This would inevitably lead to one only being able to enter a fell race if one had done an approved fell running safety course or ML, which could only be taught by certified trainers, etc, etc, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Printable View
This would inevitably lead to one only being able to enter a fell race if one had done an approved fell running safety course or ML, which could only be taught by certified trainers, etc, etc, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I disagree NMNC. We are looking at how we address the balance of responsibility between the runner, the FRA and the RO.Quote:
Originally Posted by No map, no compass
Most of the concern expressed on here is that the responsibility seems to be getting placed too much on the RO when I think most of us accept personal responsibility when we enter a race.
The RO should be responsible to give an overview of the race so that competitors can take a view as to whether they are up to it.
That doesn't happen often enough. Most races just have an entry in the calender with the stats and a few abbreviations.
Most of us use word of mouth or ask questions of the forum to find out info on the races.
But if that info is available, the responsibility should then be on the runner to make sure they have the requisite skills to take part.
I'm not suggesting that all runners should attend a mountain leaders course, but they should be able to read a map, particularly for races that are M or L category.
The RO can't test for that. The fact that an athlete may have completed an 2 x AL/AM for example doesn't tell an RO that the runner can navigate.
How many athletes head for these fell races knowing that they are carrying a map and compass but haven't a clue what to do with them?
I'd say a fair proportion. Let's for argument sake say it's 20%. If the sport can get that down to 5% that has surely got to be welcomed.
I agree with your desire for everyone in an M or L race to be able to navigate with a map and compass and for runners to take responsibility for their safety, but the only way an RO can assess whether anyone has the ability to navigate on their own is if they have some sort of certificate. As you say, having done a few ALs or AMs doesn't guarantee anything. I personally wouldn't want to see a situation developing where you can't enter a race without having done an approved course (and I know that isn't what you are suggesting.)
As far as waymarking routes of races goes, it's not always straightforward: http://www.justusuk.com/2013/09/hodd...ce-14-sep.html
I happened to be cycling past the show that day and it was bright clear sunshine so no excuses for nearly all the field to go the wrong way!
No disrespect Bob, but you can see the markings - these little cane sticks with a bit of tape on the top, hidden amongst all the rushes.
NMNC - why should the RO be expected to assess a runners ability to navigate?
Typically an RO puts on a race and advises "NS" because that RO feels that there may be circumstances in which the runner may need to navigate.
That should be the end of it surely?
If the RO goes a little further and advises in pre-race info(for example) "The nature of the terrain and changeable weather conditions in the area that this race covers means that runners should be competent navigators." then that underlines it.
I'm not sure that they should assess a runners ability to navigate, though I think that is what those who ask for experience of other races are trying to do. As you say there should perhaps be more emphasis on the runners need to be able to navigate competently and that fell race routes are not marked in pre-race info.
We did some coahing sessions aimed at novices this summer with a good attendance. As well as techniques for running up and downhill, we also covered the basis of safety on the hills and had an entire session on navigation (not enough, I grant you, to send people out and expect them to get round, say last year's Great Lakes, but enough that they could orient themselves, follow their route, and most importantly get safely off the hill in a sensible direction.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
The feedback on the nav and safety segments was probably the most positive in terms of their usefulness, and we intend to continue with these sessions. It's important we all help our novice and junior runners to learn these skills in a wide variety of settings, be it formal coaching, mentoring, out on the fell on a Sunday training run, or by helping someone who's f***ed it up in a race.
We're already seeing some of the guys who attended our training spreading their wings and trying new and different events further afield and we are also committed to providing opportunities for them to continue to develop with events such as our Hill Trial nav event.
Jim
So NMNC - really we are of the same position :)
I think this sentence from AI sums up his position nicely and it's one I agree with:
"When the RO starts managing risk for runners, he starts assuming responsibility for it, so it weakens the runners determination of/assent to/ need to manage his/her own risk."
There's been a few calls for routes to be marked and/or for runners to stay on the route if in trouble. The beauty of many of the best races is that there is no such thing as "the route"; runners have to decide for themselves what the viable options are between checkpoints and assess which route suits them best.
That worries me.. sorry but how does the LiFR qualification qualify you to do that? This is exactly what people worried about the courses, being used outside of their remit (which basically didn't exist).Quote:
Originally Posted by jtinnion
I'm not saying you can't nav, but its confusing how as a walker I need to attend a 5 day training and 5 day assessment to teach walkers nav.. but as a runner its 2 days with no assessment... the potential for uninformed teaching must be high?
I don't see why informal coaching, advice on club runs is a problem, thats different to being told be a 'qualified' coach, 'oh do this, do that'.. This was many of us original issue, that its a hastily arranged process that will be abused. I've already seen 'guides' advertising these qualifications commercially..
Sounds good Jim.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtinnion
I started with local races where Nav wasn't required. But I liked it so much that I got us involved in our first fell relays for decades when we attended Bowland around 6 years ago.
Recces with other runners and then on to the PPP really refreshed my skills I did have as a teenager but had lost.
There was some intended irony/sarcasm in there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
You can't help some runners: I was marshalling at the summit trig point on the Auld Lang Syne last year and put a full run of tiger tape round the trig point to guide runners in and (more importantly) out of the check point as the route took about a 280deg turn almost coming back on itself. Several runners jumped over the tape and carried on! So not only did they not take notice of the tape they didn't take notice of the runners in front of them turning sharp right. If I hadn't been there shouting at them then they'd have continued blindly on and ended up at the head of Stanbury beck!
Hi Iain
Neither the LiRF nor the Level 2 which I also hold covers navigation in any depth as I'm sure you're aware, and neither I nor my assistant coaches on these sessions claimed that it did. And while, as I operate in an industry where we have to have proven competence at work, I appreciate the need to demonstrate competence, I have to say that we run the risk of not tapping a huge well of experience and goodwill from people who we can clearly see are competent but who haven't as yet had the opportunity to do the course and get the piece of paper.
Right now, my view is that we have a bunch of guys out running in the hills, who want to learn a bit more about it. We also have a guys and girls with a huge amount of experience but (as yet) no formal qual in teaching navigation. Some training from folks with at least a lot of experience if not an MLTB is better than having the "novices" going out with no training at all and not being able to find their way to safety when the clag comes down.
I'd love to do an MLTB, but at Mercia we don't have unlimited resources of cash, or of volunteer time. We're doing what we can with what we have. We started with zero coaching whatsoever two and a bit years ago, and we are now working through a plan year by year in terms of how we train folks up to deliver what we have identified is needed. This is a huge move forward for us.
As a result of the nav session we have 12 attendees who know a bit more than they did about using map and compass to orient themselves and follow a route. I can't really see what's wrong with that, at least as an interim position until we are able to deliver training from someone who's fully qualified.
If you'd like to share the benefits of your MLTB with us as a volunteer coach in the meantime until we can find someone from within the club and fund them through the course and assessment, we'd love to hear from you.
As for the commercial "guiding" issue, as the FRA suite of coaching courses is the only off road running coaching qual available at the moment it's almost inevitable that people will use it as a selling point. I'm not sure, but I would imagine that the benefits of the UKA insurances which apply to those of us doing voluntary leading / coaching probably don't apply to commercial work?
Best regards
Jim
Dark peak has recently put on a non certified Mountain skills course for it's members. The aim was to teach a bit of navigation, mountain skills like awareness of Hypothermia, what to do when it goes pear shaped, kit to carry, dangerous ground, etc. It was run by a qualified ML (C Betts). I had to drop out at the last minute due to work commitments as did a nurse. We will be running more. There is talk of putting it out to other clubs but I want to talk it over with others first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If they are ML's they would be covered as long as they ran it with in the ML remit. I do commercial guided runs in the peak with a bit of hill skills/navving thrown in.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtinnion
But the reality is that in many races the route is well established and anyway, the point is not "the route" it's about staying where you'll be seen and can call upon help, rather than becoming unconscious somewhere off the beaten track where you won't be found for hours, by which time it may be too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by luath
I live in North Germany.. but ask Sarah, she's in Mercia, an ML, experience of guiding.. we ran one day WFRA nav courses for a fair few years so more than willing to put the hours in.Quote:
Originally Posted by jtinnion
Re the insurance, I think you'd be surprised.. I know of one UK mountain Running 'guide' (no qualifications at all) who was offering guided mountain running in France.. if the French caught you guiding in France without an qualifications you'd be strung up. The level of ignorance is quite scary. Insurance does cover negligence but not misrepresentation.. so acting outside the remit of the awards.. would arguably be misrepresentation.
I know of one top UK climber, sponsored climber, who was out with a mate who was a UK guide, but not Alpine guide level, and they were quizzed by the police about if one was guiding the other....
I shared my advice with Eryri, suggested as an ML they should consider chip timing for longer races and was told what do I know as I don't organise a race... its just incredible how much resistance there is to change or improving systems.
You may have improved their ability, but others may not. That's why we brought in a more structured transparent system. Even in the UK unqualified people can guide but generally you will pay at least double if not more than an ML would.
But our old insurance, before the MLTB brought in their own insurance, had a quote like 'I sign that I am qualified to the NGB required level'... so I actually think a LiFR coach could sign that thats enoughh, then do commercial guiding.. but if an accident happened I think the insurance company would walk away.
Insurance doesn't totally protect you or the client, but if their is an accident and you have various qualified guides stating that inaproproate risks or mistakes were made.. your insurance would basically be worthless if they think you misrepresented your experience to provide that instruction..
But you don't have time.. in some races, say the Peris, small field, route options.. if you are cold and wet you should get off.. not wait.. the reality is the runner who finds you will be equally poorly equipped.. they then go to a marshall.. 10 minutes away.. probably more.. then they return 10 minutes again... and probably won't have that much better kit anyway (on the Peris most marshalls have little kit...(at the Pen race we were given a bivvy shelter - again its just single skin protection)..Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
once cold and wet 30 minutes stationary could well mean unconcious and death. In fact I'd go as far as to say the last thing you should do is be stationary.. the gear we carries buys us time, but not much.
One of the benefits of joining a club with a long history in fell running/racing is the wealth of experience that some members can pass on to new members considering taking up running and racing on the fells. At our club this happens all of the time and includes route recce, advice and instruction on navigation, kit choice etc etc. No formal qualifications are necessary for this type of help and advice and I'm sure most clubs offer the same sort of service, indeed I think its probably one of the best ways of passing on information.
Interesting one about chip timing failure...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-24519298
Not necessarily. Once not alone, a decision can be made on what to do; you are far better off if someone can assist you off the mountain.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
In some cases a person will be immobilized but in a fit state to be left while help is summoned, and in others they should not be left alone, and maybe the third person on-scene would go for help, or else the pair can find a safe way out.
Agree Lefty - and that applies to ROs as well as athletes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Yes but you are making an unknown decision.. how far off is someone? They may think they are on the route, yet in reality searching a piece of hillside way off the route..Quote:
Originally Posted by LissaJous
Look at Jura? Wasn't it Rob Jebb who ended up at the back of the island?
We've had a few in North Wales return to the start of the race in Landrovers...
Totally agree with this, thats what I said about informal passing on information. That is different from passing on information in a formal coaching session. The psychology changes then. There is a respect to the leader/teacher that things do not get questioned, so incorrect information given out should be avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Its different when people are just out for a run having a chat.. passsing on experiences. This desire to formalise informal club sessions is worrying in that regards.
But an old guy who just states from experience is different to a formal coach passing on information..
Fascinating distinction made, and an argument could run forever on which would give you better advice!Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
The telling remark is "pass on information" , rather than "pass on experience". I would pick first hand experience every time from whoever it came.
Anyway! what is so wrong with being old????? grrrr..... You young whippersnappers, don't know nuffin', and won't be told, not like in my day..! (Just practising the speech, ready for promotion to the next age group)
I have gained experience from doing in fell running and feel capable of tackling most routes.
Only map reading was O level geography (1978)
This is an interesting debate interspersed with the usual strange view or two.
Common sense is the key but sadly we can't teach that.
I think it depends, a mate did an article on experiences.. he's young and one of the UKs best climbers but was fed up with oldies saying he was inexperienced.. yet in reality he'd done more than most had in just in a few years.. I edited the article for him to try and make it more 'experience isn't just time out'.. but he was understandably sick of the 'what do you know'..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
In North Wales I don't think we had that many I'd class as experienced, few had raced away, few had done well at the classic races, few if any had done the paddy buckley.. for me they weren't particularly experienced despite decades of fell running.. their actual range of experiences was pretty limited.
I think too many hid behind fear of the unknown, I remember when I first started and said I was doing the Paddy in a few weeks, I was basically told I wasn't fit enough.. and that only those in peak fitness would do it, then ran the 6th fastest time to date. They just did not have the experience to comment with such authority... yet due to the length of their experience they thought they did, but the reality was it was running eilio and snowdon race for the last 20 years... if you had intimate knowledge of the Paddy you knew it was much quicker than people were stating at the time, it just screamed of inexperience.
In the lakes you got far more of the gnarly old vest who had been there, got the t-shirt....
True.. but thats sort of a reason why these rules are coming in..Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Common sense wasn't enough.. runners are now entering fell running with much less experience. It's great it is so accessible but its brought its own challenges. As I said marshalling the Elidir race was an eye opener for me just how much responsibility a good chunk of the fell runners were placing on RO's and marshalls.. a good chunk of the field just ran up and then ran back down towards the cliffs.. they'd obviously not got a map, reccied the route, or had looked at the best route on the map....
We all make mistakes but there is too much blind trust at the moment. Its the main reason I oppose shortened races in all but the most extreme conditions because I think it encourages the thinking that if a race is held it's safe to be out there.. and not the runners call to decide when enough is enough for them. We just end up racing in tame unchallenging conditions..
I agree Iain.
Scafell pike a month ago, had people going in all directions in the clag. Some did not have maps and others had maps but didn't know where they were.
How do we get round it, ensure everyone has completed either navigation training session or navigation event.
Mark the course?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Narr, it would spoil the sport.
I remember the first time i went up Skiddaw from the Bassenthwaite side. I spent about 3/4hr wandering a hillside trying to work out if i was on the side of Skiddaw or not. Turned out i was below Carl Side and had mistakenly picked up a trod to nowhere. The confusion i was feeling seems silly now, but you have to cut your teeth in the real world on a nice clear summers afternoon in order to develop your skills; you have to learn to walk before you can run.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Half of learning to navigate is placing yourself in relation to topographical features i think, and that can't really be taught. When i look at a landscape now i see it as contour lines and legend, it's like Neo seeing The Matrix.
IanDP said about practice the other day.. thats the key.. a course can teach you skills but much of that is fairly much logical and common sense, handrailing, ticking off features, aiming off.. using height.. there's some theory, GR's and how to use a compass, but recognising contours and what that land looks like is something which just takes practice,.. at walking pace.. slowly finding harder and harder points..Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
I find I'm rusty even now, in europe you often never need to use a map even in places like Chamonix, Siere, its all signed and big trails so I just don't get out with a map at all.
Just a thought would any club be interested in this? As It says it won't "Certify" that you are now skilled but hope fully it will allow a bit of experience and hill knowledge to rub off?Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Pm me if interested.
True if you dont use it you lose it but It helps if you know what to practice, which is what a course can help with.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
When I started out I had no fell running friends so I went on a course. Then spent time in the hills practising(getting lost in the clag).
It is important to recognise this thread is about the safety rules, not about useful advise for RO and runners about runner safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbrt
The two are getting intermingled, and that is a major part of what seems to be a problem with the rules.
Am increasingly concerned by what I understand is UKA view of the recent problems, and disappointed that has not been published since it was in essence a public hearing .
In addition, if as I understand it correctly the coroner explicitly cleared the RO of negligence at the recent inquest, I am left wondering why that (arguably one of the most important issues) was not reported at the time of posting the statement on the main site,. It would I suspect be helpful to those concerned. Perhaps those present can confirm that.
.
After 60+ posts and thousands of words, it is clear that you misunderstand many aspects of the law. An inquest gathers facts, it explicitly is not its role to exonerate or apportion blame; that is for other legal processes to deal with if necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
The Cumbria Deputy Coroner has issued a narrative conclusion, and has stated he will be formally writing to the FRA, which is legally required to reply. It is only the court documents that matter. Until this process is complete, it might be prudent to keep quiet.
Thanks for the response.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
I understood that issue was raised explicitly - Since you have apparently contradicted , I will indeed confirm that with my source. I thought the process had to all intents concluded other than coroners duty to comment on ways to improve for the future.
I understand enough about law - and have managed corporate saftey - to have raised serious questions which so far have been met with mockery and otherwise sidestepped: apparently again. Perhaps for example you would like to comment on some of the points I actually made before dismiss them as "misunderstanding"?
Such as the wisdom or otherwise of stating "No hazards in compulsory sections" in fell races when there clearly are hazards, and what is mandated is evidently impossible?"
Or the generic comment I made, that started this, that the rules and procedures and compliance to them will be subjected to scrutiny should the worst happen, as indeed it recently has - for which reason wording MUST be chosen with extreme care.
Whether you are aware of it or not, I am not the only one who is concerned.
I think the Grumps comments shows he is most likely a committee member or else how would he be able to speak as he did. I think that is quite worrying if I'm right, because his attitude stinks.
Good luck with that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Inquests cannot find anyone guilty in the strict legal sense but verdicts they can arrive at include unlawful killing and accidental death contributed to by neglect; it is usually clear at whom they are "pointing the finger", and further legal processes may logically follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump