Is learning SOPs you'll use in real life more important than saying it's notional due to safety concerns (e.g. aid and litter training)?

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:10:52 -0500

During our Field Exercises I feel like we are crippled by the COC who is concerned more about safety. Which is important but we don't perform any of the SOPs our unit has written. For example we were told we aren't allowed to practice bumping and blocking during convoy evolutions, gunners weren't allowed to stand up in turrets while the vehicle is moving for a short time, we aren't allowed to practice downed driver drills when does being properly trained kind of trump these safety concerns.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 20 at 2017 2:15 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:15:06 -0500

Political Correctness kills.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2017 2:51 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:51:36 -0500

Some folks can't (or won't) get their heads wrapped around the idea that they need to train as they fight.

Response by Sgt Randy Wilber made Nov 20 at 2017 2:53 PM

Sgt Randy Wilber — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:53:05 -0500

IDK the answer safety in these circumstances may save the lives of a few who aren't focused on what they're doing, but not training properly it could kill many.

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Nov 20 at 2017 3:08 PM

LT Brad McInnis — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:08:30 -0500

I always preached training like you will fight. Can't say I was really popular when I wanted to run Mass Casualty drills at 0300... Unfortunately, many leaders are very afraid to have safety incidents on their "watch" because they see them as career killers. I would rather have a safety incident, then needless deaths in combat because my people weren't properly trained.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Nov 20 at 2017 3:37 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:37:45 -0500

Don't know about your commands comfort level with CRM but of all the things you list, bumping and blocking is the only one that is extremely hard to place effective controls on. Bumping and blocking procedures also in my experience incur inherent damage to equipment and again depending on your command there may not be adequate funding to replace the damaged equipment. We were not risk adverse but everything had to be able to be controlled. Blocking is easier to train and place controls on than bumping. Bumping is inherently risky or at least on our rotations it was, due to VBIEDS. Blocking exercising the EOF and machine gunning the piss out of miscreants was a much better option for our guys.
Some things you could look at and perhaps suggest would be:
- do you have the harness for your gunners? if not, getting the restraint and learning how to use it, and conducting roll over drills reduces the risk of gunners being thrown from vehicles or crushed and would enable you to put your gunners up.
- downed drivers, are you talking wounded drivers and extractions or are you talking overturned vehicles, vehicle recovery ops, wounded or downed vehicle crew cross leveling? Each has a different drill and risk management concern. Do you have access to closed driving surfaces that would restrict vehicles other than yours moving on the route that could strike you or be struck by you. If not request a route closure on a low traffic volume road that frees up an area where you could practice any of the above in a more controlled environment.
Sometimes safety is an excuse not to do the hard work of planning and rehearsing that is needed to execute moderate to high risk tasks. Sometimes just not having anyone suggest something new can also prevent good training from happening.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2017 5:55 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:55:58 -0500

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member I served from 1968 until 1972, and the focus was on weapons safety and physical health, i.e. making sure that we took our salt tablets and changed our socks. During my civilian career, we lost two Space Shuttles, and risk analysis and safety became huge factors before each Space Shuttle launch. Realistic training involves risk, but not being properly trained is much riskier.

Response by SGT Matthew S. made Nov 20 at 2017 10:10 PM

SGT Matthew S. — Mon, 20 Nov 2017 22:10:51 -0500

To me, it sounds like you aren't really training but just checking a block. Yes, training involves risk - but so does just getting out of bed in the morning. The point of training is to be more ready when something goes south for real, and training is about muscle memory. If your mind & body aren't familiar with something, odds are you won't be able to adequately perform the task under pressure. You train as safely as you can, but you still have to "train as you fight" as much as possible along with as little damage as possible (preferably none) to your equipment.

That's the whole point of risk assessment and risk mitigation, especially in training. It's not "risk removal", though.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2017 3:18 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:18:24 -0500

If the Navy works like the Army, training is dictated by the METL (Mission Essential Task List). Each MET (Mission Essential Task) is broken down further. For instance, if my METL includes "Conduct a Cordon and Search", the MET's would include things like clearing a room, etc. Aid and Litter might be an SOP but I wouldn't consider it a MET. Army units have to be trained as proficient in their MET's in order to be considered "deployable". So if the things you're mentioning aren't directly related to your METL (or the Naval equivalent), then your command can skip the training and focus on other things. If these things ARE directly related to your METL, then your command should ensure the unit is trained in it.