UKSF training staff to face CM over SAS(R) deaths

#1
Just made headlines on R4: Chief instructor and Training Officer involved in the Brecon incident are to face CM on charges of negligence.

No link, interesting possible impact for "the group"...
 
#3
I wonder if the truth will now come out from these 2 guys, now they realise they are going to be hung out to dry by the Mod to cover other people’s asses. Loyalty is a 2 way thing isn’t it, Loyalty to yourself and others.
 
#5
I wonder if the truth will now come out from these 2 guys, now they realise they are going to be hung out to dry by the Mod to cover other people’s asses. Loyalty is a 2 way thing isn’t it, Loyalty to yourself and others.
How wonderfully old fashioned, loyalty from above.
 
#6
What a load of crap. The risk adverse culture we find ourselves in now can only have a negative impact.

Why is there always someone who has to be blamed? Ridiculous.
 
#7
#9
What a load of crap. The risk adverse culture we find ourselves in now can only have a negative impact.

Why is there always someone who has to be blamed? Ridiculous.
Because wasting 3 good candidate’s lives on a training/testing exercise isn’t being ‘risk averse’ it’s being negligent. It’s that simple really.

Practices like this won’t change until people in senior positions are held accountable for them.
 
#11
Because wasting 3 good candidate’s lives on a training/testing exercise isn’t being ‘risk averse’ it’s being negligent. It’s that simple really.

Practices like this won’t change until people in senior positions are held accountable for them.
I agree that it is a tragic loss of three potentially good SF(R) operators but they weren’t the only blokes affected by the heat, they were unfortunately, the ones that went down.

They pushed themselves to heat exhaustion and that determination is laudable. They were trying to achieve some exceptional which should be difficult and although it shouldn’t take your life, it shouldn’t be without manageable risk.

How many individuals throughout the years have gone through the hills with less in the way of prep courses. That’s rhetorical.

What happened to these blokes was a tragic set of unfortunate circumstances with the weather and their determination to succeed.

It seems that the SPA seem to think it’s logistically possible for somebody to attend blokes that have gone down instantly to apply immediate first aid.
 
#12
Because where there is blame. There is a claim.
Seems to be the case, last paragraph from the link - "Initially, the SPA decided charges were not going to be directed against the pair, but relatives of the soldiers who died asked for the case to be reviewed."
 
#13
I wonder if the truth will now come out from these 2 guys, now they realise they are going to be hung out to dry by the Mod to cover other people’s asses. Loyalty is a 2 way thing isn’t it, Loyalty to yourself and others.
No loyalty when it comes to things like the countless cases where MoD has passed the book to the lowest common denominator.
 
#14
I wonder if the truth will now come out from these 2 guys, now they realise they are going to be hung out to dry by the Mod to cover other people’s asses. Loyalty is a 2 way thing isn’t it, Loyalty to yourself and others.
I think you will find that "corporate manslaughter" will be the reason they are being taken to court.

Loyalty has nothing to do with it.

People lost their lives because a training course went ahead despite extreme weather conditions. That is unacceptable and the deaths were avoidable. If the reason behind running the course was due to pressure from the top...then the top must fall. As a Training Officer or Chief Instructor, they must take direct responsibility for the course going ahead.
 
#15
Yep, not on this scale or result thankfully, but years ago had a bod with severe blisters following a run/ill fitting boots combo ... or just had weak feet ;-)

MO bedded him down with Ibrufen or some other shite.

I was Duty Dog and got a call by one of his muckas later that evening about the fellas pain.

Took a look - swollen, pus, etc...got the duty driver to rush him to the nearest hospital with an instruction for them to call me..

Nurse rang and passed on the message involving words like 'Septicaemia/ Sepsis/ blood poisoning.. and if we had waited another hour he would have died , blah, blah, blah'

Yeah cheers Luv, when do we get him back and what you up to next Saturday?

My reward from the RSM the next day was to be put on an extra the next Saturday ....he gave me some bolloxs about following procedures, etc ... I gave him the look that said, yeah, I was a full screw before you and you know it too - but I didn't toe the party line or kiss enough arrse hence me being a Sjt for 10 years while you slithered up the greasy pole.

Anyhoo, sometimes you have to have the courage and integrity to feck everyone off and do what is needed.
 
Last edited:
#16
What happened to these blokes was a tragic set of unfortunate circumstances with the weather and their determination to succeed.

It seems that the SPA seem to think it’s logistically possible for somebody to attend blokes that have gone down instantly to apply immediate first aid.
No, it suggests that the CI and Trg Officer were muppets whose lack of adequate planning or understanding of acceptable risk had no place in SF. Or, for that matter, the Cadets. Her Majesty doesn't make you responsible for her troops, so that you can waste their lives by being a lazy f***wit or running a cowboy outfit.

I did an exercise as a young student in the mid-80s - Salisbury Plain, July, 30C, no cloud, no wind, little shelter. After a morning of digging, we did an afternoon of section and platoon attacks on a single water bottle. Of my section of eight, three went down with heat injury (including a future CO of the Black Watch). Across an exercise of about 120, about a section ended up being evacuated to hospital on a drip. Fortunately for the Trg Officer (a passed-over Cavalry Major from the Skins), none suffered a permanent injury. Disappointingly, none of the PSIs appeared to have gripped him about his logistics failure (or perhaps they did, and we finished early?).

Fast forward twenty years, and I was planning and directing a similar exercise, in the same area, at the same time of year. When I planned the exercise, I made sure that there was adequate shade and water replen at the start and end of each phase. I made sure that there was a water bowser continually driving around refilling all of the extra water containers that I'd insisted that the RQMS bring. I'd actually worked out the likely fluid consumption per person for likely conditions (it was in the NBC section of the Aide Memoire), and worked out how we were going to distribute a half-ton of water around multiple locations across five or six grid squares in a couple of hours. It isn't f***ing rocket science. Sure enough when the day came, the skies were clear, the wind had dropped, and the temperature went above 30C. My aim was that no soldier should be failed by the log chain and unable to refill their water bottle, and we succeeded (yes, I'd given a brief to them about the dangers of heat injury, with the example above). While the exercising troops were working just as hard as we had twenty years earlier, none went down with heat injury.

Reading the weather forecast, and understanding your own exercise and its logistic demands (including your medical cover and the CASEVAC resources), are pretty basic stuff for any exercise. For the SPA to be pursuing it, it looks to be beyond "unfortunate circumstances", and into negligence and incompetence, leading to death.
 
Last edited:
#17
I wonder if the truth will now come out from these 2 guys, now they realise they are going to be hung out to dry by the Mod to cover other people’s asses. Loyalty is a 2 way thing isn’t it, Loyalty to yourself and others.
Considering the absolute cluster f**k that was the planning, and implementation of basic, and potentially life saving guidelines, that were easily accessible, but weren't used. It strikes me as someone somewhere failed in their duty, and showed no loyalty to those that went down, and the three that died, that could have been avoided
 
#18
I agree that it is a tragic loss of three potentially good SF(R) operators but they weren’t the only blokes affected by the heat, they were unfortunately, the ones that went down.

They pushed themselves to heat exhaustion and that determination is laudable. They were trying to achieve some exceptional which should be difficult and although it shouldn’t take your life, it shouldn’t be without manageable risk.

How many individuals throughout the years have gone through the hills with less in the way of prep courses. That’s rhetorical.

What happened to these blokes was a tragic set of unfortunate circumstances with the weather and their determination to succeed.

It seems that the SPA seem to think it’s logistically possible for somebody to attend blokes that have gone down instantly to apply immediate first aid.

What happened to them was a result of cavalier attitudes to safety and a lack of understanding by the training staff of the risks the weather posed. All entire avoidable and not acceptable on a selection exercise.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#19
I agree that it is a tragic loss of three potentially good SF(R) operators but they weren’t the only blokes affected by the heat, they were unfortunately, the ones that went down.
No, they were the ones that died. A lot more 'went down'. In those conditions, the difference between 'going down' and 'dying' is often pretty slight, particularly when you have an exercise full of individual runners with no guarantee of IA, unlike the IA you have on (say) a tab or a patrol. That wasn't an accident of the day, it was the design of the exercise: which is why it could reasonably have been expected to be planned for. If you have a whole course of guys going down, who ends up dying is largely determined by luck.

You can look at the times and positions that were published: one was going over 5kph, another was skimming 3.4kph. The common factor wasn't the individual aptitude, it was that they all fell somewhere slightly off route, and aid took longer to reach them than it did others.

There were quite enough details that came out at the inquest to suggest that things went wrong that could have been dealt with differently, and which mistakes were subsequently accepted by the MOD.
 
Last edited:
#20
I think you will find that "corporate manslaughter" will be the reason they are being taken to court.

Loyalty has nothing to do with it.

People lost their lives because a training course went ahead despite extreme weather conditions. That is unacceptable and the deaths were avoidable. If the reason behind running the course was due to pressure from the top...then the top must fall. As a Training Officer or Chief Instructor, they must take direct responsibility for the course going ahead.
For clarity, there isn't a corporate manslaughter charge involved here, if the reports are correct. The reported charge is serious enough but falls a long way short of manslaughter corporate or otherwise: negligent failure to perform a duty. [SF are exempt anyway from corporate manslaughter but that's a separate discussion.]
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G The NAAFI Bar 147
P The Intelligence Cell 6
K Army Reserve 24

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top