Kyle Mullen Navy Safety Enhancement Amendment.

[JJ_BPK]

Is the BUD/S course inherently or intentionally unsafe?

I think there are more and larger BUD/S classes, but I do not think that explains why the SEAL course has a higher morbidity rate.

Maybe it doesn't have a higher morbidity rate, maybe it's just bad PR??

House passes amendment that comes in response to Manalapan Navy SEAL candidate who passed away after rigorous ‘Hell Week’ training

‘Kyle Mullen Naval Safety Enhancements’ aimed at improving medical care and oversight for high-stress military training programs

Washington, Jul 15, 2022 | Michael Finan (202-225-3765)

The House of Representatives this week passed an amendment offered by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) aimed at improving medical care and oversight for high-stress military training programs in response to the tragic death of Manalapan Navy SEAL candidate Kyle Mullen, who passed away in February after completing the Navy’s rigorous “Hell Week” training.

Named for Kyle—“Kyle Mullen Naval Safety Enhancements”—the amendment directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an appraisal of current standards and provide recommendations for improved medical care and oversight of individuals in the Navy engaged in high-stress trainings, like the Navy SEALs, to better ensure sailor safety and prevent long-term injury, illness, and death.

“Kyle’s mother Regina, a nurse, told me in a heartbreaking conversation in her home that Kyle’s death could have been prevented had her son received timely medical attention,” said Smith, whose amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023 passed with broad bipartisan support.

https://chrissmith.house.gov/news/do...umentID=410048

[JimP]

This is a difficult topic. I recall years ago that to really get the benefit of "realistic" training, there needed to be some risk involved. How you managed that risk is what is at stake. Think about the things we did as youngsters in the Q course - how many times were you out solo running the woods? crossing water obstacles, etc? There's risk involved.

Remember the Ranger class with the hypothermia?

You can manage risk but you'll never get it to zero. We also don't want to be what I observed when I was at Scott AFB: an AF officer had to take the their PT test as a make up while we were out doing ours. They showed up with a cadre of folks to complete the test for him: medic, defibrillator, couple of dudes as safety monitors, etc. it must have taken them six dudes to execute their PT test for this one guy. And the AF test isn't what we would call "rigorous."

I'm not sure that's the answer.......

IIRC the young man (SEAL candidate) had successfully negotiated all the training, but succumbed during recovery.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by JimP

Remember .....

I remember well.

I have mentioned in the past that my class lost 2 amazing warriors on the last day of our FTX for the old SUCBA course, Aug 15, 1969 (Combat Divers Course).

I remember the postmortem inquiry board. I was the "Team Leader" so I had a lot of explaining to do. In our case, I do not know the final "verdict", but it appeared that it was a combination of small errors that turned catastrophic.

And yes, I agree the course has to get that close to disaster to validate the teaching points. :[

This leads me to think this proposal by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) is counterproductive,, YMMV

[CSB]

Hmmm ...


the amendment applies ONLY to the Navy.


I guess the Army doesn't have any "high stress military training programs*."


I guess Ranger and the Q course were just walks in the park.


*and neither does the Air Force or Coast Guard.