Armoured Vehicle ban?

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by RSupwood, Aug 29, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. This item is on the Janes Defence Weekly site:

    "*UK armoured vehicles face vibration law
    * New laws on vibration and noise in the workplace are threatening to halt the British Army's armoured vehicles in their tracks"

    As I do not subscribe to JDW I cannot get further information from the site, does anyone have any information on this?
  2. Well health and safety did for scorpion so guess thats warrior and challenger for the scrapheap .Because it will be so much
    safer driving around in a landrover :roll: .Fair enough in civvy workplace but afvs are diffrent hpe someone gets a grip .Though
    guess it will probably be soldiers signing exemption slips :roll: .
  3. Excused Boots, Excused PT, Excused AFV - what next ??
  4. Excused fighting and getting shot at, unless you are wearing trainers, and then you have to have enough sleep in a proper bed, and not having to march or carry your kit and the helmet is a no no... far too heavy .... or do i show my cynical side?
  5. This is balls. I am, ahem, a 'Health and Safety Professional', take it from me.

    The Army is utterly crap at interpreting H&S law, and nonsense like this is the result of half informed time expired officers with 'health and safety' in their job title misunderstanding legislation/guidance. They then start bleating to a friend of a friend at mess drinks, it gets to some publication or other (usually the Telegraph or Mail), on or near a quiet news day.

    Balls balls balls.
  6. As is a lot of the "PC gone mad" fiction we see in the media (and on this site) almost every day.
  7. Steamy there is one SO1 at at least one HQ who does nothing but negotiate with the HSE about what is and isn't allowed. I don't know the current chap, but I did know the last one and he most certainly was neither ill informed nor time expired. I do know from my time in manufacturing that the HSE could be divided into two groups. The ones that did the accident investigations, who by and large were practical engineers with sensible views and the office wallahs who seemed to live on a planet all of their own.
  8. Dead right. Mind you, AFVs are pretty scary and can be dangerous. Perhaps we should re-name them. How about 'multi-crew persuasion devices'? 'Tactical opposition inhibitors'? 'Recyclable foreign - policy projection systems'?
  9. Come on then Steamy as an H&S Professional what's your take? what is the 'ruling' and how are time expired officers interpretting it incorrectly? A bit of infromed opinion wouldn't go amiss Ta.

  10. If they ban vibrating AFVs, there goes 'Convoy C*ck'!
  11. Sorry Mushroom, my last was aimed at Booty.

    Accident investigators are also the ones (usually on job rotation) who offer advice and guidance on compliance with legislation, at the user end and at the equipment designer end, and in between.

    I was generalizing for brevity; a lot of the forces (not just the Army), and indeed the public services generally, suffer from a syndrome which I see a lot. That is, give a middle manager 'H&S' in the job spec and walk away. Sometimes it works - a pro-active manager grips problems such as ill health, dangerous practices, poor maintenance. Sometimes it doesn't - a manager with no time for 'all this modern elf'n'safety rubbish' just slaps bans on various items/procedures to the resentment and frustration of all. Or ignores it.

    Sensible H&S is part of good management and recognised as such by any organisation with a corporate IQ higher than gerbil's. There's no point in getting people killed, injured or damaged for the sake of machismo or through laziness. EG all the lower leg injuries in Army trainees circa. 1985 as a result of the 'nike' generation suddenly having to wear boots in CMS(R) training. Haha poofy trainees say the DS; 50% drop out rate. Very funny, but for the sake of a few changes the Army loses a huge chunk of it's expensively obtained young soldiers; as recognised very quickly by the hierarchy introducing new regimes including slow build up of boot wearing.

    Good management, and IMHO good leadership, will always include quality control along the stream, including H&S. You can't bolt it on at the end, and it isn't about pointless paperwork. Changing attitudes of the lads on the ground is the hard part, as it is very easy to get either a risk averse culture (very bad in the Forces) or get a 'parallel universe' where the paperwork says one thing and the reality on the ground is totally different. I have lost count of the number of industrial accidents I have seen where the management were unaware of the causal problem. In most cases, though, they had a nice A4 ring binder in the office, which demonstrated clearly how everyone was fully trained, all the kit properly maintained, and every worker was 'empowered' to be at 'best practise standard' and an 'ambassador for safety'. And that is where a lot of Army units are.
  12. God this is dull but worthy. :oops:
  13. Good post though, Steamy!

    You dull dullardy dullard...

  14. Or is it just another excuse from the MOD for not investing into new AFV?
  15. Most of the toms I know are quite capable of self generating Convoy Cock! Is there a female equivalent, perhaps called Packet Pussy?!