ARmy Rumour SErvice

**chocolate_frog** · 22-04-2012, 19:49

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

So what about if you had a PLCE Assault Vest?

(PLCE and webbing are different things....)

Only for tedious cnuts...

PLCE = webbing
assault vests = assault vests

No one who knows what they are about makes any mistake between the two. Airsofters on the other hand...

**A1ex136** · 22-04-2012, 20:59

I have an Assault Vest with a PLCE belt attached to it, that's what I meant...

**Buzz** · 22-04-2012, 21:06

Hang on a second, PLCE can be stripped down to skeleton fighting order so why the fuck ban it?

I think this whole threads the result of some self important knob issuing a proclamation that will be roundly ignored by everyone.

**chocolate_frog** · 22-04-2012, 21:26

It hasn't been banned.

**dinosaur_poo** · 22-04-2012, 21:27

Originally Posted by Buzz

I think this whole threads the result of some self important knob issuing a proclamation that will be roundly ignored by everyone.

My understanding is that is the long and the short of it.

**chocolate_frog** · 22-04-2012, 22:01

Originally Posted by dinosaur_poo

My understanding is that is the long and the short of it.

It isn't.

The reasons for withdrawal are nothing to do with Cadets backs etc... the reason for some counties banning webbing altogether is a different matter.

**A1ex136** · 22-04-2012, 22:27

Which is...?

**Alan Partridge** · 22-04-2012, 22:30

Originally Posted by A1ex136

Which is...?

A perceived shortage of PLCE in the Army supply system.

Therefore PLCE is being withdrawn from the CF to put back into the system.

Why this has happened when the Army are transitioning to MTP is a mystery

**Buzz** · 22-04-2012, 22:37

A lot of companies and detatchments dont get access to PLCE webbing anyway most of the time and the only time kids see webbing is skanky 58 issued on annual camp. The general situation seems to be "buy your own" with the small amount of available modern kit getting issued only to battle craft groups and the like.

If a county does purchase equipment it's very likely purchased as surplus or kit disposed of by a unit and given to the cadets rather than destroy it, that makes it owned by the cadets so it can't be "withdrawn" in a lot of cases as the army supply chain never provided it.

CCF units who the MOD seem to throw money at may get PLCE widely issued and may now get it taken off them but then again who gives a toss about the rich kids? they can buy their own sodding kit for a change.

**dinosaur_poo** · 22-04-2012, 23:09

I was under the impression that the ACF were never given PLCE, and that all PLCE existing within the cadet forces is private purchase or off-the-record hand me downs from local TA units, useful contacts etc. Is this not the case? Anyway, that kit often being 'second rate' was one of the concerns I had heard voiced.

If the ACF doesn't have PLCE outside private arrangements, surely the MoD can't withdraw it?

The version of events which I heard was that whilst the cadets aren't 'employees' of the MoD as such, the equipment still needed to meet standards laid down in the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998. The basics of PUWER is that all equipment issued for work should be:
■ suitable for the intended use;
■ safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and, in certain circumstances, inspected to ensure this remains the case;
■ used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training; and
■ accompanied by suitable safety measures, eg protective devices, markings, warnings.

Note that PUWER applies regardless of whether the employer provided it on issue, or whether the employee bought it off their own back.

Whilst the first bit may be true, I heard there were greater concerns with the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sections. With webbing gained 'outside the system' or by private purchase, each part would need to be individually checked as 'safe for use and maintained in a safe condition' and I suspect that in some cases it would fail to do so. Like was 'adequate information, instruction and training' - can the ACF provide this? Yes I know it's not rocket science but at current AIs receive no formal training in the assembly and use of PLCE webbing, so are unable to pass that on to the cadets. "accompanied by suitable safety measures" - again, whilst there isn't much to go wrong, the pieces will usually arrive on their own, with no paperwork detailing inspection or maintenance etc, which would have come with the original, new, product.

The training vest, however, can tick all the boxes. It has been deemed "suitable for use" by an official ACF body, and every one issued is identical and bagged up brand new. They are deemed 'safe for use' and a maintenance system has been put in place - being an issued product, any damaged kit can be returned through the system for replacement. They will be 'only used by people who have received adequate information" since AIs attending the new SAA course at Frimley are doing so with the CTV. They will be "accompanied with suitable safety measures" by the manufactuer, the distribution of this to the units will be as deemed necessary through the issuing process.

Any thoughts on this? On reading PUWER it does make sense. I think the point is it's not so much that "PLCE is dangerous", it's more that "privately acquired equipment not gained through the issue system where no control over quality, maintenance or inspection is held by ACF counties; is dangerous" which, I think, we could have some sympathy for that school of thought. Indeed, some of the things that ACF units have procured for cadet use over time has been questionable to say the least.