Juan Carlos / Canberra Class LHD

[Volkodav]

But don't you just love the lack of OH&S BS as the sailors go about their tasks. No one got hurt, they all got sunburnt and enjoyed working in shorts and no shirt. One of the most unpleasant tasks was cleaning out tons of rotten prawns from the NR prawn factory, the men could only last a few minutes, even with respirators, before coming out and vomiting profusely, then back for another set. Not a pleasant task.

Its said that only five workers died during the construction of the Empire State Building while major construction projects still regularly see deaths and serious injuries in spite of all the OH&S. The reasoning is the safer people think they are the less careful they are, sometime a little bit of genuine risk and some real consequences if you ignore them would make injury and death less likely.

Mind you cracking down on passive risks and exposure was a big improvement, having people get sick or even die from exposure to chemicals, radiation, carcinogens etc. in the course of their day to day lives was really unacceptable.

 

[Stampede]

The Spanish routinely parked folded Hueys between the island and the stbd foul line. It does not disrupt RW or STOVL evolutions. Plenty of room there for folded Tigers, but they rarely embark in JCI.

Thanks Dave for the feedback.
Just to clarify was this deck parking in question for the former Spanish carrier Principe De Asturius or the current ship,Juan Carlos1. Looking at and comparing images of both the Australian and Spanish ships it appears they have similar deck markings and I assume similar deck parking capacity!!!

Regards S

 

[SpazSinbad]

Its said that only five workers died during the construction of the Empire State Building while major construction projects still regularly see deaths and serious injuries in spite of all the OH&S. The reasoning is the safer people think they are the less careful they are, sometime a little bit of genuine risk and some real consequences if you ignore them would make injury and death less likely.

Mind you cracking down on passive risks and exposure was a big improvement, having people get sick or even die from exposure to chemicals, radiation, carcinogens etc. in the course of their day to day lives was really unacceptable.

From the introduction of the A4G/S2E in 1968 in the RAN FAA the safety culture really changed for better with USN/NATOPS standards compared to earlier RN standards. I'm shocked to see early catapult/arrestor gear (hook men) running on deck in sandshoes in 1969; but soon changed and later float coats worn (which probably helped save the life of the brake man on 886 as it went overboard). Sun burn was a hazard and not recognised then as a potential skin cancer risk later - or sooner. I'm still mortified to see USN/Spanish aircrew flying without gloves - one can always remove them as required. Apparently their MMV in that regard.

Prevention is always better than the cure.

 

[old faithful]

But don't you just love the lack of OH&S BS as the sailors go about their tasks. No one got hurt, they all got sunburnt and enjoyed working in shorts and no shirt. One of the most unpleasant tasks was cleaning out tons of rotten prawns from the NR prawn factory, the men could only last a few minutes, even with respirators, before coming out and vomiting profusely, then back for another set. Not a pleasant task.

Amazing, and the video is still totally relevant.
OH&S is at a point these days, that it is effecting the economy of the country, eg, making production too expensive to compete with just about anyone. I remember an officer cadet rambling on how he was so clever, he did an OH&S review on HELO operations which resulted in a new safety standard, and it was adopted by the ADF, he was really proud, and rightly so, however he didn't realise that it reduced the Black-hawks pax by 4, thus meaning that the 40 black-hawks we had at the time were not sufficient for the task they were purchased for, and eventually lead to the ADF buying a "great" replacement in the NH90......

 

[SpazSinbad]

Amazing, and the video is still totally relevant.
OH&S is at a point these days, that it is effecting the economy of the country, eg, making production too expensive to compete with just about anyone. I remember an officer cadet rambling on how he was so clever, he did an OH&S review on HELO operations which resulted in a new safety standard, and it was adopted by the ADF, he was really proud, and rightly so, however he didn't realise that it reduced the Black-hawks pax by 4, thus meaning that the 40 black-hawks we had at the time were not sufficient for the task they were purchased for, and eventually lead to the ADF buying a "great" replacement in the NH90......

A bit spurious that last phrase - other helicopters could have been purchased - or none. To my mind aviation safety is paramount for those in it - for those out of it 'aviation safety' may appear 'strangee'. I recall the loss of ADF soldiers & helo crews due a helo night collision many years ago now - I'm reminded of this also due loss of US helos off Oahu the other day. However that cause not known; so I'm not citing 'aviation safety' in recent collision instance.

The fatal loss of an ARMY Blackhawk due poor landing technique / non-acknowledgement of 'safety issues when landing onboard' is perhaps another example of 'rely on aviation safety to keep one safe'. USN have a saying "NATOPS is written in blood" (ignore it at your peril). NATOPS is 'aviation safety' for aircrew and anyone else interested.

 

[old faithful]

The number of seatbelts on board would have not made any difference in either mid air collision or failed ship landing attempt. The only difference it makes is that soldiers and aircrew now must spend cucial seconds longer on the ground while getting off said helo.
I have spent an awful lot of time on 3 of our helo types, UH1H, s, CH47, s And the crashhawks, was even on board a blackhawk during an emergency landing, without a seat belt I might add.
I never used a seatbelt on UH1H, and yes, its a wierd feeling having your legs hanging over the side with no belt on, I admit my first flight was scarier than my 1st parachute jump.

 

[SpazSinbad]

The number of seatbelts on board would have not made any difference in either mid air collision or failed ship landing attempt. The only difference it makes is that soldiers and aircrew now must spend cucial seconds longer on the ground while getting off said helo.
I have spent an awful lot of time on 3 of our helo types, UH1H, s, CH47, s And the crashhawks, was even on board a blackhawk during an emergency landing, without a seat belt I might add.
I never used a seatbelt on UH1H, and yes, its a wierd feeling having your legs hanging over the side with no belt on, I admit my first flight was scarier than my 1st parachute jump.

Good for you - I'm pleased you are still walking and talking with so many helo flights without a seatbelt. Mine I can count on one hand; but for the life of me I cannot remember if I wore a seatbelt in those RAN Hueys. Why this is relevant I cannot fathom but you think it is - I guess it is like seat belts in cars and how old is that person.

 

[DaveS124]

Looking at and comparing images of both the Australian and Spanish ships it appears they have similar deck markings

The deck markings on the RAN LHDs are NATO, as per RN, Spanish and Italian navies. The only difference is the stbd helo spots fore and abaft the island, as seen in JCI, were omitted.

 

[old faithful]

Good for you - I'm pleased you are still walking and talking with so many helo flights without a seatbelt. Mine I can count on one hand; but for the life of me I cannot remember if I wore a seatbelt in those RAN Hueys. Why this is relevant I cannot fathom but you think it is - I guess it is like seat belts in cars and how old is that person.

Just trying to make a point about OH&S impact on the ADF is not always positive, I mean really, warfare is a dangerous business.Your sarcaism is noted....DH.

 

[SpazSinbad]

Good for you - I'm pleased you are still walking and talking with so many helo flights without a seatbelt. Mine I can count on one hand; but for the life of me I cannot remember if I wore a seatbelt in those RAN Hueys. Why this is relevant I cannot fathom but you think it is - I guess it is like seat belts in cars and how old is that person.

Just trying to make a point about OH&S impact on the ADF is not always positive, I mean really, warfare is a dangerous business.Your sarcaism is noted....DH.

Let me guess: non-warfare is not as dangerous as warfare? Probably there are studies about seat belts in helos being advantageous. Sun burn is never going to be advantageous. Personnel are worth looking after - they are not items to be discarded when sun burnt, not wearing seat belts. Sun burn may actually prevent that person from being useful for a day or two; and we do not know the consequences years later. I'm told skin cancer is a major problem for Australians. Beware.

 

[Raven22]

The funny thing is, the ADF has being doing WH&S for as long as it has existed, we just haven't called it that. Think of any safety constraint that has existed in doctrine at any point in history - that is essentially simply WH&S. Giving soldiers quinine and forcing them to use mosquito nets? That's WH&S. Sailors wearing anti-flash gear in navy ships when at action stations? That's WH&S. Making aircrew wear parachutes and Mae Wests while in the aircraft even though it is terribly uncomfortable? WH&S.

Its always funny to hear an old warrant officer, who will talk passionately for hours about range safety, field hygiene, proper fire control orders to deconflict fire etc, bemoan WH&S and say it is stupid, without realising that they have been doing it their whole careers anyway.

Which isn't to say the WH&S police can't go overboard, but as with everything in life balance is key.

 

[old faithful]

Let me guess: non-warfare is not as dangerous as warfare? Probably there are studies about seat belts in helos being advantageous. Sun burn is never going to be advantageous. Personnel are worth looking after - they are not items to be discarded when sun burnt, not wearing seat belts. Sun burn may actually prevent that person from being useful for a day or two; and we do not know the consequences years later. I'm told skin cancer is a major problem for Australians. Beware.

let it go spazzy,let it go mate.....its ok.

 

[SpazSinbad]

let it go spazzy,let it go mate.....its ok.

What does this mean?

"Your sarcaism is noted....DH."

 

[oldsig127]

Sun burn is never going to be advantageous. Personnel are worth looking after - they are not items to be discarded when sun burnt, not wearing seat belts. Sun burn may actually prevent that person from being useful for a day or two; and we do not know the consequences years later. I'm told skin cancer is a major problem for Australians. Beware.

Hell, preventable sunburn was a chargeable offence even when I was in (70's and 80's)

It should have been too. Heavy packs do not mix with blistered shoulders and even if you tolerate it, it affects your concentration

oldsig

 

[oldsig127]

Sun burn is never going to be advantageous. Personnel are worth looking after - they are not items to be discarded when sun burnt, not wearing seat belts. Sun burn may actually prevent that person from being useful for a day or two; and we do not know the consequences years later. I'm told skin cancer is a major problem for Australians. Beware.

Hell, preventable sunburn was a chargeable offence even when I was in (70's and 80's)

It should have been too. Heavy packs do not mix with blistered shoulders and even if you tolerate it, it affects your concentration

oldsig

 

[old faithful]

What does this mean?

It means put me on your ignore list.
finished.

 

[ASSAIL]

Hell, preventable sunburn was a chargeable offence even when I was in (70's and 80's)

It should have been too. Heavy packs do not mix with blistered shoulders and even if you tolerate it, it affects your concentration

oldsig

It may well have been but take a look at any old images of RAN ships deployed to the tropics in the 60s and 70s and you will see just about everyone working on the upper deck wearing nothing but blue shorts and sandals, we may have been unaware of the cancer risks but we all did it with pleasure.

 

[ngatimozart]

Hell, preventable sunburn was a chargeable offence even when I was in (70's and 80's)

It should have been too. Heavy packs do not mix with blistered shoulders and even if you tolerate it, it affects your concentration

oldsig

Was this side of the ditch then too. I can only think of one case in the RNZAF when I was in that somebody got charged for it and they got seven days jankers apparently. They must have upset somebody. I do remember a couple of WAAFs sunbathing topless and going to sleep who got sunburnt on sensitive areas. They didn't get into official strife over it but they got heaps in the bar about it. We have real sunburn issues here now with the highest melanoma rates in the world, but we didn't know it back then and we used to get burnt every summer without fail right from when we were kids. I used to look like a broiled lobster.

The funny thing is, the ADF has being doing WH&S for as long as it has existed, we just haven't called it that. Think of any safety constraint that has existed in doctrine at any point in history - that is essentially simply WH&S. Giving soldiers quinine and forcing them to use mosquito nets? That's WH&S. Sailors wearing anti-flash gear in navy ships when at action stations? That's WH&S. Making aircrew wear parachutes and Mae Wests while in the aircraft even though it is terribly uncomfortable? WH&S.

Its always funny to hear an old warrant officer, who will talk passionately for hours about range safety, field hygiene, proper fire control orders to deconflict fire etc, bemoan WH&S and say it is stupid, without realising that they have been doing it their whole careers anyway.

Which isn't to say the WH&S police can't go overboard, but as with everything in life balance is key.

I think the OSH police need to have some common sense which unfortunately is rarely exhibited by them. They do have a duty to enforce the law and ensure that the legal requirements are met, however not all situations are cut and dried. The civilian ones that I have had dealings with have learned it all out of books - lots of theory but little practical knowledge. When I was in both mobs, safety was very much to the forefront whether it was in or around an aircraft or range, or on a ship alongside or at sea. One hand for the Queen - one hand for me was what my grizzly old chief drummed into me when I was in the Navy. Air Force was similar with old school NCOs jumping on unsafe practices, sometimes painfully if need be.

The worst incident that I was involved in was when I was on my Air Force basic and we were on the firing range with SLRs. I was one of eight on the firing point when a trainee two down from me had a jam. Instead of doing his correct drill as had been drummed into us many times, he yells out "it's jammed Corporal and swung around still holding his rifle at the hip and horizontal. A voice yelled Drop, which we did, ceasing fire, releasing magazine and cocking , hooking and looking whilst keeping the weapon pointed downrange. Later on one of the other guys on the course said that a Corporal grab the trainee's rifle pointing it in the air and then taking it off him as the Sergeant knocked the offender to the ground quite roughly. A few bruises were evident afterwards. That trainee got the chop before the course ended.

 

[Stampede]

The deck markings on the RAN LHDs are NATO, as per RN, Spanish and Italian navies. The only difference is the stbd helo spots fore and abaft the island, as seen in JCI, were omitted.

Thanks for the info.
I did not pickup on the lack of stbd helicopter spots on Canberra.
Thanks again,
Regards s

 

[SpazSinbad]

It means put me on your ignore list.
finished.

No it is not - and I will not ignore anyone here.