Health & Safety Nazis

Discussion in 'The Training Wing' started by OldSnowy, Oct 9, 2002.

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. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    I have come to the coclusion that we seem to be increasingly taken over and ruled by H&S Naxis.  In the last 24 Hours alone I have been told that:

    - Drivers of a 3/4t + Tlr with Pax in the back must now hold a C + E Licence!

    - Our TA Recruits can only be instructed in Assault Courses by a Regular PTI, not a TA one (And our Bn hasn't got any regular PTIS!)!!

    - Driver Hours: our 'vocational Drivers' cannot drive HGVs on Friday nights, as they are assumed to have used up their 'hours' during the week (Driving cars, LRS, and minibuses is fine, though!)!!!

    What does this mean?   It adds up to less training, less realistic training, more pi**ed-off Troops, and therefore fewer of 'em.

    Anyone know anyone responsible for these (and many other) disasters, who I can have a go at?
     
  2. Mr Happy

    Mr Happy LE Moderator

    Is that all from your QM?  If Yes then suggest you sign out a new one, if No then I'd wait out.  I might add that all your points may have hidden agendas, in order;

    Stop trailers going out so they can stay shiny in the vehicle park.

    Stop Assault course training in favour of something else.

    Get more HGV drivers in the unit.

    Of course I'm putting a positive flavour on three absolutely stupid rules.  I would personally respond with:

    C+E has nothing to do with Pax, doesn't mention it.

    That's OK, TA recruits can't be shot at by the enemy only regulars so don't need to train... (that's sarcasm for the infanteers out there)

    Assuming vocational drivers have used all their hours, could be a fair point but that's not HS and that is up to the individual drivers to know not have dictated to.  
     
  3. Health and Safety Nazis are indeed an Absolute Shower!

    Commonsense safety is one thing, but H&S seems to be the place of choice for all the trainee jobsworths out there, particularly with a reference to MT and driving issues.

    Ship them all off to Mars or somewhere PLEASE!

    Absolute Shower! :mad:
     
  4. Have you heard about the H&S man who was sent to check out the safety issues involved in crewing CR2 - it might be apocryphal, but apparently he got into the driver's seat, closed down and the turret was swung around, after which he refused to get back into the tank!
     
  5. i agree it is getting way beyond normal stupidity

    In the unit i am serving with we have this SOP:
    Ignore everything that doesn't suit your training requirements and get on with it for fucks sake.

    As we all know training must come first, it could be are lives depending on it.

    You just need an OC with the right bollocks, trouble is they r rare
     
  6. Just Found out that its all a plot to scupper us
    Eventually,
    The Minister for Defence Procurement Has Odered X Billion tonnes of extra Thick DPM Coloured Cotton Wool to be made into new combats and has ordered Large Soldier Portable signs that read in Several Languages
    " Please Please DO NOT shoot at me as our Health and Safety Exec(Nazis) says I am not allowed to shoot back because of the loud bang cant  come over there and kick B***  because 1. repetative stress may happen and 2. getting a little over excited may damage my health
     
  7. Hey, thought it would be fun to put the last post on this board back to the first post with a completely irrelevant reply.

    My god, the last relevant reply on this post was Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:00 pm, that's almost 3 years! 3 years sitting dormant with nobody to look at it. However, it does show a commitment to ARRSE.
     
  8. Oh come on how about being issued those big plastic goggles you used to have at school when you are doing FIBUA, being asked to wear them during FIWF in case you get a splinter in your eye, or my favourite telling a TA field hospital(you know doctors nurses A&E) that due to insurance reasons they have to send someone on a HSE first air course to be the appointed first aider on the course!!!!!!.


    How they can say HSE has not dammaged Military Training is beyond me.
     
  9. the army like many organisations have gone totally risk averse without even physically looking at the activities and driving health and safety from behind a desk and a set of regulations. The requirment for training is one dictated by statutory law ie in order to drive a certain vehicle you need to pass a test for that vehicle. The army has gone in for complete overkill when you need an HGV licence to drive an ambulance. With regard to the question of PTI's individuals must be competant and have passed the relevant course whether reg or ta.
    The HSE are the enforcing authority and it is my experience that they will seek to assist employers in reducing accidents etc. It is the so called health and safety advisors in the army/civvy street who, rather than draw up a suitable and sufficient risk assessments for activites take the easy route and ban everything as it is less work for them
    I
     
  10. Spot on. It is amazing how people mis-interpret H&S and blame everything on it
    No where in the H&S at work act does it say anything about driving hours, or driving with trailers, or assault courses. What it does say, as YS quite correctly points out, is that it requires a risk assessment. Most people cant be arrsed to do them correctly, and then take the easy way out by suggesting - Cant do it because of H&S. Its not the law that is at fault, its peoples inability to comprehend it thats the problem
     
  11. Granted, HSE make training almost impossible in some instances, as in any job there are those who take things to the extreme -



    People who ignore safety during training are the precise reason it's there. These people are even worse than the other morons who take safety to cotton wool extremes.
     
  12. msr

    msr LE

    And how many people are trained to do a correct risk assessment?

    And how may know that it doesn't necessarily (low risk/low hazard) have to be written down?

    msr
     
  13. A couple of years ago I had the good fortune (no irony intended) to be given a place on a risk management course. It taught me that H&S legislation is nothing to be afraid of provided whoever is applying it knows what they’re doing.

    The essence of risk management is the recognition that nothing can be made risk free. However, by using a variety of risk management techniques risk can be reduced to the ‘as low as reasonably possible’ level, known by the hideous acronym ALARP.

    I won’t bore anyone with a detailed description of it, but it works. And it protects the activity from any H&S Nazis who just want to prevent it from going on.
     
  14. This is correct he also deemed the turret unsafe because of the open gear ring, boiling water in the BV and the breech block moving without an adequate guard.
     
  15. All of which pale into insignificance when you consider what the crew's role is !

    I agree with the LAND approach though, risk assessments of training objectives to ensure all the measures have been considered; you wouldn't want to do a river crossing in training without the safety and it's not as if anyone is saying don't do it. As already said, they're just saying make sure you've thought about all the 'what ifs' beforehand - just good drills really.

    I really can't see the point of the radiation sticker on the Silva compass though - WTF is that all about ?!!