Richard - your mailbox is full :-)
Printable View
Richard - your mailbox is full :-)
Sorted:)
Like many others, I suspect, I have tried very hard not to let myself get drawn into this debate since, as the final 'key safety point' on p.22 of the current Fellrunner notes, 'it's only a fell race'. The events surrounding Sailbeck 2012 however clearly demonstrate that sometimes it's actually rather more than just a fell race.
It seems to me from what I have read (not everything, I hasten to add) on this forum, on the Facebook page, and now in the Fellrunner, that the issue of personalities amongst some of the main protagonists has now become so poisonous that moving forward in the best interests of all involved with our sport has become next to impossible.
I don't like the way some correspondents on both (any) sides of the debate seek to persuade/denigrate, but I can see the genuinely held concerns of all. This thread it just one shining example of the way in which language choice and personality can so quickly derail sensible debate.
Reluctantly, I feel I will now have to pull my head out from the sand. It seems to me that the best place for me to contribute to these discussions will be via my own club's processes, probably its AGM - a club for which there are very clearly significant implications, whichever way the issues are ultimately resolved (and like many others, I think, I am deeply concerned by what, on the surface at least, does look like an increasingly entrenched position being taken by the committee in response to some more and some less reasonable concerns being raised by others).
I'd like to think this was all just a storm in a teacup, but the relatively recent incorporations of both the FRA and Dark Peak Fellrunners, alongside the rising tide of reports of inquests, lawsuits and the rest, tends to suggest otherwise.
My apologies in advance to all members of DPFR foolish enough to be regular attendees at our AGM.
Willy Kitchen (since, apparently, anonymous posting is to be frowned upon).
Experience of AI's posts has taught me the rest is going to be like the first bit. 15 miles of ankle-deep written muck (no offence AI, I'm just running with the metaphor here).Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
Bullet Points are the answer.
No, it's not supposed to be a joke. I read most of the previous epic thread and, when faced by AI's next set of extremely long posts I gave up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stick
I have tried to rewrite the rules to suit what I thought would be appropriate and will send them to the FRA when I have had another look so that they can either use or not use them as they see fit.
However, AI has spent so much time writing long and involved posts here, that, if he has the time to do this, why doesn't he just spend this time re-writing the rules as he sees fit and posting them here for the rest of us to criticize?
Some have moved to using the SHR for their insurance. Perhaps people should look at their safety document that has to be signed off a week before the race, available here. Whilst these might appear to be better than the FRA's, they still have some of the same issues.
For example,How is this to happen at a typical A Long with no road crossings? You have 200 runners, all of whom set off at the same time. A fast runner passes CP1 and 2 fine, but goes off course on the way to CP3. He loses 30 minutes, but carries on. Rather than being in tenth he is now 150th. What systems that we normally use are going to locate him? CP3 has runners coming through from 60' in to 180' in to the race. Marshals are taking numbers the whole time. When can they communicate back to the Race HQ about who has gone through?Quote:
It is recommended that each runner is checked around the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is known to race control.
As this is basically impossible on a fell race, why do both sets of rules suggest this?
I would love to see AI's and (particularly) Fellhound's form of Race Safety guidance as it would add considerably to the debate.
Opportunity to put this debate to bed AI - are you going to take it? Would at least provide a starting point...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
On the first sentence above, it seems to me that you and AI are in complete agreement on this Lecky. What surprises me is that for the last 6 months my interpretation of your input on the Safety regs was that the committee was handling this in the right manner and you didn't know what all the fuss was about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
eg. here on 12/11
You may well see AI and Fellhounds safety guidance in the not to distant future.
I can't speak of SHR as I have no association or little knowledge of them. But my take on the current situation is that the FRA have filtered down the Rules and Safety Requirements to the Home Nations over recent years.
Those have been done through the bodies affiliated to UKA/EA but also adopted by the independent organisations such as SHR, WFRA and others.
It has taken the FRA a period of something like 12 months to complete it's review that was issued as a final piece according to Graham in September.
The FRA had to then quickly withdraw that finality and another review was undertaken.
I'm not sure whether or not it is completed because of the constant duff info we keep getting.
But it seems apparent to me that at the end of 2013 some of the associations that previously were happy to sign off on the FRA Pack, had misgivings and decided to react to that.
That involves meetings and reviews, so I'm prepared to cut them a little slack as so far they have had only 3 months to get right what the FRA took around 18 months to do badly.
[QUOTE=Lecky;579610] Perhaps people should look at their safety document that has to be signed off a week before the race, available here. /QUOTE]
I have taken an interest in the SHR Race Organisers Pack which still includes:
Race Monitoring and Rescue Procedures
Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that you are always in a position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out the rescue services.
When the FRA reviewed its Safety Requirements for 2014 it concluded that achieving "must" and "always" was virtually impossible (outside the 3 Peaks Race) and so the 2014 FRA version starts:
(10.2) "Must use reasonably practicable measures to monitor runners in Long/Medium A and Long B races... and then goes on to specifically highlight the use of "critical points" ie recognizing that all CPs are not the same in terms of runner safety.
It is the view of the FRA that its 2014 Safety Requirements are far more RO supportive/ friendly that any other version.
No doubt others will post their disagreement on here. Opinion is free.
But I would point out that the RO for the Ian Hodgson Relay, Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Kentmere, Buttermere Sailbeck and Coledale Horseshoe (up to 2013) etc sit on the FRA Committee. Most of them attended the Brian Belfield Inquest and I know they looked at the 2014 Safety Requirements from the realism of "what if I am defending myself in an Inquest in future" before they agreed them.
I bet they would do a BETTER JOB than the current attempt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
All ex and present committee appear to be sticking together like shit to a blanket.
Why not give Al a chance?
Neither agreement nor disagreement, nor an opinion, just a couple of clarifications. Just curious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
When you say "the FRA" do you mean a) the Chair b) the ex-Chair c) the Exec d) the Safety Sub-Committee, e) the Committee, f) the Committee and the RO (as of Sept or Dec 2013), or g) the 7000 members? Or maybe a subset of the above?
When you say "than any other version" do you mean any other version of previous FRA rules/documents or do you mean any other version of Uk or worldwide hill / fell running rules/documents?
Just trying to avoid misinterpreting you.
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;579651]Some good points Graham, although dare the RO's on the committee speak out on what they feel, or do they tow the party line in a 3 line whip?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
But I would point out that the RO for the Ian Hodgson Relay, Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Kentmere, Buttermere Sailbeck and Coledale Horseshoe (up to 2013) etc sit on the FRA Committee. Most of them attended the Brian Belfield Inquest and I know they looked at the 2014 Safety Requirements from the realism of "what if I am defending myself in an Inquest in future" before they agreed them. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
But would the FRA stand by other none committe Ro in the same way?
Just a couple of snippets that amuse me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
For you OB1 I think it is the FRA, because when the FRA Rules were approved nemine contradicente by the full FRA Committee on 1st September 2013 and were launched with a spectacular flurry by Graham as a job done, end of, it was infact the membership of the FRA that provided the impetus for a review of the review and it was input from the FRA that led Graham to remove many of the "musts" and "always" that has seemed quite important to him.
and is Graham claiming the RO of Kentmere as fully behind him? (even Borrowdale come to that?)
[QUOTE=Stagger;579664]Some of them are holding back for some reason. Playing the long game I believe. It's getting like Westminster politics though as you allude to Trev with some breaking ranks privately but not where it matters (yet).Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Thanks WP.
Graham, the last 4 posts (since yours) are all asking questions along a similar theme (although WP forgot a question mark at the end of his post:D)
It would be really good if you could take time to answer them individually in turn, as they are all subtly different in thrust. If you were to provide a blanket answer to all 4 I fear it might service none of them adequately, and just add to confusion.
Cheers, Sir.
So shoot me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by OB1
Many of us have interspersed AI's hundreds of thousands of words with comments along the lines of "so what do you suggest?". AI's answers have always been along the lines of "What's wrong with the current system is..." and general insults against the people with whom he could have been working to make things better.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
I think he's had many chances, but has chosen not to take them.
Sorry AI, I have some sympathy with your message - I think many of us have, but I think your approach has been counterproductive.
The people you are speaking about are all experienced people with personal integrity. The idea that Graham or Madeleine can somehow stop them from expressing their views seems pretty farcical to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
If these ROs were horrified with the guidelines, they'd probably say it - wouldn't they? They might have some misgivings and differences of opinion, but that's the way of things on committees.
Lecky, its not impossible but it needs a different approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
If you have not already done so, please check the Steam Bunny Bluff thread on Races. I will be inviting FRA to send an observer to my event to watch how I get on with knowing where runners are at all times.
WP - Thanks for satisfying me - in post 54 and post 57. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Graham - likewise, in advance? Re #51 and #56 :cool:
(assuming no one gets the hump/grump and starts deleting posts..)
Intrigued that you mention Graham and the Grump in the same post :)Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
Your imagination runs wild.....
T'was a small 'g' not a large 'G'.;)
[QUOTE=Lecky;579610] How is this to happen at a typical A Long with no road crossings? You have 200 runners, all of whom set off at the same time. A fast runner passes CP1 and 2 fine, but goes off course on the way to CP3. He loses 30 minutes, but carries on. Rather than being in tenth he is now 150th. What systems that we normally use are going to locate him? CP3 has runners coming through from 60' in to 180' in to the race. Marshals are taking numbers the whole time. When can they communicate back to the Race HQ about who has gone through?
[QUOTE]
Difficult but not impossible. We can pinpoint a runner to 5 minute block at any cp on the trigger and Grin and bear it. Admittedly we have the resources of the rescue team.
Thank you Noel for me the best post on the thread, I feel a little disappointed in some of the early posts...Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;579651]A misrepresentation as always.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Why can't you tell the truth? Pete bland was vociferous in opposition.
Ask scoffer to show you his emails to Andy to see that he is not as happy as you claim.
Brett has dared to state on here he is not happy either. And so on.
You seem to think shouting them down ( or not listening to them, whichever) is the same as them all agreeing.
And - like you graham - they have little or no knowledge or experience of professional safety management, so are not the ones best placed to determine the best way to protect themselves or manage safety. Your "adviser" has been no help on that either. He did not find that precedent I cited earlier - or if he did he failed to make any allowance for it in your precious rules. And regardless of him a couple of ( unconflicted)claims solicitors asked by Ro have said there are problems, at least one pointing at your stupid and impossible clause on " no foreseeable risk of accidents" which is clearly a problem for scoffer.
By the way - does your hubris extend to messing with your gas boiler too? On the grounds you have the RIGHT to make it up as you go along on things you know nothing about? , (sod the responsibility of course) And you have the right to your own opinion on what all those technical words mean as well? Do you believe a committee majority of people who know little or nothing can override proper practice on gas safety too?
Ian, a request for clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
I interpret what you are saying is that ONCE a runner goes through the CP you can pinpoint her/him to within 5 minutes at that CP. Sounds fair.
As opposed to what happens SHOULD a runner go AWOL BETWEEN CPs? Surely in that situation you can't then pinpoint them to 5 minutes? correct? You know to within 5 minutes when they went through the last CP but not where they are?
On the Trigger I bailed out after CP2 (Crowden) whilst climbing L-Edge, way before the safety of CP3 (Higher Shelf Trig) or even before the Marshals at Bleaklow Head - after getting severe cramp ascending LE. I recognised my situation and wisely retraced my steps and sought the safety of Crowden and the WMRT, rather than stumble on towards BH and Snake. But if I had stumbled on, I doubt that I would have been on any 5-minute radar until I reached BH / Snake? The Crowden Marshals were great (indeed fabulous), but were hardly anticipating my retreat within a 5-minute window.
Apologies If I have misunderstood you. Just seeking clarification.
PS, I could be wrong but from what I have read I think Wheeze is thinking/talking about trialling a more active/dynamic monitoring system / philosophy in AL/BL races? i.e. between CP?
[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579719]Mike,Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
You may need to read the Daily Mirror to learn about the real world but, rest assured, the FRA Committee and everyone else who needed to consider the ramifications of the XC death have known about it since day 1; so you may go back to telling untruths (Brett unhappy? Well I was chatting with him two nights ago about you), dodging difficult questions and dreaming about world safety domination..
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;579726]I have no dreams of dominating anything Graham.I had and have no wish to get involved in this, but it is clearly necessary that someone like me does, and I was offering my help only because there appeared and still appears to be no competent person involved. Delusions of grandeur and unfulfilled need for authority are for such as you and Madeleine.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I have had enough stress from potentially culpable authority over hazardous things to last me a lifetime. It is clear nothing will improve till you and her move on, or change attitude dramatically,
So then - to the point, If you were aware of that incident why have you failed to act on it in a competent way in advising RO? Where is the published incident review report? Why were you unaware of the grand raid incident till I pointed it out?
PS Brett States on here in the clearest way possible he is not happy doing the checks and " mollycoddling" you demand. I am simply repeating what he wrote here. Sad to say the bit he is happy with ( FRA demanding he dictates kit) is the part he should be unhappier with! Presume you have disciplined Brett as per our rules demand? Or do you only do that to those who blow whistles such as Andy? Selective rule enforcement.
You need to get used to something Graham. Sailbeck happened and a runner was undetected as missing on your watch and legacy as chair precisely because you did and have done nothing in appointing either a properly tasked safety officer, or a competent person to instruct RO on how to manage and plan safety. Sailbeck was as much as anyone your fault - and in a corporate safety context were the RO your employee then your actions as the big cheese ( or in this case the total lack of them ) would have been as much under investigation as the RO and rightly so.
[QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579716][QUOTE=Lecky;579610] How is this to happen at a typical A Long with no road crossings? You have 200 runners, all of whom set off at the same time. A fast runner passes CP1 and 2 fine, but goes off course on the way to CP3. He loses 30 minutes, but carries on. Rather than being in tenth he is now 150th. What systems that we normally use are going to locate him? CP3 has runners coming through from 60' in to 180' in to the race. Marshals are taking numbers the whole time. When can they communicate back to the Race HQ about who has gone through?
I asked a question once Ian. Never got an answer. If a runner went off route across brown knoll in thick clag headed towards mount famine from mam nick , ending up at the hayfield road a long time later, getting back to edale many hours late at the end - how long would it be in practice before you deemed it necessary to call out search? What is your policy? Not a trick question , just interested. It is complicated by the overtaking - I have overtaken scores of people across that section in the past because I start slow and the ones who start too fast pay for it there as a queue of walking dead sothe order gets shaken up I Imagine, But at what point do you decide to act?Quote:
Difficult but not impossible. We can pinpoint a runner to 5 minute block at any cp on the trigger and Grin and bear it. Admittedly we have the resources of the rescue team.
[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579730][QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579716]I would say it depends on many things, weather, person missing, is he/she alone, terrain they are missing in, time to night fall?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
got to leave now...going to Lads leap.
Will answer OB1 on my return
AI, how do you see all the work that the committee has put into the new rules as anything other than doing this? Yes I know you meant in terms of incidents rather than discussion, but can't you trust the committee to integrate both?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
As you know I also had deep reservations with the early versions of the new rules. Many of these issues (and poor choices of wording) have been revised. It no longer reads as if safety can be achieved by 'rote', a disastrous approach which could have the counter-productive effect of making people think they are safe, instead of thinking about safety. This has been fixed, or if you do not agree, then tell me how it has not been fixed. The wording related to minimum kit, although long-winded and slightly unclear, does ultimately conform to your model: a rule of competition, with extra kit being recommended as the competitor (or RO) deems necessary.
It would help if you could be more precise what you still have a problem with ~ how is your (Anni Waltz) alternative not based on volenti? It seems even more reliant on volenti than the FRA's approach. The FRA defines basic safety requirements and guidelines that could be used to indicate that due diligence and duty of care have been taken. Do you not agree that the impossible demands made in the early documents, which could have led almost every RO to be found negligent, have been sufficiently updated?
I have the impression that the rules from the FRA, SHR and as put together for Anni Waltz are converging towards the same general idea. If I am wrong (aside from the lengthy & repetitious nature of the FRA documents), how so?
Often your procedural suggestions and criticisms of wordings are very good. I hope that GB can at least concede those two points? And I would say many of these have been included in the current rules, such as appropriate use of "must", and the myriad of good practice documents. Your marshal checklists and written plans sound like a compellingly good idea, and is probably followed at least partially by many ROs already. What is needed (might be) to change that "probably" to an "always" and the "partially" to a "thoroughly/systematically". Again, is it very different from the current procedures?
To look at the safety & rules document now online, the biggest issues I can find are:
Although this at least recognizes that mistakes are inevitable, it still suggests perfection is achievable. Would this always amount to negligence? It's a tricky question.. I've seen 'independent' counters at the finish line corroborating their results (so undermining the secondary system). This needs to be clearly communicated to marshals.Quote:
Must recognise that no system of counting competitors (starting, retiring and finishing) is free from potential failure and so must have a secondary check to get an accurate count
And the highly pedantic:I would have put "automatic right", otherwise it says (in my mind) that no-one is ever allowed to enter any race. :rolleyes:Quote:
No potential competitor has the right to enter any FRA race and a Race Organiser is free to refuse entry on any grounds including doubt that a competitor can safely complete the race.
But then I would take "agenda items may include ..." to mean it would be limited to the listed items.
You should note that the AGM is meant to be a relatively brief formality. Serious items for debate should be taken to a regular committee meeting. And if anyone continues to be unhappy with the committee's running of the FRA, it would be up to such parties to propose other candidates for the key posts and vote for them at the AGM. In reality the volunteer-run FRA is rarely inundated with offers for the committee posts.
Finally, your Grande Raid reference: from finding a handful of details, and this is a case that has run on for years, progressing to a civil court claim after the criminal court found the organisers not guilty of negligence: How is it not irresponsible to stop a race like that at midnight? My feelings would be that the decision needed to be made a couple of hours or so before dusk.
Given I have moved from strongly agreeing with you last summer, to struggling to see what more it is that you now want/propose, you can understand that many others will be even more mystified what you are currently campaigning for.
Absolutely wrong - and your contribution to this thread are just as emotive and useless - in using words such as belligerent rather than addressing the issues I raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I have sketched the alternative numerous times in a general way - including the need to construct race plans in a specific way - although you need to get your head round safety is a process not just a document so I have referred to many things needed, not just that. If you have not seen that you have not been reading before criticise me.
One aspect of failed process - The fact of the committee accepting hopelessly flawed rules in the past demonstrates the process for approval is wrong and all the committee are culpable for that, Another aspect of failed process the secretary presenting untested documents as good practice which has already caused problems. I could list another fifty without breaking sweat. The whole thing has been bungled.
I have offered in conjunction with Andy to prepare and do a presentation and create such documentation, offered many times, but that has been refused. And I am no longer willing to waste my time on people who seem to let hurt feelings that they have a case to answer for past failings , and they let it get in the way of good judgement.
It is not a simple subject and is not amenable to hundred word posts.
The main counterproductive problem is the determination of people to stay in control of a process who are inexperienced and unqualified and in which they made egregious and basic errors, the outright refusal to hear a presentation on what should be done by someone qualified to comment- and the risible overinflated senses of self importance that radiate from those concerned.
I notice you do not criticise the chair for her disgraceful remarks, ( and insults from behind a welter of multiple personalities) that I / we have had to contend - you only refer only me
The chairs statement to coroner demonstrates she is cloud cuckoo land. She clearly does not know the meaning of "reasonably practicable" or would not have used it in the way she did. But that is the problem. Amateurish meddling in serious matters.
As for the committee - the malfeasance and manipulation was clear and demonstrable in the matters to do with Andy. Why the committee put up with it is beyond me.
But that comes to the other main issue and point I just made. No majority view of an unqualified group of people can or should attempt to define safety of gas installations either - so the view of majority is largely irrelevant. That is why corporate safety demands competent and SQUEP people are given authority.
I have sketched many parts of the solution here on these threads. if you have not been reading, more fool you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Why is it OK on this forum to be this insulting?
Post 72 appears to close the matter for me.
I notice that AI hasn't provided his own set of safety documents and is still spending a lot of time simply attacking people that disagree with him.
What would he be doing otherwise? Should I feel guilty for keeping him away from helpful matters, or are we usefully keeping him off the streets?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Noel, I always feel better doing something if I have a gripe, rather than just complaining.
Apologies if this seems condescending but it seems that at least some posts on here would suggest that the following needs to be said...
1. Conscious competence = knowing what you know
2. Unconscious competence = not knowing what you know
3. Conscious incompetence = knowing what you don't know
4. Unconscious incompetence = not knowing what you don't know.
Perhaps you should all ask yourselves individually...
a) Where do you rate in SQEP terms for safety management? If it any doubt, then ROs should seek advice. In England, this historically has been from the FRA as the point of wisdom. The debate has been on how sound that updated and republished advise now is. Considerable and substantive questions appear to have been asked. An Qualified Authority (let's call them an "adjudicator") in these case would be required. Such an adjudicator needs to be highly expert and qualified to make a ruling. They need to be SQEP. So....
b) And are you happy that the FRA committee on behalf of the FRA membership declined the offer of a fully qualified (SQEP) safety manager to sit on the Safety committee? (and thus this whole 'debate' could have been avoided and sorted months ago).
The FRA is no longer a club. It is a corporate entity and as such has corporate responsibilities and liabilities. It became a Ltd. company for, chief amongst other reason, to protect the Officers and Committee from individual liabilities. But this 'shield' does not in corporate law protect against personal negligence.
Since the tragic incident at Sailbeck, and as a Race organiser I have followed the various threads deleted or not, on the safety issues, even read through all of Mike’s epic posts.
I have tried to keep out of the debate, trying to see both sides of the argument.
But I have watched while prominent members of theFRA Committee have got into unprofessional public mudslinging matches, when something appears which doesn’t toe the line.
They have sent out in a panic endless reams of hurriedly drafted rules, most pre-empting the Coroners report some which were contradictory, which have only added to the confusion for RO’s
Members of the committee have even resorted to sending out PM’s warning RO’s basically to not listen to the poisoned ill informed ranting of certain people on the forum.
One committee member admitting mistakes have been made, but still they will not listen to advise, from people who may and probably do have something to bring to the table.
Isn’t it funny that the Anniversary Waltz, Herods Farm and the Pendle Cloughs Fell Races all having withdrawn there FRA permits have been taken off the FRA Online events page even though races with no FRA permit still remain and are continued to be added to the list? This is the sort of petty persecution the committee have resorted to if someone speaks out against there policies
Over the past months I increasingly felt that something was fundamentally wrong with the FRA LTD way of managing the Safety rules and its way of managing other issues. I have even spoken to the HS manager at work regarding the Safety issues and how it should be dealt with.
I eventually came to my own conclusions and decided to withdraw my FRA permit and look at other alternatives.
Since this time I have insured the Race through Scottish Hill Runners and started to produce a Race Management Plan for the race, and all I will say is this, what Mike as been saying all along is starting to make sense.
This is only my opinion, but I am only a Race Organiser so what would I now?
Andrew Hirst
RO Pendle Cloughs Fell Race
I find this startling. Of course I agree with what you have posted Andrew, but as the FRA have already said that they are fine with non FRA Races being listed this does show whoever is behind this in a very poor light.Quote:
Originally Posted by studmarks
I hope that the majority of the committee deal with this before they are all tarred with the same brush. That would be a shame.