won't pass the second time, and they get sent home.

 

[ballz]

I feel bad for your injury... but why not? Why does the proximity to graduation matter?

The fact of the matter is there isn't a graduation in war. BMQ should challenge all recruits, and I feel it should be even harder than it currently is. Most people who get injured in BMQ simply lack the fitness they need; others are just unlucky. Those who are unlucky always get a second chance. Those who are simply not in good enough shape won't pass the second time, and they get sent home.

I'm 100% on board with every part of your post (especially that BMQ should be harder than it currently is). I had a post typed up, but thought I would leave it alone for a bit, and came home to see yours and Kat's sentiments and I'm right on board with both of you.

What I had typed originally, was that just because a 6 month tour is winding down, doesn't mean all the ops and missions just cease and everybody just chills out in limbo for the last week. The whole "so close to grad" stuff is just in people's head, and a bad thing to have in there at that.

Getting recoursed in week 2 is no different than week 11, in reality, but people's perception is usually not in line with reality.

 

[mellian]

It may vary instructor to instructor, are the obstacle reviewed with generally idea of how to tackle them safely before a training platoon does them?

Whenever I do something that may risk injury, I make a point to make sure how to do it safely, either someone trains how or/and from observing others. There are risks in everything, but there is such a thing as being reckless. If there is no need (as in your or others lives are not in the line) to risk something known to cause bad injuries in decent numbers, than it becomes reckless.

 

[Kat Stevens]

There are not many things in the military you'll be asked to do without a demonstration first.

 

[aesop081]

I don't believe we should be risking a serious injury with career implications so close to graduation.

*News Flash*

BMQ is not the last time you will risk career ending injuries. What's next ? "I cant go to Afghanistan, i might injur myself severly and end my career" ?

Oh and dont bother playing any CF sports.......

or doing something like my job for example......

Yes the course (BMQ) can be demanding but for cripse sake, you are not the first person in the CF to have done it. We did things like the OC to the very end too..........

Edit : Good luck with your recovery.

 

[Lil_T]

Holy hell.

I don't think I ever once said let's stop the OC once and for all. Not even. Yeah, working in the CF can be dangerous - I'm aware. But do not put words in my mouth. Everything we do has a degree of risk. I risk re-injuring myself daily just walking outside. Truly, I wouldn't have signed my contract if I wasn't ready to accept that risk. 

The point was made around graduation, that's all, I see no need to crucify someone over one OC session.  I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity to do the OC or other similar training on SQ or whatever.

Am I scared to do it (the OC) again?  Hell yes, but I will. I know I'm not ready to do it right now. But when the time comes it'll be balls to the wall and I'll tackle the damn thing again with as much if not more determination than I did before. Its just who I am.

 

[Celticgirl]

That's one effed up leg. I'm amazed that happened on the obstacle course to be honest.

My point still stands, however, and there's nothing in it to be offended about, nor was it "making light" of anything. It was suggested that the standards be lowered to accommodate more people, and I don't agree with that sentiment.

You will need to read my post again. I did not suggest that "standards be lowered". I was talking of Standards, the division. You know, the folks who decide what is taught on military courses like BMQ? They are the ones who decide things like how many times a platoon will visit the Confidence Course, so my 'suggestion' was that Standards reconsider sending platoons on the course 4 or 5 times throughout a 13-week course. It just seems excessive and elevates the chance of injury.

I also disagree that succeeding on the Confidence Course is about 'athleticism'. It is really about overcoming your fears (hence the name) more than overcoming the obstacles themselves. The vast majority of folks on basic training courses are fit enough to complete the Confidence Course (if not all of them; this is, after all, the raison d'etre of the Expres test in week 0). It's just a matter of, well, confidence. However, there are also some conditions that will affect one's performance like being extremely tired and/or sore, inclement weather, etc.  I successfully manoeuvered the monkey bars the three previous times I did the course, but that fourth time, I just lost my grip. I was tired, pure and simple. It had zero to do with my athleticism or lack thereof.

In winter especially, these obstacles become more dangerous. I just have to question the decision to have troops run through the obstacles a fourth time in the final two weeks of the course. Right before heading to the field, no less. Yes, the powers that be want to challenge recruits, but look at how many people end up on PAT or AWT (I think that is the term for it now) for weeks or months, some never able to complete their training and ultimately being released. After completing 10 or 11 grueling weeks of basic training, it's quite the kick in the teeth to get recoursed and have to adjust to being on a new platoon late in the course (if one is lucky enough not to get recoursed back to the beginning or lucky to be back on a platoon at all).

Anyway, I do not wish to be argumentative here. I simply dislike seeing posts that dismiss those who had trouble on basic training as being unfit in some way, whiners, sh** pumps, or whatever. That is not necessarily the case. Don't assume the training system weeds out the aforementioned 'types', either. More often than not, it doesn't.

I think I need a few bucks for this one... :2c:  :2c:  :2c:  :2c:  lol

 

[George Wallace]

In winter especially, these obstacles become more dangerous.

I am surprised that they would run anyone through an Obstacle/Confidence Course in the winter.  Every Base I have been on, the Obstacle Crse has been closed as being unsafe, for the winter. 

 

[Celticgirl]

I am surprised that they would run anyone through an Obstacle/Confidence Course in the winter.  Every Base I have been on, the Obstacle Crse has been closed as being unsafe, for the winter.

I did it in mid-January of this year on my first course (in St. Jean) and in late November/early December on my last (in Borden), so obviously that does not always happen. Ironically, the CC was closed on rainy days. But a little ice and snow? No problem. Go figure, eh. 

 

[Lil_T]

well - time will tell I suppose.  I haven't been in St Jean during the winter, so when I go back the end of January we'll see.

 

[JBoyd]

I am surprised that they would run anyone through an Obstacle/Confidence Course in the winter.  Every Base I have been on, the Obstacle Crse has been closed as being unsafe, for the winter.

Our Platoon was scheduled to have our 2nd run at the obstacle course after our 3.2km rucksack march. That was 2 weeks ago and there was snow in Saint Jean, Not sure what everyone's definition of winter is but I believe that snow on the course would add higher risk to possible injury. We didn't end up doing the course as it was double booked and there was another Platoon on it when we got there, our staff didn't wish to stand out side in the cold for 40 minutes waiting so we had our bible and were dismissed for the day. A few of the recruits were disappointed that we were not able to do it (our first attempt only had reach section tackle about 4-5 obstacles) but on the flipside I think that if we had then we would have had at least one other injury.

After our first run in week 2 while it was raining one of the MCpls commented that they should spray paint grip paint on most of the obstacles so that there would be a lowered risk of injuries. I don't know if injuries ultimately equate to a lack of athleticism, personally I think it results from a number of factors, including luck. In the end though, I feel that the majority of BMQ is to push you past your limits. Personally there are a few things so far that I have been reluctant to do due to fears, however after accomplishing those things and conquering my fears I experienced a boost in morale. I feel that this is the underlying motive behind the OC, regardless of possible injuries or not.

 

[ballz]

You will need to read my post again. I did not suggest that "standards be lowered". I was talking of Standards, the division. You know, the folks who decide what is taught on military courses like BMQ? They are the ones who decide things like how many times a platoon will visit the Confidence Course, so my 'suggestion' was that Standards reconsider sending platoons on the course 4 or 5 times throughout a 13-week course. It just seems excessive and elevates the chance of injury.

I read your post just fine and knew exactly who you were talking about and what you were saying. Running the obstacle course less times is lowering the standards. It's no different than saying "we'll run less distance because 4-5 km is 'excessive and elevates the chance of injury'"

 

[George Wallace]

....................... Running the obstacle course less times is lowering the standards. It's no different than saying "we'll run less distance because 4-5 km is 'excessive and elevates the chance of injury'"

That should have been posted in "Whats the dumbest thing you heard said today?" thread. 

There is NO standard as to how many times someone runs through the Obstacle Crse.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps someone at CFRC, or running a BMQ somewhere else, could go to the TP and look up the PO/EO for the Obstacle Crse and post what the EC and/or PC is for it, as well as the number of classes dedicated to it.

 

[ballz]

That should have been posted in "Whats the dumbest thing you heard said today?" thread. 

There is NO standard as to how many times someone runs through the Obstacle Crse.

Well then maybe there ought to be? If a platoon runs it once and a person in another platoon gets injured on their 10th time doing it, then they might have reason to complain. If it's set in stone how many you will do, then it is what it is.

But yes George, that's definitely dumb of me to say because I'm so involved with writing the curriculum for BMQs that I ought to know better. It should be common sense to me that there is no standard amount of times for doing the OC. Or, common sense would suggest that there's always some sort of standard, so to assume there is one in this case is logical.

But no, I concede, this is dumber than a gr 4 science student assuming that cold water always freezes faster than hot water.