• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Report on cadets death

#2
That reads like a horror story... its difficult to believe it's a factual document.

Lots of harsh lessons to be learnt.

RIP to the wee lass and condolances to the family.
 
#3
The full marine accident investigation branch report was published in 2007 and is a disaster story from one end to the other. Possibly the silliest thing was to fit a single 200HP outboard on a transom designed to carry two 140Hp engines by simply bolting it onto the port mounting position. Apart from creating a list to port the mounting it affected steering under all conditions. Click for report with pictures

The AGIs pertaining to water based activities were pretty much all breached and even the most basic of RYA standards were not met. It seems that this was typical of the user looking at a 2 ton boat with a big engine and a steering wheel and asking "how hard can it be?"

I've seen some very silly things at sea over the years, but this was right out there in make-believe land.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#4
RIP.

RASPs, EASPs, Risk Assessments etc often seem to be a nuisance and hindrance to good trg. There is a reason why we should do them properly.
 
#5
This was a terrible tragedy above all for Kaylee's family and friends, but also for the Army in Scotland and the ACF throughout the UK.

The repercussions are likely to continue for some time. It will be necessary to review the lessons learned once again in light of the Sheriff's very thorough FAI report, which supplements the Marine Accident Investigation Branch report of 2007. However it should not be thought that nothing had been done already. I noted this from the Sheriff's report:

In November 2007 the Army's Chief of Staff, Reserve Forces had issued instructions to the ACF requiring all ACF activity not identified in the APC syllabus, regardless of whether a risk assessment had been completed or not, to be reviewed by the relevant Brigade Training and Safety Adviser. The instructions required all training to be officially authorised by the relevant cadet commandant. The practical effect of that instruction was to require all ACF training not part of the ACF syllabus to be scrutinised by an Army officer with training in matters of health and safety to advise the relevant ACF Commandant if the requirements of JSP 535 and AGAI Chapter 18 have not been complied with. The instruction also reinforced the requirement to comply with the provisions of the JSP 535 and the need for carrying out headcounts at appropriate times when working with cadets.

· Cadet units now have to submit an audit of all boats held.

· The Army's Chief Environmental Safety Officer has conducted a review of training within the ACF. As a consequence the training provided to ACF officers in health and safety matters is being reviewed and, it was said, improved.

· The gifting of MOD boats to ACF units has ceased.

· There has been a return of lifejackets issued to ACF units which have not otherwise been authorised for use by them.

· An audit and listing of all water safety equipment held by cadets is to take place.

· The need for the computer system for the issue of water safety equipment, designed to prevent the issue of inappropriate equipment to ACF units, to effectively so do has been acknowledged.

· The Army's regulations affecting the safe conduct of activities by the ACF are to be centralised, codified and made available electronically.

· The ACF syllabus of activities is to be reviewed.
That was the position wef Nov 2007.

RIP Kaylee McIntosh.
 
#6
The whole episode was a general farce from begining to end.

I read the report in 2007 from the MAIB as it was being banded around my SCC unit as "this is what happens when we are less than 100% professional."

The boats and safety equipment was in such a poor shape that i wouldn't have stepped in them while tied up let alone out in open ater in the western isles. They lacked radios and the main way of communication appeared to be letting off a burst of black 7.62 from a GPMG that they shouldnt have even had.

It shouldnt have been allowed to happen and it cost a little girl her life. If the lesson hasn't been learned then there will be more errible accidents.
 
#7
I get mocked for being a rule monkey but this tragic event just highlights the importance of following the rules. The SST needs to be put into place at all times!
 
#9
Such a terrible and yet avoidable tragedy. Having heard the interview with Kaylee's mother this afternoon, it is little wonder that her grief is compounded by the findings. TopBadgers comments are to the point, and Instinct's post:

I read the report in 2007 from the MAIB as it was being banded around my SCC unit as "this is what happens when we are less than 100% professional."

The boats and safety equipment was in such a poor shape that i wouldn't have stepped in them while tied up let alone out in open ater in the western isles. They lacked radios and the main way of communication appeared to be letting off a burst of black 7.62 from a GPMG that they shouldnt have even had.
is at the heart of this terrible incident.

Thanks for posting the detail from the Army's Chief of Staff (Reserve Forces) instruction's Hackle.
 
#10
it just leaves so many questions to be asked...

- how could the MoD supply 4 assault boats (clearly designed as ASSAULT craft not safety craft) to a cadet unit, knowing they would use them, and fail to check them or their safety equipment?
- why did an officer clearly lie to his TSA saying that cadets were being bussed when they were actually being boated? is this lying something that happens in other scenarios just doesn't get latched onto? the only reason the TSA wasn't told is the CEO knew the answer he'd get would be no, so lied and did it anyway. what is the point in having RAs etc if people just free-for-all it and do whatever?
- how is the CEO able to get a GPMG and blank just by asking his TA unit? is the TA just a free gun hire company? mine isn't, but how can a weapon possibly be issued off the record to a formation unauthorised to fire it?
- with assault boats being used, people wearing army lifejackets, GPMGs mounted on the front, cadets carrying weapons etc... was a beach assault the planned activity? this is ridiculous in the ACF, and one might ask whether even more serious accidents could have happened had the event not gone wrong in the early stages?

and so many more.

the whole thing has exposed the dangerous reality of how the Army's prized youth organisation can be operated. it has cast doubt on the responsibilities of AIs, the TA, and the MoD. it leaves me asking a bigger question...

'is the Army Cadet Force TOO Army?' does giving AIs the ranks, uniform, equipment and weapons of the regular and territorial forces tempt them into belieiving they are dealing with young soldiers, and should attempt to replicate real army activities? does giving them ranks from Sgt upwards lead them into a false sense of experience and security? does encouraging military activity in the organisation stretch it too far on safety boundaries?

AIs need to remember they are youth leaders first and foremost. incidents such as this one, but including others which have remained under the covers as (fortunately) nobody got hurt; show example of how the ACF tempts people to run activities that are more army like than youth development. it has long been known the military training carries inherent risk, and I feel that by encouraging it too much in the youth organisation it becomes easy for people to forget their duty to educate and develop youth and instead try too hard to create exciting and ' realistic ' military training, which in turn carries the risk associated. this risk may be appropriate when training men and women for combat operations, but it is not acceptable for the enjoyment and development of young people.
 
#11
But I thought playing soldiers and other army type stuff is the basis of it as a youth organisation. If not, why would it be called the Army Cadet Force? Surely if you remove the military element of their activitie, then there is no point in their existance?
 
#12
Tiger-Monkey2 said:
But I thought playing soldiers and other army type stuff is the basis of it as a youth organisation. If not, why would it be called the Army Cadet Force? Surely if you remove the military element of their activitie, then there is no point in their existance?
Oh they could exist but we'd have to change the name: Scouts 8O

Grim
 
#13
to forget their duty to educate and develop youth and instead try too hard to create exciting and ' realistic ' military training, which in turn carries the risk associated. this risk may be appropriate when training men and women for combat operations, but it is not acceptable for the enjoyment and development of young people.
Surely the whole point of the ACF is to develop character through exciting and realistic (to a degree) military training, that is the whole reason we exist!

This event should not have happened at all and only happened because people lied and tried to buck the system. How is that a problem with the ACF syllabus??
 
#14
Zool said:
....Surely the whole point of the ACF is to develop character through exciting and realistic (to a degree) military training, that is the whole reason we exist!

This event should not have happened at all and only happened because people lied and tried to buck the system. How is that a problem with the ACF syllabus??
The bit about 'lied' was said before in this thread but - whether justified or not - is not supported by the FAI findings. Although this is an ACF matter can I suggest we try to follow normal ARRSE rules and not speculate about events which could be the subject of further legal proceedings?
 
#15
Zool said:
to forget their duty to educate and develop youth and instead try too hard to create exciting and ' realistic ' military training, which in turn carries the risk associated. this risk may be appropriate when training men and women for combat operations, but it is not acceptable for the enjoyment and development of young people.
Surely the whole point of the ACF is to develop character through exciting and realistic (to a degree) military training, that is the whole reason we exist!

This event should not have happened at all and only happened because people lied and tried to buck the system. How is that a problem with the ACF syllabus??
because people take the term 'military training' too far, and try and put on activities beyond their depth.

adults who are qualified in nothing more than field section attacks have been known to take cadets on FIBUA for example, not really understanding the inherent risks as Eddie Stone's TV series didn't mention them.

I am in NO WAY saying we should cut the Army out of Army Cadet Force. Come on ffs! If I wanted to do that I would join the Scouts! I was posing the question, by running it as an Army organisation do we risk people taking things too seriously and imposing dangers on cadets?
 
#16
because people take the term 'military training' too far, and try and put on activities beyond their depth.

adults who are qualified in nothing more than field section attacks have been known to take cadets on FIBUA for example, not really understanding the inherent risks as Eddie Stone's TV series didn't mention them.
do they though, If things like this are happening they are happening outside the rules. What does that have to do with the ACF being TOO military!?

I don't think you truly understand what you are arguing about, and are just trying to stir up the normal bollocks arguments that plauge this board.
 
#17
Zool said:
because people take the term 'military training' too far, and try and put on activities beyond their depth.

adults who are qualified in nothing more than field section attacks have been known to take cadets on FIBUA for example, not really understanding the inherent risks as Eddie Stone's TV series didn't mention them.
do they though, If things like this are happening they are happening outside the rules. What does that have to do with the ACF being TOO military!?

I don't think you truly understand what you are arguing about, and are just trying to stir up the normal balls arguments that plauge this board.
dont give me that bull, im nt trying to stir up anything.

It was a question, not a statement. Does giving people the equipment, the rank, and the facilities, to train in a military environment, create a potential for dangerous activities to take place that are out of reach of the instructors.

i'm not saying the ACF is the only place it could happen. scout leaders with a bit of hiking-in-wales experience have been known to buy some ropes and teach rock climbing etc.

It was a point for discussion, you've taken offence. It has always just been a concern of mine that so many doors are opened for the ACF to enable it to undertake the excellent military training that is offered and directed in the ACF, that the opportunities are easy for instructors to get over ambitious and try and train something that they are not qualified to teach, for a gain in training value and personal development that is not really important to the organisation and doesn't match it's value in risk?

why not try discussing rather than ranting that people are trying to sh*t on your lawn when they're actually trying to discuss a potential fault in the ACF. Don't go acting like it's all perfect, I think the aforementioned report kinda proves otherwise right?
 
#18
TRBdizzle I know you weren't mate.

I think we're all agreed that the ACF is all about being a youth character building organisation with a green tinge!

I should mention at this point that it's not just the ACF which has potential for these dangers. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY INSTRUCTORS WHO HAVE trained people on something they are not qualified to do. But surely the same potential is there in the CCF, Sea Cadet and ATC - maybe even the Police Cadets?...

Grim
 
#19
FFAGrimReaper said:
TRBdizzle I know you weren't mate.

I think we're all agreed that the ACF is all about being a youth character building organisation with a green tinge!

I should mention at this point that it's not just the ACF which has potential for these dangers. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY INSTRUCTORS WHO HAVE trained people on something they are not qualified to do. But surely the same potential is there in the CCF, Sea Cadet and ATC - maybe even the Police Cadets?...

Grim
As I said

'i'm not saying the ACF is the only place it could happen. scout leaders with a bit of hiking-in-wales experience have been known to buy some ropes and teach rock climbing etc.'

I do know people. I know of instructors who did a weekend of FIBUA in the OTC and see that as qualified to take cadets onto Longmoor village.. and subsequently teach them all wrong.

My original thing referred to the Assault Boat with the GPMG on the front... was this 'boat transport' going to turn into a beach assault? My basic worry isn't just the teaching of things that people aren't qualified to teach, but the basic pushing of the ACF military boundaries into things that are unnecessary and dangerous at no official gain.
 
#20
therealbigdizzle said:
FFAGrimReaper said:
TRBdizzle I know you weren't mate.

I think we're all agreed that the ACF is all about being a youth character building organisation with a green tinge!

I should mention at this point that it's not just the ACF which has potential for these dangers. I DO NOT KNOW OF ANY INSTRUCTORS WHO HAVE trained people on something they are not qualified to do. But surely the same potential is there in the CCF, Sea Cadet and ATC - maybe even the Police Cadets?...

Grim
As I said

'i'm not saying the ACF is the only place it could happen. scout leaders with a bit of hiking-in-wales experience have been known to buy some ropes and teach rock climbing etc.'

I do know people. I know of instructors who did a weekend of FIBUA in the OTC and see that as qualified to take cadets onto Longmoor village.. and subsequently teach them all wrong.

My original thing referred to the Assault Boat with the GPMG on the front... was this 'boat transport' going to turn into a beach assault? My basic worry isn't just the teaching of things that people aren't qualified to teach, but the basic pushing of the ACF military boundaries into things that are unnecessary and dangerous at no official gain.
Although the exercise director was in the TA what gets me is why the armourer let him take the GPMGs out for an ACF exercise with no TA involvement.
 

Latest Threads