Well said LJ.
Still no sign of a tightly worded set of Safety Rules / Guidelines or whatever they should be called from AI.
If they can be written, then write them AI or get someone else to.
Printable View
Well said LJ.
Still no sign of a tightly worded set of Safety Rules / Guidelines or whatever they should be called from AI.
If they can be written, then write them AI or get someone else to.
Your very words Lissajous are hysteria, a half truth, insult and misrepresentation. I never said dozens would drop dead, or even hinted at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
On the other hand but for sheer luck we WERE very close to an RO facing civil and/or criminal sanction, and from where I sit one is far too many.
It certainly is if you are that "one",
ask Pete Bland what it feels like to be there. But then nobody seems to care about his views.
Wynn did not want to be that one either, which is how I got involved.
Why do you blame me?
It was graham stated in rules that insurance could be voided by rule breaking - which started ALL of the arguments, and inevitably highlighted the question of how difficult or impossible it was to comply with rules.
Why are you not blaming him?
Now you've torn it- we better get our heavy duty reading trousers on!Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
AI when you keep managing to alienate the people who are sympathetic to your views then you know it's gone wrong. Did you even read the part where I denigrated the committee too? Maybe insulting both sides doesn't work very well as a political tactic.
I am not currently an RO so I did not have to make difficult decisions last September, but I certainly do not blame Wynn in any way for deciding she could not stay with the FRA at that time.
And I do not know of any rules that would have helped Mike if the failures had played a critical role in Brian's sad death.
Quote Karate Kid. Best form of defence is "no be there"Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Rules would not have helped. Any sane RO knows you have to be as sure as you can of who left, and who came back, so writing rules that say that are not helpful, and the rulebook is of itself no help on the day. No official reads the rulebook at a race to know what their job is.
So it was not about rules: the problem was the tasking of specific people to do specific jobs, and making sure those tasks covered the bases with redundancy so a cockup did not become a catastrophe. A plan tasking people that stopped things falling through cracks between people. That is how a safety professional would tackle it. Not with additional "rules"
My entire involvement in this was because wynn felt very vulnerable - with rules she could not comply - including a rule that said that would void insurance. An unimportant matter to most it seemed at the time, but it mattered to wynn.
The rest was loss of trust built on repeated denials of there being a problem.
I entered this thread only because the Chair made a statement to the coroner that the are now doing all that is reasonably practical for safety .
They are not. Not even close.
Well explained ~ you've said more there than in the rest of the thread put together.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Because regulation of the banks was taken away from the Bank of England and given to the FSA. Many argue that had Mervyn King still been responsible (i.e. a banker rather than a general regulator) some of what happened may have been prevented, as in Canada.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Now if only we could get that Canadian guy over here .....
My attention was brought to this extraordinary statement from GB:
<<I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.>>
Like GB, I attended the inquest as a properly interested person with no formal connections to FRA. GB feels there is no need for concern about FRA protection for race organisers. He should therefore explain why, at the inquest:
1. The UKA witness listed a large number of potentially damaging breaches of compliance with FRA safety requirements, yet no UKA nor FRA witness chose to point out that, thankfully, none of these infringements had any bearing whatsoever on the tragedy.
2. The UKA legal representative chose not to challenge independent evidence that the rule infringements were irrelevant.
3. After the inquest, FRA officials attempted to prevent the release of the potentially embarrassing UKA witness statement to the FRA Committee.
The Sailbeck race organiser certainly has good reason to be grateful to the insurers. In my opinion at least, for the race organiser to extend that gratitude to FRA and UKA witnesses would be extraordinary. Unless there is a dramatic change of culture within the FRA Committee that seems to have led to this mess, race organisers would be very wise to consider their options with great care.
Keith Burns
Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
LissaJous
There are (at least) two certainties in life:
i) AI will continue to fabricate "facts" because he never checks sources but relies on his fetid imagination
ii) The FRA Safety Committee will discuss their current work with SQEP(s).
This work, announced by the General Secretary, Nick Harris (FRA Website 25th February) to be carried out during 2015 will include drafting of some brief basic Principles but the priority is a significant rewrite of the Guidelines for Race Organisers ready for 2015 , together with consideration of the Safety Requirements in the light of experience as 2014 progresses. FRA race documentation will become shorter, simpler, integrated and devoid of duplication/repetition and, without the constraints of the Inquest, there will be broader and earlier consultation than was the case in 2013.
Regards,
Graham
Brilliant. Case closed. (And the FRA really does need a communications officer). I'm outta here.