So the last story was that because of all the changes that have occured with the small arms program, the manual has had to be rewritten multiple times to keep up. Here's a novel idea, make it a series. Then all you have to do is provide changes and not rewrite the entire manual every time something changes in the fleet. That would be one of the few things I feel the ET's did right is by doing that with their electronics manual. It is difficult to manage a weapons fleet when the guidance to do so is not in place. The ORDMAN states (paraphrasing here) that it shall supersede all other manuals with the exception of the SW300-BC-SAF-010. Too bad it doesn't contain half of the weapons we currently use in the CG. Ever wonder why we have "negligent" discharges, poor maintenance, blantant disregard for safe practices etc? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no guidance and no complete reference for someone to turn to for help.
Ever wonder why we have "negligent" discharges, poor maintenance, blantant disregard for safe practices etc? I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no guidance and no complete reference for someone to turn to for help.
If someone is NEGLIGENT (: failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances)and there is BLATANT (2: completely obvious) DISREGARD (: to pay no attention to) to safe practices, it's not due to a lack of a ORDMAN, rather a lack maturity on their part and a lack of leadership by their supervisors.
Even though the ORDMAN is way overdue and we have far to many "accidently discharges" if the lack of a ORDMAN was the cause then the numbers would be a 1000 fold seeing how an update has been a long time coming. I wonder why it's not, I imagine it could be that there are capable GM's out there that take the pubs, directives, messages, etc, that are provided and give appropriate training to the members and ensure they follow through with SOP.
NEGLIGENT (: failing to exercise the care expected of a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances)
And wouldn't this adequately describe the reasons for so called "accidental" discharges? A round is not "accidentally" chambered, the safety is not "accidentally" taken off, and the trigger is not "accidentally" pulled. These are all decisions that require physical input and conscious decision on the part of the people handling the weapons. We should begin to refer to them as what they are, negligent.
Where are the official courses of fire for all the new small arms? Where are the requirements for the MSST's and MSRT? Why are SAI's being asked/forced to conduct lines of fire that are not approved? Oh, because there is no manual stating what they are. They have nothing to use as guidance other then what they were taught at blackwater or by various different contractors across the country or my favorite, just use the same course as the marines use.
Is the ordnance manual the answer to all of these questions? No, but it is a good start. Good luck with getting it approved and out to the fleet. Hopefully we won't adopt yet another weapon forcing it back to your desk for yet another rewrite. BTW, what happens if in the new logistics transformation there is no MLC Lant and PAC? The manual will either be out of date before it hits the fleet, or it will delay it's release yet another 10 years.
Things seem to not changed much since I retired in ’04. Negligent/Un-intentional discharges up or down since then? During PQS training I would promise to beat to death with which ever weapon they negligently discharged due to straying from the safety rules.
I really enjoyed that 25mm, did 3 years on the Confidence. And yes, I almost fed the barrel to a SN during Reftra. How do you mistake “stand by” for “batteries released”
I don't disagree that most mishaps are "negligent" vice "accidental" but I'm saying that it's not due to an outdated ORDMAN.
onewhl750, If your truly concerned about getting out an accurate ORDMAN send me an email with your concerns, you can look me up on global. We are having a working group in October to tackle just this subject and, unless I missed my guess, it's in your NESU's backyard, it's being held at Portside. So the more input prior to our conferance the better for the final product.
I know some things have changed since I retired 3 years ago, but one of them I’m pretty sure has not. A buddy of mine, retired Air Force of all things was traveling south on I75 this afternoon 1445 EST when he spotted 3 large white vans each with a USCG boat (orange wrap around thingy w/US Coast Guard stenciled) his terms not mine, in tow with a mounted machine gun on the bow of each boat. He could not recall if the vans were marked, but he was certain that there were no blue lights being used.
Having worked with FHP in the past, I know they will not look on this to favorably, and I haven’t heard anything from them yet. They may have skated that bullet.
To travel down the road with them mounted is beyond tacky it's plain lazy. I wonder what the COMDT STAN team policy on this is. Makes me wonder if they left the 200 round can sitting in the mount as well. It's the only way to be TACTICOOL ya know.
Wonder if CLP works well taking off bug splatter???
I wonder if is going to include all this aerial use of force, courses of fire because I am getting a bunch of aviators questioning what’s authorized and what’s not and the ordman addresses most of what I need but still kind of vague and outdated. Still I can cover my @ss with it. We are going to need to do like the Navy and send updates for the manual every time something changes replace the pages and log every change, if not I am going to retire with the Charley version. I think that should be a more efficient way to send changes to the fleet and field, hell we can e-mail the changes to people all the y have to do is print them out or totally due away with paper copies and just print the pages you need .
Whatever you do please don’t due away with my favorite phrase in the whole manual:
IF A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN THIS MANUAL AND OTHER DIRECTIVES, THIS MANUAL TAKES PRIORITY
Here's a novel idea, make it a series. Then all you have to do is provide changes and not rewrite the entire manual every time something changes in the fleet.
quote:
We are going to need to do like the Navy and send updates for the manual every time something changes replace the pages and log every change,
There's two votes for making it a series and avoiding this whole fiasco from happening again.
