The War Diary : Who Screwed UP?

Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home

»	The War Diary » General Discussions » General » Who Screwed UP?

Email this page to someone

Author

Topic: Who Screwed UP?

Master Blaster
Veteran Member
Member # 60

Member Rated:

posted 28 March 2021 23:19

Got the word via chain of command of a new CF Directive effective two months ago that ALL Reserve ranges conducted WILL have a Regular Force Commissioned Officer as the RSO.

Other than as a make work project for some officers that should have pulled the pin sometime ago or (as some of the SrNCO's that I have been in contact with have said) "just another micro-managing power play lost by the Brass at Area level".

Did someone screw up a range so badly that it caused this type of reaction? Please respond if you have any Intel on this topic as I am somewhat disturbed by the fact that my credentials (and the credentials of my peers, superiors and subordinates) have been questions based solely on the indiscretions of complete morons that should never have been near a range in the first place!

Dileas Gu Brath

--------------------

Posts: 44 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged

Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 29 March 2021 02:37

I remember something a couple of years ago about a res soldier who was struck in the head by a stray round at a range while he was about to throw a live grenade. I think there was an inquiry, but I can't really remeber any details.

Has anyone else heard about this?

Regards,

Nate

Posts: 13 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 29 March 2021 09:49

That accident was the PPCLI on a live fire ex. It was not a reserve thing.

Yard Ape

Posts: 132 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged

Brad Sallows
Veteran Member
Member # 16

Member Rated:

posted 29 March 2021 18:51

If true, this has interesting implications. Some units train in areas where more than one range can be run simultaneously, but I think all reserve units have at most one regular officer. In order to maximize concurrent activity and achieve training objectives at a minimum cost in Class A pay, units may therefore have to request the presence of regular force officers from other units. I am sure those officers are looking forward to spending more weekends sitting on a shooting stick watching the firing line/bays/etc.

I think I'll try to find the directive. Perhaps it's a regional affliction, or applies only to cadets?

[ 29 March 2001: Message edited by: Brad Sallows ]

--------------------

Posts: 59 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000 | IP: Logged

Master Blaster
Veteran Member
Member # 60

Member Rated:

posted 29 March 2021 21:33

Mr. Sallows;

If you are able to find the reference would you be so kind as to send me a link or directions of it's source to me via email?

I have a really hard time swallowing this one as being a "CF Directive" otherwise my connection at NDHQ would have let me know ASAP. Wouldn't surprise me but it also would again clearly demonstrate the regard for the Reserve's competence by the Regualr Army.

Dileas Gu Brath

--------------------

Posts: 44 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged

McG
Veteran Member
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 30 March 2021 01:36

Does this apply to all types of ranges? Small arms, GPMG, grenade, Carl G, Arty, Demolition, etc? I would like to think that someone in the chain of command above you heard a rumor and mistakenly took it for fact. Such an order would be increadibly disruptive to unit trainning, and would provide little benifit. If there is a question of "Rentals" running a range, then the CF would do better to put steps in place to ensure reserve officers perform to whatever standard they are currently being precieved as not meeting.

Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001 | IP: Logged

ender
Veteran Member
Member # 189

Member Rated:

posted 30 March 2021 16:52

If this is true then it's crazy.

If a reserve officer isn't trusted to run a range, then really what is the point. Sombody higher up has a beef against reservists.

Posts: 90 | From: toronto | Registered: Feb 2001 | IP: Logged

Brad Sallows
Veteran Member
Member # 16

Member Rated:

posted 30 March 2021 18:36

If the supposed directive exists, I would expect to hear about it from more (and more official) sources than this board. So far, I note that the DIN-based CFAO regarding Range Safety Officers doesn't specify component of service.

Rumours like this should be handled using int techniques: what's the credibility of the source, does it correlate with another source, etc. So far, the credibility is "unofficial" and the correlation with other sources is "none".

--------------------

Posts: 59 | From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jun 2000 | IP: Logged

Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 31 March 2021 07:08

Dunno squat about this rumour/development, but thanks for the clarification about the PPCLI training accident Yard Ape.

Cheers,

Nate

Posts: 13 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Master Blaster
Veteran Member
Member # 60

Member Rated:

posted 01 April 2021 23:19

As you suggested Mr. Sallows, I did a bit more digging, routing and general wall bashing and came up with a variation on the theme that directs that while the RSO on the range can be of the "Reserve" vintage, there MUST be a 'qualified' Small Arms Instructor (as per the standards of CFB Gagetown's Center of Excellence) on the range(s) at all times in order for the shoots to take place.

I did some further digging and discovered that while this direction may be the standard for training, there does not appear to be ANY amendments to the Range Standing Orders of any of the Range Control Offices I've contacted in the last two days.

Whose driving the damned bus? NO, NO, NO! that's Who's on First!!

Confused? I know I am!

Let me know if anything surfaces on your end of the boat and maybe we could throw a depth charge or two at it and see what floats to the top!

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath

--------------------

Posts: 44 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged

JRMACDONALD
Veteran Member
Member # 46

Member Rated:

posted 02 April 2021 21:15

WOW! There seems to be a great deal of confusion/rumour/disinformation going on here.
The "old" reference for ranges was CFP304(3) Ranges and Training Safety. This was superseded by 381(1) Training Safety, around late fall early winter 2000. As 304-3 hadn't been re written in over twenty years, and was subject to "very liberal" interpretation, this effort was long over due. There are much more precise definitions of roles and responsibilities for range staff. It,also, re establishes the requirement for properly(IE course)qualified personnel to be employed as range safety staff. There is nothing new in this regard. Maybe some of the "old dogs" on this site had better be doing some reading!!

--------------------

Posts: 92 | From: CALGARY,AB, CANADA | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged

RCA
Veteran Member
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 07 April 2021 19:16

Below is the the new publication asseable tyhru the DIN.

Publications

In the Artillery world (where we fire something compartably bigger and further) than a rifle round) I haven't heard any rumours to changes to our safety practices. (and this is meant as a slight dig-...we allow qualified Sgts and up to be Arty Safety Officers)

While I doubt that what Master Blaster said was in fact a fact (through no fault of his own and where there is smoke there's fire)) , it is amazing how many of us reservists considered it an actual possiblity. We have seen or head so much, that any reservist with TI has a certain amount of self-esteem (probaly the wrong term but you get my drift) problem when it comes to our Reg F brethen.

And to remind everybody that in a prevoius post a Res Coy is being formed for Bosnia (LFWA will also have one in ROTO 11). These to posts seem incompatable with each other. Either they trust us or they don't.

thats my 2 cents worth

--------------------

Ubique

Posts: 131 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000 | IP: Logged

recceguy
FNG
Member # 256

Member Rated:

posted 15 April 2021 16:18

Ran into this problem while being Crse WO for a QL2 crse last year. From Standards it was stated that an Advance Gunner (Infantry) must be present on the range when QL2 are doing their qual shoot. This is the only time it applies. Seems a little ridiculous when you can't use an AG (Armour) who's qual'd on everything up to and including tank ranges. Sound like make work for displaced and extra regimentally employed infantry working for local Battle Schools. Not a problem though, they are there to observe only and make sure standards are enforced. They don't run your range or displace your people. If you do your job correctly, they won't bother you.

Posts: 28 | From: SouthWestern Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

recceguy
FNG
Member # 256

Member Rated:

posted 15 April 2021 16:22

Forgot one thing in my previous reply. If you have a reserve NCO that's qual'd AG(Infantry) he is good to go. Does not have to be reg, and most if not all AG's from all trades are NCO's not officers.

Posts: 28 | From: SouthWestern Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are ET

See the Chapters.ca History section for books on the Canadian Military.