Just about puts all of this into perspective. Brave words nicely spoken. Thank you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gazb
Printable View
Just about puts all of this into perspective. Brave words nicely spoken. Thank you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gazb
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazb
I cannot speak for her, but I suspect if FRA would talk to wynn, and treat her with the respect she deserves, and actually listen to her concerns and work around them with her, instead of talking down to her, calling her " recalcitrant" , telling her to stay in line, then fences could perhaps be mended. She was ballistic over recent unhelpful exchanges, I have never heard her quite so angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
However, I can say as someone who has been involved in serious athletics, it is not the " UKA" way to listen , instead to " bludgeon" into consent , which is not just a top management thing, it is endemic at all tiers of blazer brigade, and pervades the organisations connected. That is to Hand down dictats " you MUST" and ignore or ridicule the concerns of those who actually have to do the job - and worse - to silence people from speaking out where possible. It created a furore amongst national coaches and athletes when this kind of nonsense came in over a decade ago, but they had them by the short and curlies. " You want to be a national athlete or coach , you do as we say and shut up, we have the final say even on your athletes coaching" It is not just the UK, it is sports officialdom everywhere - take the stupidity surrounding Kim Collins. officialdom generally seems more interested in authority and who wields it, rather than the common sense of any decisions that arise. I suspect most RO who read UKA recent testimony would have second thoughts about the reality of "support" from that direction, and certainly have second thoughts about daring to be one.
It is not just FRA rules that are of concern here, but that UKA are citing " best practise" in court cases for things not only most RO will have never heard of, but are probably unworkable in fell running too - take "marshall doing recording to have their backs to the oncoming runners" Whoever wrote that was seemingly unaware that in clag and because of route choice, runners can come from several directions, or any direction. I know stuff like that has spooked her too, and I bet it would be news to most RO !! Which is why that testimony MUST be given circulation
Bridges can be mended perhaps, but I suspect attitudes need to change first. FRA should listen to her, not " tell" her how it is going to be.
For one thing all our races are different, so some of of the rules are too prescriptive. Wynn has a job to register runners, check them out and in, and she has a timeproven formula for doing it. If it works, do not try to fix it. If her system ( eg non consecutive numbering) does not comply, change the rules, not the system.
Corporate legislation/ safety documentation might say in that case she should:
"Operate a suitable and sufficient system to achieve the following:
(a) identify runners uniquely via a waterproof code , mark, or number
(b) confirm by both count and identity the runners who start the race
(c) confirm by count and identity the runners who finish the race
(d) In all long races and where possible in others take a physical record of those complete ( eg collect number or tag)
(e) check that evidence of starters against record of completers
(f) because it is accepted that counting processes are fallible, organisers should Use at least two independent counts of each of ( b) and ( c)
Some alternative methods for these can be found in guidance notes, but is for the RO to decide the specific methods appropriate for the race."
Then having told hew what she has to achieve, let wynn decide what numbers to use, the marshalls needed and their jobs, indeed whether to prefer wristbands to numbers for example.
Safety legislation does not in general mandate method, generally only objectives and issues to consider, so it does not usurp responsibility to consider the unusual details of the specific task in hand.
In the end if you want the RO to be responsible, you have to hand them authority, not just responsibility. If FRA prescribe the how, they also become responsible for the consequence and failings of doing it that way. Safety legislation tries to leave the responsibility with an organiser, and in essence their risk assessment is what leads to what should be done.
On a related aside, can I suggest that this is such an important issue that the committee appoints a " safety officer" whose job is to keep abreast of such matters, recommending changes in the light of events: also that person should be a current or ex safety professional, or someone who has had a lot of exposure to that area.
The problems with the last changes arise from acting quickly dictated by outside events.
(a) we were bounced into the first revision my view unwisely which was done in too much of a knee jerk reaction - rather than wait to see how things played out - The timing dictated by that incident.
(b) this revision has come out of the inquest timing whilst hard up against deadlines
In between catastrophies nothing seems to happen, which is how we allowed rules which were non compliable, but no focus was there to change or upgrade them again.
A safety officer can review what we have - break it up into separate documents
( a lot think is needed) - coordinate with other similar bodies, talk to RO and third parties, and review what they do, that way come up with a more considered version whilst not against deadlines, to get the right answer rather than a quick answer. That way it all gets reviewed ( not necessarily changed ) every yesr.
Good idea?
I nominate fellhound.
This is my first post on the mammoth thread, mostly prompted by the loss of one of my favourite races (AW), so forgive me if this has been covered before.
I have clicked on the link about the new regs and found this:
COURSE DESIGN
"Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards...."
A hazard is potential source of harm! If you are in the mountains in any capacity, you are exposed to hazards. It is the RISK MANAGEMENT that needs to be talked about. All races include hazards and will therefore be non-compliant. I dearly hope the authors understand the difference between 'Hazard' and 'Risk'.
On another note, who fancies a 'run' in the lakes around Easter. We could meet say in Stair for example and jog round about 11.5 miles?
Good idea - but the obvious person for the job is you! You obviously have all the knowledge, experience and capabilities for the job, and just think of the disk space we'd save on the server!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
;):confused::eek::cool:?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
;);););) Sooner be a sniper??Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysunInsured
Not at all but people who have " run their own show" become largely unemployable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph Hooker
I have always found collegiate responsibility for decisions I do not like very hard to do when there are legal consequences for decisions.
For the most part I have owned or run businesses for the last 30 years till semi retiring a few years ago. On the rare cases I took paid directorships ( and / or consultant advisor ) either designate, or one occasion legal, it ended in tears. I could not sit idly by, as a board intended to take an action which clearly ( no scope for argument here) would make the company both technically and eventually actually insolvent: worse the chair decided tried to halt discussion when we had a legal duty to discuss it. Whilst I was only designate, shortly to become a legal director, I would certainly have been seen as a shadow director. After serious arguments I left a month later - as it was my dissent led them to do it a different way, but too much bad blood had been spilt by then,
On the one occasion I went along as a designate director in another company with decisions I thought both underhand and dangerous, and it was being kept from other investors. Blame was later deflected to me in the eyes of a main shareholder for something I had clearly opposed internally, but I kept the dissent private, biting my lip. I should have spoken out. In a small company it is also far easier to point at the " directing minds" to blame, when negligence rears its ugly head. It did not go there, but that is another story.
I find " collegiate " hard, it has bitten me on the backside before now.
I would not have been able to bite my lip after hearing UKA testimony recently, whatever the consequences.
For big company guys like fellhound it is a fact of life.
That is from an old draft ie not finalQuote:
Originally Posted by toppolecat
The only version that matters will be the one we will all read in the 2014 Calendar just before Christmas.
We are still in October.
Document control. again rearing its head! ... And but for the dissent on this thread, that WOULD have been in the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan of Arc
Does it not worry anyone but me that Langdale is clearly not compliant in even the latest draft, yet it was ( knowingly ) allowed to run? Event the most optimistic interpretation of what is there rules langdale out.
Strange that we should want a set of rules that dump one of our major races deep in the poo! And it is so unnecessary to word it that way. I have largely given up repeating the obvious with that. Nobody seems to care.
Just the same as pretending marshalling, communications and tracking could ever be perfect in the old rules, knowing they were not. It is storing up a disaster looking for somewhere to hapoen, and an RO for it to happen to!
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.
I hope you are kidding? The OMM was extreme mountain weather.. but so what it should be expected and contingencies in place to deal with it. It's a MM on the high fells in October... bad weather is a given.
Its not about mountains heeding rules.. or taming mountains.. its not really about the mountains at all. Such statements like yours, wheezes are just cliches. Obviously everyone would prefer an informal unwritten rule book where we all just sign a disclaimer and run. Thats just not going to happen.
Of course mountains heed no rules.. but coroners and courts do and the threat of legal action isn't just a pie in the sky threat. We had two occassions in north wales when finishers were recorded with a pen and paper.. not secured down or protected and dueto bad weather they were lost/damaged and unreadable. Afterwards the RO put on the website a request for people to submit there time and position to him... basically he had no idea who had finished. This was an evening race, the chance of being lost was admittedly low, but it was potentially a serious situation. So I do think the safety of the sport can be improved and wanting to do so in no way threatens the sport like people are making out on here.
There will be more deaths in fell running. It will come under my scrutiny. There are now new pressures. I'm all for the sport growing but some people are turning up to races beyond them.
I'm actually moving to the idea that rather than have ER we should also have NER (No exp. required).... so identify races suitable for novices in the calendar. At the moment the abbreviation list is so poorly used it is useless.. you see what are effectively trail races with ER or NS listed.. over use of these warnings actually makes them useless.
My worry is all branches of the sport have different rules, BOFRA, FRA, WFRA, SHR, these new rat races.. now UK Sky running... all have different equipment lists, marshalling duties.. its a pain for runners, RO's and marshalls but more importantly I actually think it exposes RO's and the organisations to risk because if a death happened they could say 'why didn't you do what the FRA/SHR states'..
Welfare is more about childrens Welfare, reporting systems etc. I do think safety can come under it but this all arose out of the victoria clumbje? case so each club has someone trained to spot abuse.
I think a safety officer is no bad thing, ideally an ML experienced runner.
Rep to UKA probably also misses the point and may not be ideal because you want someone independant to UKA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fellgazelle
Thanks fg. Useful explanation.
Iain R - the LAST thing we would want is the UKA rep being alo the safety officer! The key is to get rules that work for the diversity of fell races, not compromised by conformance to UKA whose rules are aimed at a way different sport and are based on wrong assumptions of the ability to control or monitor that simply does not work on the fells. Sure they are a body whose opinions can be invited, but they have far less status than opinions from those operating similar sports to ours.
I agree.. but closer links up between the FRA and UKA are now bad thing and it should be a two way process so UKA can understand the unique needs of fell running.. that cannot be anything new as UKA is sucha diverse organisation. However I just can't see how its preferable that the two are not connected.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I also don't see why the FRA is england only.. yet under UKA.. the UK bit for me suggests it is UK wide... we then have the situation that the WA are effectively the equivalent in Wales yet with almost no fell running experience.. so then we have the WFRA.. and its more and more groups... and different rules.
the UKA only has insurance cover for England and Northern Ireland - so not UK at allQuote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I know.. I just don't get why.. I can understand Scotland because the legal system differs.. but Wales?
I presume you meant "no bad thing" not "now bad thing"Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
And I have to disagree.
I largely stayed out of the argument at the time of the union, whilst having every reason to be on the anti "UKA" side , I did not, I simply cautioned that UKA graded officialdom could never work for us.
Races would end up cancelled due to lack of officials.
Having seen UKA testimony the link is now demonstrably a bad thing for as long as they demand superiority rather than subservience to FRA in the relationship.
Their expectation and misunderstanding over what is possible in reality is dangerous for all RO. I also think that that link can and has compromised FRA from speaking its own mind and expressing reservations in similar incidents if they occur again.
It speaks volumes (at least to me) that FRA did not apparently use any and every means to contest vociferously the UKA citing of an overcount (and similar thinks like inevitable failing radio coverage) as a failure of duty when in reality the fact that several marshalls did agree with only one dissenting number (actually over by 2) is actually good marshalling for which the RO should have been commended - and a normality on a public courses where runners can come through who have nothing to do with the race. ie the marshalling was good, but made to look bad , in my view because of a difference in perception of what is really possible.
And radios are unreliable. Even if they work at 10am, there is no guarantee they work at 11am if the temperature and humidity pattern shifts, and even less guarantee you can hear what is said in the wind! or on a mobile! You would not believe they were unreliable if you read the testimony on the matter.
It is in my view a cultural problem , where UKA expect an RO to have and exert total control over every event and course and conditions, which cannot happen in fell running. I again ask FRA to publish that testimony to let readers make up their own mind. In my view that is not "bad faith" by UKA, but they simply do not understand our sport or the realities of fell running, and our very poor rulebook did the rest in giving them and the world a false view of it. Sure mistakes were made, and lessons need to be learned - but there was a lot presented as poor practise which was not, and UKA did not present (in my view) a balanced view at all, which is the danger for a body that does not understand our sport. If you read the police witness testimony and compared it with the UKA - you would wonder in parts of it if you were reading about the same event!. For as long as we are coupled to them UKA will be summoned as "experts" and that is a problem.
That is only my opinion but it is shared by many others who have read the documents. I suggest others hold their judgement until they have the documents on which to make such assessment.
Right now we are discussing rules. And to me the way the rules and expectation from them are used in court hearings is a serious issue.
It is not just UKA who are the problem, it is athlete perception. For as long as UKA are seen to be "governing" the expectation of every road runner is to get similar support and monitoring that they have on the road (and to chuck litter everywhere!) and to expect that the risks are no more than a road race. UKA are not to "Blame" for that perception- it is in essence true of road or track running. It is the link to the different sport of fell running causing the problem.
SHRA and WFRA have rightly chosen to recognise the problems in that linkage and plough their own furrow.
No doubt that will be seen that my contest to the problems in rules will now be stated as motivated by anti uka as though that had any bearing. It is not. The rules were genuinely bad, which is why the coroner mentioned a breach of tracking, which should not have been stated in the rules with any such certainty to begin with. To anyone who thinks that my opinion of UKA has any bearing, I suggest they read "straw man argument" as a falacy of critical thinking.
I agree that they are but what I'm not clear on is what their actual brief was and what parameters they were working to when they produced the first draft document. What were the requirements/expectations placed on them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khamsin
If it was produce a set of rules to make fell running safe then its simple:- Rule 1, dont go fell running.
But I am inclined to wonder if their approach has been to produce an ideal world set of desirable rules (by which I mean desirable from the point of view of safety) as a starting point and then to 'test' these against the knowledge and experience of ROs and runners alike and amend and adapt them in light of that. If so the debate on here is a part of that process and hopefully Khamsin you will be proved correct. Its probably a better approach than starting with the bare minimum and 'working up'- we start with an 'ideal' and then justify removal of the parts of the 'ideal' that dont work in reality. I sincerely hope that's what is happening here.
This is all a real shame. I think as individual runners very few of us are worried about how 'safe' a race is. But we accept the need for ROs to have protection and possibly accept rules and restrictions more for their sake than for our own.
one of the suggestions of UKA was to have marshals in sight of each other????? to have the number taking marshal stand with his back to the runners and the person shouting the numbers facing the runners....... poor marshals would be spinning like tops..
a question..... how many fell races and what categories has Mr Tempelton actually done I'd certainly never heard of him but he was the UKA's expert witness
I presume you mean John Temperton. I don't know what his fell running credentials are, but he's been around athletics in the North of England for long enough so he should have a modicum of a clue about fell running. The comment about 2 marshals seems reasonable. One faces the runner reading the numbers, the other faces the other listening to what the first says and writes it down. Not sure where the "spinning like tops" comes into it?
I'm off to the National XC relays tomorrow. There are frequently comments made about the course being dangerous because of tree roots!! If that's the case then pretty much all forms of athletics are doomed.
I see AI is back to his "blazer brigade" bashing. This harks back to the days of AAA of England rather than the present NGB. If anything the correct derogatory term these days should be "the suits" surely? :rolleyes:
I don't remember saying it was perfect. I have been very critical of the coaching structure and awards.. there are huge issues but I think all branches under one umbrella is the way to go, despite the initial issues. There will be give and take, I just think the welsh situation of two bodies, different championships, different rules is not the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
It'll be interesting to see how UK skyrunning develops on this front... if they'll have their own insurance or just be an arm of the ISF.
On another tack completely.
A simple but profound question
Can anyone remember one or more instances where tracking by an RO either during or after the race actually led to the instigating of a search which resulted in discovery "in time" of somebody otherwise incapacitated in a life threatening condition?
Without those examples it seems to me the entire raft of rules related to tracking and to some extent marshalling may be based on a falacy , demanding an RO actually succeed at something that has never actually been done ever in the entire history of fell running? Sounds daft, but it might even be true.
ie have all of the rules on tracking been based on the need to be seen to be doing something, rather than the efficacy of it, which is making an RO far more vulnerable whilst not actually achieving a meaningful result - is it all based on what rule writers hope might be achievable rather than anything that actually has?
Genuinely interested in the answer!
For any concerned ROs out there, my advise would be to :-
Permit the race as usual
Study the final documents when they are published.
If there are concerns about whether you can meet the requirements, identify those concerns and alert the FRA to see if they are prepared to accept the measures that you feel are appropriate, even if they are not to the letter of the requirements.
If they accept, fine.
If they don't see if they offer a sensible option and then make your decision.
It's a bit like, do you know anyone on a 747 that's gone down at sea having benefited from having the lifejacket on?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I've always wondered :)
I can't give you a positive example of finding an incapacitated runner, but I can still see the value in the marshalling system. On a race I use to organise we had a runner go missing. The standard 'system' we had in place worked well - the countback revealed there to be one runner missing at the finish and we knew his number and name - when the marshals returned to race HQ we were able to ascertain they hadn't got to checkpoint 1. I then retraced the route of the race from the start to checkpoint 1 and realised it would be better to concentrate my efforts on contacting the runner (through his club) than call out Calder Valley Search and Rescue, because there was virtually no way he could have gone missing between the start and checkpoint 1 and the contact mobile he'd left at registration was constantly switched off. I managed to speak to one of his club colleagues, get his home number and call him. He'd been called away in an emergency after registering, but prior to starting the race and had left in a hurry without informing anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Now if he'd broken a leg, I'm fairly confident I (with the help of mountain rescue) could have found him - but all this would have depended on the system of counting working properly. In a bigger field and in worse conditions it would be all too easy for this system that worked well then to fail. That said, without GPS tracking of all competitors, its probably the best system for working out where a runner might have gone astray.
That sounds perfectly sensible to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Now here is an interesting subjectQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Since 1970 122 747's have had incident, some crashed, some hijacked and some blown out of sky, i don't know the stats of crash to water incidents but if you give me a bit of time i will find out
The joint worst one was this i mean worst one as in death's)
Status:
Final
Date:
Monday 12 August 1985
Time:
18:56
Type:
Boeing 747SR-46
Operator:
Japan Air Lines - JAL
Registration:
JA8119
C/n / msn:
20783/230
First flight:
1974-01-28 (11 years 7 months)
Total airframe hrs:
25030
Cycles:
18835
Engines:
4 Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7A
Crew:
Fatalities: 15 / Occupants: 15
Passengers:
Fatalities: 505 / Occupants: 509
Total:
Fatalities: 520 / Occupants: 524
Airplane damage:
Destroyed
Airplane fate:
Written off (damaged beyond repair)
Location:
26 km (16.3 mls) SW of Ueno Village, Tano District, Gunma Prefecture (Japan)
Phase:
En route (ENR)
Nature:
Domestic Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport:
Tokyo-Haneda Airport (HND/RJTT), Japan
Destination airport:
Osaka-Itami Airport (ITM/RJOO), Japan
Flightnumber:
123
Narrative:
JA8119 was a Japan Air Lines Boeing 747SR, a short range variant of the Boeing 747 Series 100. The was aircraft specifically configured for domestic flights with a high density seating arrangement.
On June 2, 1978 the aircraft operated on a flight to Osaka (ITM). It floated after touchdown and on the second touchdown the tail struck the runway. The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the rear underside of the fuselage. The rear pressure bulkhead was cracked as well. The aircraft was repaired by Boeing. Engineers replaced the lower part of the rear fuselage and a portion of the lower half of the bulkhead.
Seven years later, on August 12, 1985, JA8119 had completed four domestic flights when it landed at Tokyo-Haneda (HND) at 17:17. The next flight was to be flight 123 to Osaka (ITM). The aircraft took off from Tokyo-Haneda at 18:12. Twelve minutes later, while climbing through 23900 feet at a speed of 300 knots, an unusual vibration occurred. An impact force raised the nose of the aircraft and control problems were experienced. A decompression had occurred and the crew got indications of problems with the R5 door. In fact, the rear pressure bulkhead had ruptured, causing serious damage to the rear of the plane. A portion of its vertical fin, measuring 5 m together with the section of the tailcone containing the auxiliary power unit (APU) were ripped off the plane. Due to the damage, the hydraulic pressure dropped and ailerons, elevators and yaw damper became inoperative. Controlling the plane was very difficult as the airplane experienced dutch rolls and phugoid oscillations (unusual movement in which altitude and speed change significantly in a 20-100 seconds cycle without change of angle of attack).
The aircraft started to descend to 6600 feet while the crew tried to control the aircraft by using engine thrust. Upon reaching 6600 feet the airspeed had dropped to 108 knots. The aircraft then climbed with a 39 degree angle of attack to a maximum of approx. 13400 feet and started to descend again. At 18:56 JAL123 finally brushed against a tree covered ridge, continued and struck the Osutaka Ridge, bursting into flames.
CAUSE: "It is estimated that this accident was caused by deterioration of flying quality and loss of primary flight control functions due to rupture of the aft pressure bulkhead of the aircraft, and the subsequent ruptures of a part of the fuselage tail, vertical fin and hydraulical flight control systems.
The reason why the aft pressure bulkhead was ruptured in flight is estimated to be that the strength of the said bulkhead was reduced due to fatigue cracks propagating at the spliced portion of the bulkhead's webs to the extent that it became unable to endure the cabin pressure in flight at that time.
The initiation and propagation of the fatigue cracks are attributable to the improper repairs of the said bulkhead conducted in 1978, and it is estimated that the fatigue cracks having not be found in the later maintenance inspection is contributive to their propagation leading to the rupture of the said bulkhead."
The point I am stressing is to take real world situations that actually happen and design the rules around coping with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by crowhill
A solution that would have prevented your problem is having an on field "virtual turnstile" check to see who had actually started the race - your tracking was just a very roundabout way of achieving that.
At the recent inquest the organiser was pilloried for failing to "track" when virtually all of the criticisms made in detail about it were just facts of life, not failures of duty. There was a screw up counting in and out, but the marshalling did as well as can be reasonably expected.
The issue I would like to hear is when it has ever been possible or proven worthwhile to call out rescue searches BEFORE the completion of the race.
WHilst the rules comment on the value of doing it, like so many other issues , they fail to comment on the practicality of doing it. As far as I can see it would be a passport to really p*ss*ng off langdale MRT each year looking for the usual 10 - 20 who simply went off route and take an extremely long time to get back.
We only have to cry wolf a few times with enough volume of people because of inadequate rules, to end up with MRT refusing to come out!
It would be much easier to stage communication/check/aid stations/ tracking points (completely distinct from marshalling points) at road junctions take hardknott/3 shires on duddon, dividing the race into two/three sectors (or as they actually do) at newlands on TWA. Also (perhaps) for example putting a support vehicle at honister on waltz, as something for walking wounded to aim for - the fact of retirees going off route to find safety is a requirement that could be made easier.
Has anyone noticed that at least two of the casualties had problems at the most remote location of a race, that is the recent tragedy at sail from buttermere and high street from Kentmere? Both appeared to be trying to find the nearest place of safety. So maybe providing a more significant target as a place of safety / a place where it is possible for multiple runners to shelter/ sit out the storm - and transport back from remote regions (even if just off the course) is a better way to look at the world. Take the col between causey and sail as an aidpoint with a warm tent: a quad bike could get up to there from stair (I am guessing)
Reality is that until people are VERY late at one of the few communication points it is pointless calling out rescue, and most find their way home or to find aid anyway, and since "getting home" misses out checkpoints they are off the radar for a long time.
As regards communications, perhaps a very limited number of sweepers/ comms points carrying satellite phones is far more guaranteed than all marshalls carrying mobiles/UHF radio and hoping they will work.
I think the thought process needs refining to real events, not the notional call out of search to find a stationary incapacitated runner in time, which (so far?) has not happened. Most injuries are found by runners before or aft in the race, and helped home.
So any examples of tracking where it actually made a potential difference of life or death? I am not aware of any.
[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;562292]
SHRA and WFRA have rightly chosen to recognise the problems in that linkage and plough their own furrow.
Al, WFRA reformed because of the imposition of WA into our sport after the dissolution of BAF. Our 'affiliation' to FRA was effectively removed without our say. We reformed the organisation in order to retain our links to FRA not some new quango attached to the Athletics body politic.
But then FRA affiliated to UKA anyway! And then I hear what people are saying about the UKA attitude at this sad event. I hear the sounds of roosting birds!
Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
UKA insurance cover IS AVAILABLE for fell/mountain/hill races throughout the UK. However to obtain this the race organiser MUST follow the required UKA procedure to obtain a Permit/licence for his/her race. Depending on which country the race is held in UKA requires Permits/Licences to be obtained through the UKA affiliated body for each Home Country i.e.:-Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
England - Fell Runners Association
Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Mountain Running Association
Scotland - Scottish Athletics
Wales - Welsh Athletics
- In Wales, since about 2005, a large proportion of fell/mountain race organisers have chosen not to have a Welsh Athletics/UKA Permit/Licence. Instead they prefer to obtain insurance through the independent WFRA which does not want to be affiliated to UKA and subject to UKA rules etc. WFRA has its own insurance policy.
- In Scotland the independent organisation Scottish Hill Runners (SHR) also has their own insurance policy which members can use to insure their races but I understand that many hill race organisers in Scotland still obtain a Permit/Licence from Scottish Athletics and their races are therefore covered by UKA insurance.
Incidently the WFRA is willing to and does provide insurance cover for races organised by their members elsewhere in the UK provided their Safety Requirements (current 2014 version can be viewed on http://www.wfra.me.uk/index.htm ) are followed. These are very similar to the current FRA draft version but with some changes.