Handcuffed by Simunition

[rstallman]

How can Simunition force you to buy their NLTA, and safety gear or threaten that you are not covered by their warranty and if someone gets hurt when using Simuntion weapons with ANYTHING but their stuff you are on your own? This seems like extortion to me! Unfortunately I work for a very liability conscious state agency and as soon as they heard that they insisted that we purchase all Simunition equipment, eventhough ATK is far superior. Am I stuck with this?

I have spoke with Randy Clifton and used ATK rounds in simunition weapons. He is great and the rounds were even better. Randy even told me that he would warranty the weapons, but what about the laibility factor?

Thanks,

Bob Stallman

[Mully]

Bob,

My take would be to present to your admin the pro's and con's of Simunition gear versus other gear on the market. I would assume you are referring to the simunition "bobble" helmets as the major flaw in their equipment line. Our experience with the neck guards, gloves, and groin protectors have been favorable and the only time we use the bobble helmet is on an actor that is probably going to take a few hits. Maybe selling it to your admin would be to point out the problems with the helmet and the varios con's (poor visibility, poor auditory, fogging, etc, etc) that go with them. I believe if your able to show them that you run a type ship with all the safety checks, clearly defined scenarios, and XCO's that are right on top of the action you wouldn't have to worry about a significant injury.

I think simunition is just putting that "we won't cover you crap" out there so that admin thinks you have to purchase their equipment. I think it is a line of crap. If an injury occurred during a simulation, I would assume that the person brining the suit would be going after the trainers and the dept for running a poorly designed RBT program instead of going after the makers of simunition (my .02).

[justken2u]

Here is an excerpt from my book Training at the Speed of Life - Volume 1:

Reality Based Training that includes the use of NLTA necessitates the use of certain types of protective equipment. The minimum mandatory protective equipment recommendations for using NLTA are face protection (that includes impact rated eye protection,) throat protection, groin protection, and gloves. Long-sleeved/long pant body covers are strongly recommended. These requirements are based on years of experience, and the research into countless injuries. The minimums are not overly burdensome. However, they may create limitations that may reduce the reality of the simulation to a certain extent. It’s a trade-off, but in the world of trade-offs that is RBT, always err on the side of safety.

I have seen different groups use various types of sub-minimum protective equipment over the years, where cutting corners has resulted in the loss of flesh, mobility, or even eyesight. Some groups consider themselves too macho to follow the safety guidelines. Several military groups refuse to wear full-face masks, opting simply for protective eyewear. Some train in shorts and T-shirts. What these projectiles can do to exposed soft tissue is horribly startling. To paraphrase the late Mister Rogers, “Can you say ‘permanent disfigurement?’ I’ll bet your lawyer can … sure.” Others think that the limitations imposed by certain pieces of safety equipment reduce the training value due to a reduction in sensory input.

There is no argument that sensory input is reduced through the use of protective equipment. Some visibility and some measure of hearing is lost when wearing head armor. Some tactility and fine motor skill function is lost while wearing gloves. Throat collars can be hot or cumbersome. Groin protection is uncomfortable and on occasion raises the issue of sanitation. Long sleeves and long pants can be hot in warmer climates.

Many of the complaints can be overcome through site selection and organization of the training so as to limit the exposure of students to adverse elements such as heat or cold to the greatest extent possible. Further, careful selection of the protective gear should permit the maximum possible mobility, tactility, and visibility. Many of the perceived limitations of the protective gear can actually be turned into valuable training tools if properly considered.

For instance, head armor will always reduce visibility and occasionally the ability to speak and hear clearly. However, this creates the necessity to scan and breathe, skills that are necessary during a stressful encounter due to visual narrowing and shallow breathing. Head armor also forces the trainee to use simple, clear, loud verbal commands in order to be heard by the role player. Many officers will not communicate clearly in stressful encounters on the street, often because communication is rarely necessary on the range or in the gym during training. Not only must communication skills be used during range drills and in the gym, building these skills into a scenario will assist the officer to respond properly on the street.

When using NLTA, hits to knuckles, fingertips, and other areas of the hands can cause sufficient injury to keep a person away from work for a period of time. Projectiles have been known to split skin, remove fingernails, and leave nasty bruises. Gloves will greatly reduce and sometimes eliminate this type of hazard. Aside from the protective nature of gloves during Reality Based Training, wearing gloves is often a necessity for many agencies while on duty, yet many officers still refuse to train with them on. Many agencies in North America must wear gloves and bulky clothing due to weather conditions. Still others insist on the use of gloves as a barrier to blood borne pathogens during arrest situations when they search a suspect. Much of the ballyhoo surrounding the resistance to use of gloves during training comes back to the issue of convenience to the trainee. I have raised this issue in several other places in the book about how too much training is conducted with the primary consideration being the comfort of the student. Too much shooting is done in a lighted, predictable environment from static positions of comfort that allow complete access to one’s equipment, when the reality of the street dictates that a gunfight is likely to be chaotic, in a dark environment, and from positions that restrict access to one’s equipment, especially if it is improperly placed on the duty belt. If you fight with your gloves on, it is always better to train with your gloves on, since you should always train as you will fight.

Gloves will reduce tactility and dexterity to a certain degree and many trainers avoid their use for this reason. Trainers seem to forget that a sympathetic nervous system response also reduces tactility and dexterity. If your officers can draw their weapons, engage, reload, re-holster, draw OC, operate a radio, deploy intermediate weapons and take physical control of an individual with gloves on, then they will be prepared for the reality of the street.

There are many different types of comfortable and flexible gloves available that can reduce or prevent injuries while using NLTA. Negligence suits grow out of injuries that were predictable and yet no steps were taken for their avoidance. Because injuries to the hands while training with NLTA are predictable, for the most part they are preventable.

As for groin protection, Mario Martinez from Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office can tell you the benefits of wearing it and the hazards of not doing so. A direct hit on the end of his unprotected “Little Mario” was sufficient to curb his amorous desires for a while. Men are not the only ones vulnerable. Man, woman, or beast, the groin is a sensitive area that should be protected with some form of hard protection.

And throat collars … I consider them to be mandatory by my safety standards during the use of NLTA, yet some agencies refuse to use them or instead wrap towels around the neck as a substitute. Towels shift and expose the throat. Failure to wear properly designed neck protectors poses a substantial danger. The windpipe is a very sensitive area that could possibly be damaged from a projectile impact if it is not protected. Throat collars are mandatory and should be carefully chosen for optimal impact protection.

All protective gear, for that matter, should be carefully considered and chosen to best suit the needs of the individual training situations, but who gets to decide what optimal protection is? Is the only suitable protection that which is manufactured or made available by the companies that produce the marking cartridges? No, no, a thousand times no.

In the early days of SIMUNITION® we didn’t even make protective equipment. We looked to the experts who had been protecting against paintball strikes for years. Our projectiles were smaller and slightly faster than conventional paintballs, and as such some of the available head armor had vent holes that were too big to stop our projectiles. With a few simple modifications, we were able to plug the gaps, and with a few simple calculations we were able to determine that despite the fact our projectiles exceeded the paintball mask manufacturer’s maximum approved velocity, our faster projectile actually hit the visor with a lower energy than a recreational paintball. ANSI rated Paintball masks that have a maximum rating of 250 f.p.s. can easily take hits from lighter NLTA marking projectiles traveling at 400 f.p.s.

We saw a huge available market if we supplied our own protective headgear. We also looked at making other protective gear since we certainly weren’t the type of people to leave perfectly good money on the table. We were the natural source for protective equipment, given the fact that we were producing the product that needed to be protected against! To that end, the manufacturing rights were purchased for one of the popular paintball masks. After a while, a couple of firms that were in the clothing business were contacted to investigate the possibility of producing other protective gear.

Somewhere along the line, agencies got it into their collective heads that the protective gear for use with NLTA had to come from the manufacturer of the training ammunition, and that there was some huge liability exposure if they went to an alternate source. Anybody who tells you that this is the case may be using unconscionable scare tactics to pad their bottom line. This would be like Winchester telling you that the only ammunition you are allowed to use in their firearms is their ammunition, or Remington insisting you can only use their hearing protection when using their firearms. It’s absurd. Any liability exposure during any type of Reality Based Training as a result of injuries inflicted during that training would be viewed against the standard of reasonable care, rather than whether or not the ammunition manufacturer has officially endorsed the protective equipment you were wearing. As long as there are reasonable safety standards in place and appropriate protective equipment is being used, agencies are likely to be protected from liability regardless of the source of manufacture for the protective equipment.

Telling users “if you don’t use our protective equipment you’re liable for any injuries sustained” is nonsense. No ammunition company can impose liability on you. Do you think for one second that if you do use their protective equipment and an injury occurs that they will be beating a path to your door with an open checkbook? As long as the protective equipment is either specifically designed for, or reasonably useful for, protection against the hazards inherent in RBT, there is no additional liability exposure to anyone using protective equipment from a source other than the ammunition manufacturer.

[rstallman]

Ken, once again you have come through. I tell everyone I come across what a phenominal instructor you are, especially in the world of RBT. I have implemented several of your procedures into RBT training courses without changing a thing when it comes to safety protocol. Hey why fix what ain't broken. I have screamed until I was blue in the face that we did not need to purchase Simunition safety equipment or NLTA, but insisted on ATK. I was overruled by a person who knows nothing of RBT, only what Simunition tells him. His last thing was that we needed to buy Simunition chest protectors because if we don't, Simunition will leave us out to dry if someone gets injured. There is no reasoning with these types of people, but I am going to continue to push forward. I am going to send him your response and see if that helps change his mind.

Thanks again Ken.

[rstallman]

Thanks Mully. All excellent points. I will be using this to sway the bosses.

[justken2u]

Hello Bob:

I'm not quite sure how I let this post slip by without responding to it ... better late than never I guess. First of all, no company can IMPOSE liability on you. You can even ask your legal advisors about this. Liability can attach from "duty of care". If, for instance, you were employing someone to swing a hammer at rocks for a living, you would have a duty of care to require and perhaps even need to provide adequate safety gear such as "adequate" eye protection. The maker of the hammer or the owner of the rocks need not specify the brand or configuration of the eye protection. The eye protection needs simply to adequately protect the eyes from chips of rock striking and damaging the eye. If the rock chip hazard was such that the chips could damage any part of the hammer swinger, protection to those other vulnerable areas might also be required. To not do so would suggest negligence. I talk about this concept in Training at the Speed of Life - Volume One at pages 145 - 146. Hence, as long as you are wearing adequate protective gear to stop the impact of the FX rounds SIMUNITION manufactures, you're covered. I can tell you THIS for a certainty ... if your officers become injured while wearing SIMUNITION brand protective gear despite their hollow proclamations that you MUST buy their protective equipment if you are using their ammunition, they aren't fueling the SIMUNITION jet and rushing to your aid with a check in hand. They likely won't even return your calls. I know of several lawsuits (past and pending) where users have been injured despite the donning of their protective gear and they have been less than supportive (I'm being kind here). As for me, I am currently using the protective gear sold by ATK and PDT. I PROHIBIT the use of the SIMUNITION FX 8000 (and any of its derivatives) helmet in my training programs.

I hope this has been helpful!

[editorial note ... duh ... it looks like a indeed DID answer Bob's question some time ago. I figured I'd leave this additional post up anyways]