Tweet
Hi everybody,
Folks mentioned something in the ID thread that I thought might be worth getting some input on.
I've been a security troop my entire nineteen years in the Air Force. Fifteen of those years were spent in Europe. While stationed at RAF Lakenheath, our aircraft squadrons were temporarily relocated to RAF Honington during a flightline resurfacing project. While guarding aircraft there, I had my first experience working directly with RAF troops. They had a very interesting post rotation/shift schedule. Over 24 hours it went like this:
2 hours - entry control point
4 hours - patrol
4 hours - standby
2 hours - entry control point
6 hours - standby
2 hours - patrol
The tour cycle was 1 24-hour shift on, 2 (often 3) days off. The actual duty cycle would vary depending on personnel and shift rotation, but troops never worked a gate longer than 2 hours.
My question then is my question now: Why aren't we (private sector and military) doing this?
The study on fatigue mentioned in the ID card thread is certainly not the only one to support an argument for a shorter guard shift. The bulk of my career I've worked twelve-hour shifts, often without meal breaks. I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted here, but maybe someone who's never heard it before will stop by and read this: long shifts breed carelessness, complacency, apathy - the common "guard asleep on duty" scenario we've all seen in the movies.
The RAF shift rotation prevented a great many fatigue-related errors at entry points. I don't have the exact statistics anymore, but I remember their shift commander telling me that the increase in performance was significant enough to warrant the base commander taking their "experimental" new shift schedule all the way up to headquarters.
Troop morale was high. They loved the schedule. They executed the rotation with such precision that post-associated time was practically nil, ensuring that the entire 6-hour standby shift was spent sleeping, and even the toughest shifts (2 hours on the gate followed by 4 hours patrolling after that 6 hours of sleep) were accepted without complaints by troops who had several days off following one extended day of duty.
8 hours on a gate is punishing, particularly when factoring in weather (I'm stationed in North Dakota now). 12 hours is ridiculous. I've been doing this professionally for almost 20 years, and I cannot remain attentive on any post for 12 straight hours.
For most of us, the answer ends in lack of money and personnel. Where I work now, we don't have the people for that kind of rotation. We won't have it. Ever. That's the reality.
Call me idealistic, but I can't help thinking that, given the current security climate, we're looking at the wrong bottom line.
Take care all,
Dave
Folks mentioned something in the ID thread that I thought might be worth getting some input on.
I've been a security troop my entire nineteen years in the Air Force. Fifteen of those years were spent in Europe. While stationed at RAF Lakenheath, our aircraft squadrons were temporarily relocated to RAF Honington during a flightline resurfacing project. While guarding aircraft there, I had my first experience working directly with RAF troops. They had a very interesting post rotation/shift schedule. Over 24 hours it went like this:
2 hours - entry control point
4 hours - patrol
4 hours - standby
2 hours - entry control point
6 hours - standby
2 hours - patrol
The tour cycle was 1 24-hour shift on, 2 (often 3) days off. The actual duty cycle would vary depending on personnel and shift rotation, but troops never worked a gate longer than 2 hours.
My question then is my question now: Why aren't we (private sector and military) doing this?
The study on fatigue mentioned in the ID card thread is certainly not the only one to support an argument for a shorter guard shift. The bulk of my career I've worked twelve-hour shifts, often without meal breaks. I'm sure I'm preaching to the converted here, but maybe someone who's never heard it before will stop by and read this: long shifts breed carelessness, complacency, apathy - the common "guard asleep on duty" scenario we've all seen in the movies.
The RAF shift rotation prevented a great many fatigue-related errors at entry points. I don't have the exact statistics anymore, but I remember their shift commander telling me that the increase in performance was significant enough to warrant the base commander taking their "experimental" new shift schedule all the way up to headquarters.
Troop morale was high. They loved the schedule. They executed the rotation with such precision that post-associated time was practically nil, ensuring that the entire 6-hour standby shift was spent sleeping, and even the toughest shifts (2 hours on the gate followed by 4 hours patrolling after that 6 hours of sleep) were accepted without complaints by troops who had several days off following one extended day of duty.
8 hours on a gate is punishing, particularly when factoring in weather (I'm stationed in North Dakota now). 12 hours is ridiculous. I've been doing this professionally for almost 20 years, and I cannot remain attentive on any post for 12 straight hours.
For most of us, the answer ends in lack of money and personnel. Where I work now, we don't have the people for that kind of rotation. We won't have it. Ever. That's the reality.
Call me idealistic, but I can't help thinking that, given the current security climate, we're looking at the wrong bottom line.
Take care all,
Dave
)
Comment