New Dress Regs 🤣

[medicineman]

Not awarding Larochelle the Victoria Cross is an act of cowardice IMO.

The guy was hit with a rocket then woke up to being blinded in one eye, deaf in one ear, had a broken back, and besides 2 of his dead brothers. The OPs C6 was damaged so he grabbed 15 M72 and started launching them at the 20 attackers, covering the company's flank. Saved a lot of lives.

Would mean the GoC admitting that the GWoT was in fact a war then...

 

[Navy_Pete]

They're careerist wusses that are more concerned about crewing the boat/boat target and getting grievances than doing what's right?

I don't know why they would be, they wouldn't even deal with the grievance.

It would be nice if the Formation Safety and Environment folks would do their actual job though.

 

[stoker dave]

It would be nice if the Formation Safety and Environment folks would do their actual job though.

I earlier wrote a post about how safety management works in industry.

As I think more about this, I am realizing that DND is decades behind industry in developing and implementing a 'safety culture'. I understand that DND is an organization whose job is (amongst other things) to inflict violence. So worrying about some little safety problem becomes minor compared to getting shot or blown up.

But that's not right (IMHO). You have to worry about safety all the time except under extreme and very unusual circumstances ( like immediate life saving and getting shot / blown up). Here is an example of how safety culture works at my workplace, a heavy civil construction site with LOTS of site hazards:

• Safety training is mandatory and continuous.
• Violation of safety procedures gets you immediately kicked off site and possibly fired.
• The site safety officer reports to the project manager. He / she is everywhere always watching for safety hazards and stepping in where appropriate (education and awareness are his / her primary tools). There may be many safety staff on a big site.
• Every meeting starts with a safety moment to discuss a current safety hazard.
• Every work day starts with a safety briefing.
• Every day workers document what safety hazards they may encounter that day and how they will mitigate those hazards (they carry a little card in their pocket). Anyone at any time can be challenged to produce their card to show they have completed it accurately for the task they are doing. It must be updated as tasks change.
• There is a method for identifying and reporting safety hazards. Every month a draw is made of those reports and the winner gets a prize (so there is motivation to identify safety issues). The project manager tracks these reports to make sure they are addressed.
• The 'chain of command' is held responsible if their is a safety incident.
• The safety officer reports weekly on hazards, accident statistics, accidents, near misses, etc.
• There is always a budget for safety items.
• Every worker knows they have the right to a safe workplace and has the right to refuse unsafe work with zero negative repercussions. .
• Every worker has the authority to order work to be stopped for any reason with zero negative repercussions.

That's just off the top of my head. I am doing this to illustrate what I believe is a fundamental cultural difference.

 

[dimsum]

I earlier wrote a post about how safety management works in industry.

As I think more about this, I am realizing that DND is decades behind industry in developing and implementing a 'safety culture'. I understand that DND is an organization whose job is (amongst other things) to inflict violence. So worrying about some little safety problem becomes minor compared to getting shot or blown up.

But that's not right (IMHO). You have to worry about safety all the time except under extreme and very unusual circumstances ( like immediate life saving and getting shot / blown up). Here is an example of how safety culture works at my workplace, a heavy civil construction site with LOTS of site hazards:

• Safety training is mandatory and continuous.
• Violation of safety procedures gets you immediately kicked off site and possibly fired.
• The site safety officer reports to the project manager. He / she is everywhere always watching for safety hazards and stepping in where appropriate (education and awareness are his / her primary tools). There may be many safety staff on a big site.
• Every meeting starts with a safety moment to discuss a current safety hazard.
• Every work day starts with a safety briefing.
• Every day workers document what safety hazards they may encounter that day and how they will mitigate those hazards (they carry a little card in their pocket). Anyone at any time can be challenged to produce their card to show they have completed it accurately for the task they are doing. It must be updated as tasks change.
• There is a method for identifying and reporting safety hazards. Every month a draw is made of those reports and the winner gets a prize (so there is motivation to identify safety issues). The project manager tracks these reports to make sure they are addressed.
• The 'chain of command' is held responsible if their is a safety incident.
• The safety officer reports weekly on hazards, accident statistics, accidents, near misses, etc.
• There is always a budget for safety items.
• Every worker knows they have the right to a safe workplace and has the right to refuse unsafe work with zero negative repercussions. .
• Every worker has the authority to order work to be stopped for any reason with zero negative repercussions.

That's just off the top of my head. I am doing this to illustrate what I believe is a fundamental cultural difference.

I think that the Flight Safety culture in the RCAF is the closest to what you speak of.

But then again, dragging us back to the topic title, we'd also have non-flammable clothing for Techs instead of the current CADPAT.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Minus allowing Permanent residents to apply, has our recruiting numbers seen a marked increase since dropping the new dress regs?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That's what I thought. It's not really a polish though is it ? That was more of a treatment and blackner I thought.

I like it better than policy on “work” boots.

No one put that on their parade boots I hope.

Couldn’t look any worse than most of them do now that we issue those incredibly poor ankle boots.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think that the Flight Safety culture in the RCAF is the closest to what you speak of.

But then again, dragging us back to the topic title, we'd also have non-flammable clothing for Techs instead of the current CADPAT.

FS…I was also thinking the General Safety Program would fit the CAF “status quo” today.

Only, the CAF GS Program is understaffed and at the unit level, a secondary duty vice properly staffed and implemented as orders intend (former UGSO opinion).

 

[daftandbarmy]

FS…I was also thinking the General Safety Program would fit the CAF “status quo” today.

Only, the CAF GS Program is understaffed and at the unit level, a secondary duty vice properly staffed and implemented as orders intend (former UGSO opinion).

Bright idea: Simon Weston's photo on the wall of the CDS' Office might help keep the issue of burn prevention in wartime top of mind...

 

[OldSolduer]

FS…I was also thinking the General Safety Program would fit the CAF “status quo” today.

Only, the CAF GS Program is understaffed and at the unit level, a secondary duty vice properly staffed and implemented as orders intend (former UGSO opinion).

FWIW I tend to agree with you. Safety is an afterthought.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

FWIW I tend to agree with you. Safety is an afterthought.

I wouldn't even call it an afterthought. That makes it sound like something routine during an AAR.

It would say it's a set of guidelines that only comes out forensically; after something bad has happened, an investigation has occurred, and they're looking to place liability.

I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.

 

[dimsum]

I wouldn't even call it an afterthought. That makes it sound like something routine during an AAR.

It would say it's a set of guidelines that only comes out forensically; after something bad has happened, an investigation has occurred, and they're looking to place liability.

I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.

Hence the difference between RCAF flight safety and other...um..."safety" programs.

 

[OldSolduer]

Hence the difference between RCAF flight safety and other...um..."safety" programs.

One thing I will say about safety - during my time in the infantry - all of my career, there were very few incidents with weapons. Yes we all have heard of the incident in Suffield - which I believe placed the responsibility on the shoulders of a scapegoat - but when you consider the millions of rounds that have gone down range during live fire attacks, the casualties are minimal.

 

[Quirky]

I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.

I think everyones risk tolerance is different based on their experience and skill level. I don't know how it works in the Army world, but walking into a hangar full of leaky airplanes is a risk in itself.

 

[OldSolduer]

I think everyones risk tolerance is different based on their experience and skill level. I don't know how it works in the Army world, but walking into a hangar full of leaky airplanes is a risk in itself.

Here is a scenario for you - Imagine if you will you and 7 of your close buddies are armed and fully bombed up with front line ammo. Six x C7 assault rifles, two of which have 40 mm grenade launchers , 2 x C9 LMG, various grenades and other things to blow things up.
How does one safely conduct a live fire section attack? Its actually quite simple but to the untrained eye it looks very dangerous, but its only mildly dangerous. Training and communication is the key.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I think everyones risk tolerance is different based on their experience and skill level. I don't know how it works in the Army world, but walking into a hangar full of leaky airplanes is a risk in itself.

There being risk adverse, risk tolerant, and then stupidity masked as "risk acceptance."

"This building has asbestos in it, I'm not setting foot in it" is risk aversion. Yeah... sorry pal, none of these buildings are completely asbestos free. We can mitigate the risk by not eating the ceiling tiles.

"There is a potential that someone could get hurt on this live fire range, but we have trained folks on safety and have enough A/RSOs and control measures in place that it's rare that things will go badly. Let's roll." That's risk tolerance and mitigation

"Yeah I don't care if you just came off a 8 hour CP shift and haven't slept; you're driving that Bison, you're the only one qualified. Get moving!" ....well....I digress

My experience in the Army has been that this "can do", get it done, "You're in the Army... what are you going to do when the shooting starts?" mentality towards OHSA stuff in garrison.

It really is infuriating to see young dudes getting a 3B release; 3 years into a contract; because they were eager, cut corners, and had some idiot breathing down their neck to get the job done, regardless of it it were safe or not.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One thing I will say about safety - during my time in the infantry - all of my career, there were very few incidents with weapons. Yes we all have heard of the incident in Suffield - which I believe placed the responsibility on the shoulders of a scapegoat - but when you consider the millions of rounds that have gone down range during live fire attacks, the casualties are minimal.

We clearly need to train harder for war, then

High training casualties in 2019 stemmed from large-scale combat focus​

High training casualties in 2019 stemmed from large-scale combat focus

“If you are wearing your seat-belts, you survive. If you’re not wearing your seat-belts, you don’t,” the Army chief of staff said.

www.armytimes.com

 

[Kilted]

"There is a potential that someone could get hurt on this live fire range, but we have trained folks on safety and have enough A/RSOs and control measures in place that it's rare that things will go badly. Let's roll." That's risk tolerance and mitigation

There are many overlapping safety measures. Remember one yeah doing the PWT 3, starting at the 400. Targets went up everyone started to run till one new person fired a round instead of running. Yes, there were people ahead of them, about halfway down the mound, but the individual who fired stayed within their arcs. There was a safety failure, but another safety measure stopped it from resulting in an injury.

 

[ueo]

When did we issue boot polish ?

Joinrd 65 and was issued Kiwi black tops until 70 or so.

 

[ueo]

I wouldn't even call it an afterthought. That makes it sound like something routine during an AAR.

It would say it's a set of guidelines that only comes out forensically; after something bad has happened, an investigation has occurred, and they're looking to place liability.

I have been told "Yeah...so? Just STFU and do it" so many times in my career when I brought up safety issues, it makes me wonder if it's just window dressing.

Until something/body FUs

 

[Halifax Tar]

Joinrd 65 and was issued Kiwi black tops until 70 or so.

The good old days eh ? I was born in '79