Posted on Dec 20, 2013
FT HOOD. The (battle) of no IBA run policy vs FM7-22 which requires a load during some PRT sessions. Policy or FM (think about our jobs)
Suspended Profile
7.03K
27
21
Posted in these groups: 
Physical Training
Physical Training
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
SFC (Join to see)
Is that why I cant run......I should have known
FMs are guides, policies are directives/orders.
I would think that a Composite Risk Management was done and the Cdr determined that they wanted to mitigate a risk (injuries, overuse, etc).
SSG (Join to see)
CSM your right and only the Officers above us in charge sign off the CRM's. So are we working with over worried leaders not ready to accept that risk or am I working with Leaders similar to the Days of PATTON.... You can Lead me Follow ME or get out of the Way...Leadership with guts and determination
CSM Mike Maynard
SSG Gorman - could it be that our officers don't trust NCOs to mitigate risk and implement control measures effectively?
If we NCOs actually executed CRM effectively, we could do just about any training we wanted.
We need to gain the trust of the officers so that they believe we can do CRM effectively so that we can increase our left and right limits.
<font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Calibri">I think you have identified an institutional issue. Combat
is inherently dangerous and chaotic. It is "risky". The Army,
however, is risk-averse. Leaders who mitigate risk to zero are rewarded. Unfortunately,
this results in policies like the one you are describing. In order to mitigate
the risk of injuries attributed to battle-focused physical training, leadership
has simply banned the practice. The irony is that by doing so, they have
dramatically increased tactical risks to warriors who are deployed to combat
environments having never had to sprint, jog, CASEVAC, and MANEUVER in combat gear.</font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font>
</font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Calibri">I think you have identified an institutional issue. Combat
is inherently dangerous and chaotic. It is "risky". The Army,
however, is risk-averse. Leaders who mitigate risk to zero are rewarded. Unfortunately,
this results in policies like the one you are describing. In order to mitigate
the risk of injuries attributed to battle-focused physical training, leadership
has simply banned the practice. The irony is that by doing so, they have
dramatically increased tactical risks to warriors who are deployed to combat
environments having never had to sprint, jog, CASEVAC, and MANEUVER in combat gear.</font></p><font color="#000000" size="3" face="Times New Roman">
</font>
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google