• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

"Avoidable accident" on the ranges, report released on death in Tain last year

#82
It should have those in range training positions thinking hard and seriously about how they go about their profession and, importantly thinking clearly in a modern "Behavioural" way
30 years ago, reports like this crossed my desk as an SO3 as a matter of course, and were distributed to all units.

The fact that reports like this still need writing suggests that they've never had that impact.

Thinking in a modern behavioural way ought to cause folk to ask the question "Is there no way that is more effective than writing these reports, to improve the way that soldiers behave around weapons?"
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#83
Thinking in a modern behavioural way ought to cause folk to ask the question "Is there no way that is more effective than writing these reports, to improve the way that soldiers behave around weapons?"
The problem is that soldiers often only encounter firearms after they join up. This means that for a short period they are armed and dangerous. The recent wars have changed that but I doubt the accident rate dipped much if at all. If you look at the US Armed forces proportionatly I would guess that they have more fatal accidents because of over familiarity rather than the lack of familiarity that we enjoy.
I'm not sure what we can do to prevent boredom and tiredness playing a huge part in these accidents but treating trained soldiers like grown ups with a good level of hands off supervision doesnt always backfire.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#85
1DWR fired a handfull, the enemy didnt return fire being a gas powered bird scarer!
 
#86
The problem is that soldiers often only encounter firearms after they join up. This means that for a short period they are armed and dangerous. The recent wars have changed that but I doubt the accident rate dipped much if at all. If you look at the US Armed forces proportionatly I would guess that they have more fatal accidents because of over familiarity rather than the lack of familiarity that we enjoy.
I'm not sure what we can do to prevent boredom and tiredness playing a huge part in these accidents but treating trained soldiers like grown ups with a good level of hands off supervision doesnt always backfire.
I was thinking more generally, about all the factors identified in this report: it reveals a certain lack of understanding, and of diligence, by those in charge.

Potentially, if leadership was more competent, and aware . . .
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#87
I was thinking more generally, about all the factors identified in this report: it reveals a certain lack of understanding, and of diligence, by those in charge.

Potentially, if leadership was more competent, and aware . . .
The problem is the level of supervision, you can display trust and still supervise, the civilian DS answer is to remove the bolt on leaving the firing point, not something I have ever done, I would comply by putting the rifle in a slip.
The man failed to follow the drills either through negligence or lack of supervisied training, if the SOC had commenced with a WHT this may have set the bench mark for standards to be expected, however the changes to the course staff and program showed that the errors were given an opportunity to happen. Then after he had failed it was almost inevitable that an ND would take place, the impact is then down to luck or lack of it!
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#88
I'm afraid I am stuck in the failure of the firer taking primacy. You can have all the external factors but (a) resting your bloody head on the weapon - WTF (b) failure to unload, both feel like Darwinism as stated by others earlier.

I recall Bn Shooting team training, 100m Application of Fire, the NCO next to me, rather than clear his weapon at the end of the shoot applied his safety catch and showed clear (mag still on, one up the spout) and we all dressed forwards to check the targets. Experienced shots giving two fingers to the system because suddenly they're a bit special...
 
#89
A very short time before that course he was in a war zone , responsible for the safety of his weapon.
If he hadn't been killed he could have been sent on ops soon after.
There is no Range Staff looking over his shoulder there.
It doesn't matter, he ceased being on ops the moment he left theatre. Normal rules apply from that point.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#90
I'm afraid I am stuck in the failure of the firer taking primacy. You can have all the external factors but (a) resting your bloody head on the weapon - WTF (b) failure to unload, both feel like Darwinism as stated by others earlier.

I recall Bn Shooting team training, 100m Application of Fire, the NCO next to me, rather than clear his weapon at the end of the shoot applied his safety catch and showed clear (mag still on, one up the spout) and we all dressed forwards to check the targets. Experienced shots giving two fingers to the system because suddenly they're a bit special...
There is just no place for that on a range
 
#91
Americans.......KAF 2013. One of the cookhouses, jammed packed with people (at least 200 in there). Bang, ND rings out and across the sitting area one of the civilian contractors goes down, shot in the leg. "Shooter" was never found and rumours was he ran out the back of the kitchens in the confusion.
I used to share an office with some USMC and USAF personnel. They used to have a round in the chamber in their pistols as the norm which did concern me more than any IDF aimed at the base!
But having access to some US training reports it was stated that whilst the prevalence of gun ownership may well be the norm in the States, weapon handling skills and standards had recently gone down due to the fact that people were now joining the US mil having never handled a weapon before. This so called deficit was having to being factored into weapon training now.
 
#92
I'm afraid I am stuck in the failure of the firer taking primacy. You can have all the external factors but (a) resting your bloody head on the weapon - WTF (b) failure to unload, both feel like Darwinism as stated by others earlier.

I recall Bn Shooting team training, 100m Application of Fire, the NCO next to me, rather than clear his weapon at the end of the shoot applied his safety catch and showed clear (mag still on, one up the spout) and we all dressed forwards to check the targets. Experienced shots giving two fingers to the system because suddenly they're a bit special...
I don't disagree, BUT if you want to minimise the risk of such basic errors of drill, it is essential that you teach the drills properly in the first place, and ensure that correct range drills are observed.
 

AlienFTM

MIA
Book Reviewer
#93
What surprises me if the number of Scots DG on the course, I didn't know they had snipers.
They're Light Cavalry these days. Lot of snipers in Light Cav apparently.

Edit. As two stated well before I did.
 
#94
Indeed - and it is not the job of the Training Provider to go 'off piste' and not teach TOs that have been derived and agreed during the analysis phase of the DSAT process.
I don't disagree, BUT if you want to minimise the risk of such basic errors of drill, it is essential that you teach the drills properly in the first place, and ensure that correct range drills are observed.
Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
#95
In other words 'trained' means that you know how to operate the equipment safely and 'experienced' means that you are expected to know what good looks like.
i think people are getting confused. As a infantryman, all of these 22 lads were trained and experienced; as snipers (including familiarity on the weapon) they were crowbags.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#96
i think people are getting confused. As a infantryman, all of these 22 lads were trained and experienced; as snipers (including familiarity on the weapon) they were crowbags.
On all infantry courses the firing phases are always after passing an agreed level of competence usually wht's and simulation where a available, I recall internal Bn sniper cadres where failing the observation phases or stalking practices meant that you didn't get to do any live firing. Each phase or week consisted of instruction and practice followed by a series of tests, fail any and you were given remedial intruction or if poor just binned. The candidates lasting the whole course could pass but not be badged until assessed by a qualified and independent examiner Usually from Warminster
 
#97
You are correct. Everything you have posted is correct. He didn't unload properly. He didn't clear the weapon even though he indicated he had. You are correct.

You seem dismissive though about the absence of procedures designed to notice such behaviour eg DS1 wasn't observing the firer, he had left the firing point mid shoot. It's a very good example of why we had such procedures in the first place. You are correct though.

I always thought the practice of cocking the weapon three times when clearing it was OTT. It's just not necessary is it? Well here's a true dit...

Belfast, Mcrory park, 18 hour days, 7 day weeks, no days off. Blokes are knackered. Stupidly so. Doing top cover we always made ready, not foot patrols. Dismount, enter loading bay, ''Unload''. Bloke next to me cocks the weapon 3 times and ejects 3 rounds. I'm like whoa stop. Remove magazine. The drill caught an error.
He was an experienced soldier. It shouldn't have happened but it did. I realised the drills are designed for exhausted pissed of soldiers.
cocking it three times? Another way would be checking that you've removed the mag by the expedient of putting one's finger on the magazine receiver.
 
#98
On all infantry courses the firing phases are always after passing an agreed level of competence usually wht's and simulation where a available, I recall internal Bn sniper cadres where failing the observation phases or stalking practices meant that you didn't get to do any live firing. Each phase or week consisted of instruction and practice followed by a series of tests, fail any and you were given remedial intruction or if poor just binned. The candidates lasting the whole course could pass but not be badged until assessed by a qualified and independent examiner Usually from Warminster
once badged I'd consider them trained but inexperienced. A bloke who's passed a WHY and is on his first ACMT, I would neither day they were experienced or competent.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
I don't disagree, BUT if you want to minimise the risk of such basic errors of drill, it is essential that you teach the drills properly in the first place, and ensure that correct range drills are observed.
In no weapon drill I have ever known is resting one’s chin on the pointy bit acceptable. I can see - very loosely - that failing to unload could happen conceivably, but it’s hard to blame the system. I’m not trained on the Ford Mondeo but I can drive a BMW 3 series - as a consequence my driving license assumes a level of ability not requiring a new test certificate for each vehicle. Basics are still ******* basics.

In this case, the Swiss cheese example of airlines is a stretch.

EDITED FOR MONG KEYBOIARD SKILLS

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top