Equipment Care

We have just had an Internal ECI and some of the points brought up which resulted in some departments getting a "red" made me wonder whether we are all on the same side here. I can understand why some points need to be raised and brought to the attention of the key holder, but in some instances they were brought up in such a manner as to bring the capabilities of that key holder into question. Certain seniors trying to score points with the QM by pointing out where the guy is going wrong. What makes it more annoying is when its the same senior who has a chat and a drink in the mess with the guy!! A quiet word out of earshot would suffice and would stop the back stabbing and sniping that occurs when Regimental teams are formed to inspect their colleagues. Internal ECI's are essential to aid the Regiment in gaining a pass but it should not be a witch hunt.
Far better to have these deficiencies kept in house, than an external ECI team to find them, as they have to report them which allows all within the Bde or Div Tps C2 chain to get said visibility.Plus, if you get a second red from an external thats an interview without coffee for the CO with the GOC.

If youre really unlucky and those deficiencies contribute to a severe failing of equipment and there are injuries, or even fatalities, then the LAIT team will shut the Unit down and leave no stone unturned.

Interesting post, surely the key holder is the QM as his UECD is Regimental policy and to follow the ECI LANDSO isnt exactly rocket science, that individual the SNCO clearly isnt following the UECD or the QM has not got a grip of his SNCO staff.

PM me if you need more info

Similar threads

Latest Threads