It would be strange, but the people I know well on the FRA Committee are intelligent people and I am confident that Langdale will be compliant in the version to go in the Handbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Printable View
It would be strange, but the people I know well on the FRA Committee are intelligent people and I am confident that Langdale will be compliant in the version to go in the Handbook.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Doesn't each individual race have it's own safety officer? On our MT races under UKA regs we have a RO and a safety officer. The safety officer signs the race off for safety regarding marshalls/course condition and is the person who calls the shots re: race cancellation etc. The safety officers word is the last one.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I meant in respect of FRA itself, to review the rules and coordinate with other bodies in similar position eg SHRA WFRA - to avoid the normal cycle of updating rules in a hurry after a catastrophe, then ignoring them till the next one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairyfeet
The connection with the organiser was to gather / bounce ideas to ensure what is done allows for the broad church of races, to avoid leaving such as wynn feeling ignored, or tiny summer race organisers to be overwhelmed by requirements. Not an operational role in respect of specific race management
(TO answer the kind of question, such as are we getting to the point where it is necessary to have separate sections of rules for parkland, moorland and mountain races because they are chalk and cheese in terms of requirement? I actually think the answer to that is to be very short on overarching rules, other than to demand the RO produces a document about the specifics of the race and to specify the range of topics they must cover such as hazards/ marshalling/ locations/ runner instructions/ checkpoint instructions/ counting systems/ back up etc.)
Just review it all in our own time to suit FRA, rather than always in response to crises
So once rough edges are knocked of the current rules, enough to make sure all races are compliant and what is asked is practicable, then appoint a safety officer to oversee changes that can be enacted next autumn, and then we can tell the coroner we "have made a number of rapid changes without enough deliberation because of timescales" so in the light of the tragedy we are going to do a "wholesale review of all safety including his concerns" take the pressure off committing to anything at all...other than the review.
That way FRA is seen to be "responsible" in reviewing its position in the light of events.
Well, there's a Welfare Officer and a Rep to UKA already. what do they look after ?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
In detail no idea. Welfare? discrimination issues maybe? UKA - don't let me answer that... It was to avoid enlarging the committee I suggested fellhound who is already on the committee, and clued up on the subject - so certainly a man that could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairyfeet
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Not so. I am not a committee kind of person, nor wanting to become one.
That's a relief then !
Always ready with a useless snipe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates
Do you still think the rules , RO and marshalls are there to "save novices from themselves?", other than persuading them not to enter unless sufficiently experienced? Even if possible, the logistics needed to do that would overwhelm all but massive races, and kill the character of the sport.
On a more useful note - here is the type of document LDWA sometimes produce - with some changes it is a part of what I think an RO should produce, rather than lots of rules, and very little description - instead of which should be few rules and the RO document including route hazards, pullout procedures for marshalls, finish funnel, start and checking procedures , and runners document including retirement procedures etc etc etc. Tailored to the race. FRA give a permit or not or advise on changes needed to get one. It remains the RO responsibility to ensure it all happens as stated.
Once produced, not much needs changing year to year.
Templates could ensure all the right headings are used, even with a description of what you have to write in the space!
http://www.ldwa.org.uk/lgt/downloads...t_ver_1_01.pdf
There is nothing to fear in documents called risk assessments. HSE make it clear that they want to see that you have acted responsibly/ done what is reasonably practicable. They don't expect you to be a clairvoyant, and they don't have a problem with "accidents with the best will in the world are bound to happen"
it is the avoidable ones that worry them - and whilst that is for employees / others affected, it is a similar philosophy in due care.
Then how come a document was already passed that said any part of fell races have no hazards, and other such nonsense now removed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
And how come that draft would indeed have made the handbook " nemine contradicente " if people like me and others had not argued the wisdom of changing it?
Seems to me more effort was put into obscuring the word unanimous with unnecessary latin than playing some of the "what if" games needed and thinking some of the problems through.
I am not arguing the intelligence of those involved, although some have done that in reverse to me. I question there experience at finding/ avoiding problems in drafting of semi legalese.
I am arguing this thread is serving a purpose of identifying some of the issues, of which langdale and courses are one of a number that still remain.
Perhaps You need to trust people less, and question them more ,Khamsin.
The new draft has addressed some of the problems identified here but still has some way to go.
Once most of the rough edges are removed , suggest that " safety officer" aims to restructure for next year, and use that to say to the coroner the rules are now under major review - to avoid committing to problem changes now.
Typically they don't. Perhaps because of my background with road, cross country and track I bring in a qualified EA endurance official as Race Referee. He walks the route on the morning to make sure he's happy without.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairyfeet
It's not a FRA requirement and I'm not aware of any formal officials qualifications for Fell. But I do it routinely whatever the terrain.
I doubt that official would be so keen to do tyrosine at the Tour of Pendle though :D
???Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I find your reply difficult to understand and am surprised by your seemingly over-reaction to my posts. I can only assume that you misunderstand me.
When I posted this it was in direct response to this line which I quoted in the original post from AI.
“It is dangerous to have rules that do not reflect the real world”
I believed that AI was trying to explain the necessity to accurately describe the situation and circumstances to which a specific set of rules apply.
In response to this “Mountains heed no rules” was chosen as a succinct way of saying: variables such as climate, terrain and the ability, physiology, state of fitness of runners competing in such a complex and diverse environment is beyond the control of anyone.
In my experience the mountain/fell environment has a habit of chucking up extreme situations (take the Borrowdale OMM for example) that a risk assessment team, sat around a table in a remote location, at different time might deem as highly unlikely to occur or not even consider.
“Reflect that!” did not mean “BOOM!!” Or “in your face AI” or any other such derogatory remark. It was a direct challenge to whoever composes the said rules to accurately reflect/describe a practically infinite set of variables in a simple, concise rule, devised to function as planned, in all situations.
In my reply to WP regarding my original post I did say “I chose my words carefully” and I meant it, as I have done here also. I don’t just skim read, pick up some keyword and fire-off at a tangent.
I’m not advocating some kind of anarchic free-for all and well understand that guidance is required. My opinions are aimed purely at rules regarding safety, nothing else. My understanding of the application of safety guidance/regulations etc., (which is considerable but limited to the field of industrial machinery) is that prescriptive guidance can be applied to very specific situations in tightly controlled environments. As the environment and variables become less controlled and less specific then the guidance needs to offer greater flexibility in order to avoid the subject to be protected being compromised in all extremes of situation. I also understand that words such as “must” have a very precise meaning legally and offer no flexibility in the context of which they are applied.
I believe AI has tried hard to make these points (albeit in a very roundabout way)and I believe he is technically right. Many others have also made similar comments and I have no intention of further repeating them.
In a nutshell my opinion is that the safety guidance should offer two things:
Enough flexibility for RO’s to choose appropriate rules/guidance for their event, course and it’s specific environment etc.
Enough flexibility for competitors to make a judgement of their situation and take appropriate action to ensure their own safety during the event.
I’m not judging the FRA’s work/output, telling/advising anyone how to do anything or teaching granny to suck eggs, nor do I intend to patronise or be rude to anyone. I’m just stating my opinions. If you understood me correctly first time then I apologise for this lengthy reply. If you think my posts add nothing to the debate then disregard them.