Helmets in Rental Vehicles on the Ranges In 1 CMBG?

[molson949]

can any one give me a link on the 1 CMBG where soilders have to where hemets in rental vehicles canforgan 036/01 states it is conbat crew vehicles and in watc RSO'S that is no requirement but an 1 CMBG rule?? BUT WHERE IS THAT


Fixed the thread title......not sure I have time to fix the post.

 

[Armymedic]

Helmets in a rental veh..?!? Are you serious?

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my 19 yr military career.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Helmets in a rental veh..?!? Are you serious?

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my 19 yr military career.

How about helmets on a highway move from Gagetown to Petersville, mind you this was in green fleet.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

can any one give me a link on the 1 CMBG where soilders have to where hemets in rental vehicles canforgan 036/01 states it is conbat crew vehicles and in watc RSO'S that is no requirement but an 1 CMBG rule?? BUT WHERE IS THAT

Maybe in the 1 CMBG orders?

 

[McG]

Helmets in a rental veh..?!? Are you serious?

Yes.  Any motor vehicle inside a training area.

Maybe in the 1 CMBG orders?

It was in a letter to all COs a few years back.  I recall seeing the letter posted on unit notice boards.

 

[RHFC_piper]

Funny... I was just laughing at this specific notice the other night.

I was discussing CANLANDGENs and CANFORGENs with the DCO of my unit and he brought up the CANLANDGEN which outlines the wearing of helmets in all civilian pattern vehicles used by the DND in a training environment or on exercise.  But, it did state that only the passengers in the back seats had to wear helmets, citing a study on the effectiveness of airbags for the driver and passenger in the front, and how there was no conclusive study on injuries when sitting in the back seat during a collision.

So essentially it states that the driver and co-driver (front seat passenger) don't have to wear a helmet, but everyone in the back does, in any civilian or military vehicle equipped with airbags, but only during an exercise.  And any vehicle not equipped with airbags (SMP MSE); all personnel must wear a helmet... during an ex.

I had suggested that we invite the LF commander to come out on an ex and provide him with a staff car avec complimentary skid-lid and a copy of the CANLANDGEN in the back seat... and have the driver refuse to drive until he dons the gear... while the driver wears just his silly hat.  ;D


Anyway, I've been searching around for the specific CANLANDGEN pertaining to this silliness, but haven't been able to find it... It's fairly recent; within the last few months.  If someone finds it, please let me know the ref number, I'd like to get my hands on a copy to add to a list of silly rules.

 

[molson949]

the canforgan is in 2001 for cbt crew vehicles but it said nothing but rental vehicles etc, SILLY rules in 1 CMBG i like to see this if anyone can find it rules are rules and if this is true ie a safely policy let see it in black and white on paper, you get in shit for not waering your field hat to the mess in the feild

LOL

CHEERS
ALL

 

[NL_engineer]

How about helmets on a highway move from Gagetown to Petersville, mind you this was in green fleet.

That has extended to: You will have a helmet on when you enter the training area, or maybe that was just CFSME's policy  :

 

[Gunner98]

It has been a 1 CMBG policy since summer of 2005 for helmets and ballistic glasses to be worn upon passing the range control shack onto the range at CMTC.

In 2003 the policy was as shown in: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lfwa_hq/active_edge/Docs/SERIAL1_ACTIVE_EDGE.pdf

Para 18. Helmet Policy.
1 CMBG helmet policy for training is as follows:
a. Helmets will be worn at all times when travelling in SMP vehicles in the training area;
b. Helmets are not required to be worn when travelling in buses or civilian pattern vehicles
on training area roads; and
c. Helmets must be worn by all personnel travelling cross-country in the training area (in
either SMP or civilian pattern vehicles).

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So how do the MP's and Range Control get around that issue?

 

[dangerboy]

So how do the MP's and Range Control get around that issue?

Range Control are not part of 1 CMBG they are base personnel, MP's if they are base MP same goes for them.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

roger, although I find it funny that their heads are harder then mine.  Perhaps the policy should be re-written to say anyone going into the field in 1CMBG jurisdiction must wear a helmet (because we all know their CSA approved and what not).

 

[aesop081]

into the field in 1CMBG jurisdiction must wear a helmet

IIRC, Wainwright is not 1 CMBG "jurisdiction"

 

[Spring_bok]

The safety bulletin that came out in Feb from LFCA made it clear that helmets will not be worn in the front seat of SMP vehicles that are equipped with airbags(read Milcot).  It created a backlash of interpretations at many command levels, especially when it began referring to exercise movement.  My Interpretation was that it applied only to milcots and that is what I have implemented in my unit.  I will have a look at it again on Monday.  I will take a look on Monday and I will post a link.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

CDN Avitator that is appreciated and is all fine and good but I think the whole policy is stupid for one part of the military to be inforcing it while others are exempt.  May be the nature of the beast but stupid none-the-less

 

[aesop081]

CDN Avitator that is appreciated and is all fine and good but I think the whole policy is stupid for one part of the military to be inforcing it while others are exempt.  May be the nature of the beast but stupid none-the-less

Every unit has policies that differ from others.  If 1 CMBG wants to order people its soldiers to wear helmets , thats Comd 1 CMBG's prerogative.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So two people from different area's go to Wainwright.  The member from 1CMBG has to wear a helmet while the other doesn't in the same area doing the same thing.  Par for the course  and is stupid perogitive or otherwise.

 

[Spring_bok]

Every unit has policies that differ from others.  If 1 CMBG wants to order people its soldiers to wear helmets , that's Comd 1 CMBG's prerogative.

True.  If we look in Training Safety, whenever 2 policies differ you will follow the more restrictive of the two.  That being said I still think someone is misinterpreting a directive.

 

[aesop081]

True.  If we look in Training Safety, whenever 2 policies differ you will follow the more restrictive of the two.  That being said I still think someone is misinterpreting a directive.

So two people from different area's go to Wainwright.  The member from 1CMBG has to wear a helmet while the other doesn't in the same area doing the same thing.  Par for the course  and is stupid perogitive or otherwise.

1 CMBG can make its policies more restrictive that Camp Wainwright's.....but it cannot make them LESS restrictive ( when 1 CMBG is on the ground in WW), thats the bottom line.  For whatever reason, 1 CMBG is making soldiers wear helmets....thats a 1 CMBG issue.  Camp Wainwright pers and CMTC pers do not belong to 1 CMBG thus they dont have to follow 1 CMBG directives.

Now, if it had been an LFC or LFWA policy.......

 

[time expired]

This sound to me as though someone is copying a typical US Army SOP.I remember going to a range
safety briefing at the US Armies all arms trg. centre in Hoenfels and the American range safety officer
being outraged by the fact that Canadians wore berets in the trg. area and only put on our steels
when actually engaged in range firing activities.I also remember going on one of my last Reforger
exercises and as our convoy passed through Karlsruhe on the autobahn we were joined by a convoy
from a US army combat engineer unit, obviously a timing sc&§w up on somebodies part,these guys
were wearing not only steel helmets but also full facial cam.as this was an admin.move to the exercise
assembly area this was greeted by us with some humour and comments about the sanity of this units
CO. To me this is an example of getting too close to the US Army and copying some of their sillier
ideas.
                        Regards