Safety Matters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Porter

Why is it OK on this forum to be this insulting?

Post 72 appears to close the matter for me.

---

Henry. I have no gripe with you. But since you related my post as "insulting" I am somewhat obliged to respond herewith:

I think you need to look at the history. Right boot. Wrong foot.
I don't know why it was ever considered to be acceptable to be rude and/or condescending and/or dismissive or doing so in multiple personalities - constantly making up false motives (eg anti UKA, "intent on mischief making") for those dissenting from the "executives line".
But that is the executive way it seems - You will have to ask such as Graham about that..

For 6 months I have been trying to get people to engage with the issues to get replies comprising a heap of straw men logical fallacies and a barrage of ad hominem attacks (including but not limited to insults in your terminology).

Notice Noels reduction of my post to "belligerent" rather than discussing any content of it - so I returned his compliment in kind. Or do you consider it "ok" for him to call me belligerent(ignoring my post) or calling my post "murk" or some such phrase but not OK for me to call his response emotive and useless (since it is clearly an emotive rather than factual response regarding the delivery not even commenting on the substance and did not further the subject one jot so was useless) so my comment on his was spot on. I commented on his post not him.

The problem with guys like Noel as many others, is he would seemingly rather have an amicable wrong answer to the safety problems rather than an acrimonious right answer. But don't blame me or us for the acrimony: it is entirely possible to have an amicable right answer but only if the process is led by competent people, so headed in the right direction. He seems to think it is more important that what he calls "key people" remain in place(who are the obstructors of change)rather than find some new "key people" who have some qualification and experience and are given authority to clean up the mess: which is the only way forward from here.

But do not write off factual statements as insulting.

It is the essence of why I started this thread. For as long as people wrongly deny the problem, they will never engage the solution.

The chair did indeed write a letter to the coroner in which she stated that the committee were doing all that was "reasonably practicable" as regards safety at that time, as more or less echoed in other words in a statement in fellrunner. Which is simply wrong.

And that (fundamentally) is the reason I started this thread. And demonstrates the fundamental problem with safety in FRA.

There are only three possibilities for why such a statement was made - logically one of the following has to be true. The only question is which?

(a) The chair does not know what safety words mean. There are clearly 101 reasonably practicable things that could be done as well to reduce the likelihood of other deaths: indeed the main questions begged by the previous incident have not been addressed at all, let alone solved) - indeed safety is never done. It is a continuous updating process. So the question has to be asked why is she still determined to head a process knowing she has not got the proper experience or qualification and (as proven first by the fiasco of the july rules) or interacting with the coroner on such matters at all. That is and remains a problem.

OR
(b) The chair does know what safety words mean in which case that letter is clearly an attempt to deceive a coroner. Because there are many other things that can and should be done. And that is outrageous if true.

( It is arguable which of (a) and (b) is actually worse.. both sacking offences in corporate context - a fundamental issue on safety , or indeed most proffessional codes of practice: people should not meddle in things they do not understand)

OR
Therefore the most charitable spin: I could find for the situation, since (a) and (b) are an indictment.

(c) she is living in an alternative universe in which "reasonably practicable" must mean something else from what it does in this world.(which I broadly stated as "cloud cuckoo land") So not an insult at all, just observations derivable from the facts that FRA under her leadership is not doing it should be.

For insults you should consider what the chair said to me and others such as wynn "deluded" "unworthy" and recently "her time was worth more than mine" - or perhaps you prefer Grahams description of me as "narcisstic fantasist intent on self publicity" . That is an insult, so ask Graham why he preferred it to engaging with the facts at that time. And it is those kind of remarks that polarized all of this in the first place. Are you happy for him to insult me?

So What I said was justifiable qualms on a letter that should never have been sent to a coroner, not an insult , an observation on history.

That is why I entered this thread and that is where I will leave it, since I cannot see the personalities as they are in the executive leading to any solution any time soon.

So for me, I am now defecting camps from "hoping FRA will sort it out" to supporting formation of a new body.

As regards post 72 I agree one of the (few) useful posts on this thread, I will always respond in kind to people who engage with the arguments , as I will do now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

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?

etc..
.

---

Thanks for the constructive reply.

I will try to be brief.

I have no doubt the committee were trying to find a set of rules that answers some of the objections - some of which have been - others have not. It is somewhat ironic that at the very same time the leadership are urging RO to ignore me (us), that most of the changes made to the farcical july rules were first suggested by me (us). Those changes do not go far enough.
But the problem is the presumption that rules are the answer to all. And worse the idea of freezing the rules for a couple of years to "let them bed in" is a complete nonsense. But that is what they have done. Which presumably went to a vote or was it just a murmur of consent misrepresented as "nem con" in the normal way.

The reality is that the only situation in which prescriptive rules cover many of the basis of safety for a task is when the task is essentially the same. So for that reason "scaffolding regs" in the corporate world are very prescriptive - or indeed discus competition risk assessments are relatively similar. But even then they do not answer the question in totality. A lot of safety is about supervision. It is all very well to have a "rule", but that rule alone is impotent on the day. It needs somebody specific allocated sufficiently qualified and experience to do it, and generally a second person to make sure it has been done. A lot of planning and review in hindsight. People are fallible. Safety has to recognise it and allow for it. (not blame them for being human) Just Throwing rules at them is an inappropriate way to manage safety.

When the safety task varies as much as fell races do, rules no longer work at all. They are either so prescriptive they are impossible to apply for most of the races, or they are only a common subset, so not prescriptive enough to cover most of what needs doing. By way of simple example, take the fact that the rules make no mention of road crossings, because only a few races have them. So rules leave a complete void. Which historically has been filled with a mixture of seat of the pants and a random mixture of verbal and written communications and the inquest proves it just is not good enough. It was found wanting.

I cited the cross country precedent preciselyonly because it illustrates the issue. In the context of that race only: a critical issue for emergency planning was access for ambulances, unlocking gates and sufficiently informed marshalls to guide them to the scene. But what an emergency plan means in the context of another race is quite different. So prescriptive rules cannot help. Only the mandate to create a plan, and guidelines listing the types of issue to consider in creating it.

A race through small tracks in deep woods, means that ambulances are out of the question and helicopters cannot get close. So some discussion is needed with mountain rescue (if relevant) about the best ways to retrieve casualties in that area if needs be. An emergency plan needs determining. Where are the helicopter landing sites? Organisations need alerting Who is actually going to ring emergency services - and liase with them , What telephone numbers do marshalls need. It needs thinking in advance. Different for each race. The worst time to think clearly and decide on what to do in incidents is in the cauldron of a disaster.

That void can only be filled by a plan, of what people actually have to do.

And that is the only document that is wanted or needed on race day. Having "rules" in parallel just adds to confusion. Anything of importance must be in the plan, so it is the entire plan for safety without reference to anything else.

It is the lack of a coordinated plan tasking people or considering the right issues that fell apart on that cross country precedent, also at sailbeck if you read the evidence.

Once you think that way, rules are largely replaced by an instruction to plan, people to follow the instruction and guidelines that tell you what to consider in creating the plan. Which is how such as the HSE event safety guidelines are written. Very little can be mandated because the situations are so different.

There is a lot to safety than that. Like the process of establishing of good practice for the guidelines, reviewing incidents and accidents, and all races to have a post race review , dissemination on a wide range of topics, etc etc etc.

I have offered to write some articles for fellrunner, also refused . But it remains a fact that the most likely person to come upon an unconscious runner not breathing after a fall is another runner. Marshalls and the RO whatever training they have, could never get there quickly enough to help. Yet when was any training or communication ever given to runners on what to do (and just as important not to do)on finding a runner after a fall?. So safety is more than a plan it involves EVERYONE. It needs dissemination on a wide range of matters. I offered to write an article on that. That is clearly reasonably practicable to help prevent other deaths. But not according to our chairman it seems. According to her we are apparently already doing what is reasonably practicable. Should I laugh or cry? I will tell you this. Should that unlikely but possible scenario play out resulting in a death, I will publicly name, blame and shame ALL who obstructed that clearly sensible suggestion, or pretended we were already doing enough. We are not.
( PS It clearly needs a rule. "if you fall over you MUST NOT stop breathing". There. Fixed it, in the normal FRA safety committee way, all ready for the 2016 rule update!)

As regards volenti as a defence, it requires the runner has "full knowledge" of the risk he is taking . Implying a support network for a race, clearly reduces the risk that runners think they are taking. So the AW wording serves to (a) alert indeed emphasise the risks. (b) do nothing to imply a support network. See my remarks on "grand raid" . The organisers have made substantial undertakings to runners, and I think those undertakings came back to haunt them in civil court. Am still trying to find out more With the grand raid, my suggestion is you look at the rules even as they now are, and see how much the organiser is apparently offering runners.

The FRA "adviser" has wrongly dismissed HSE safety concepts and ideas on the grounds that the "law does not apply" but it is important to grasp the idea that most safety concepts per HSE is about effective safety management. It is about what is needed to reduce the risk of accidents. Recognising that people and process are some of the keey problems. It is not just a legal obligation to do things , which is the limited view of a hindsight blaming lawyer: it is important because it assists in making people safe. And doing things right in a proper planned way , is clearly evidence of non negligent behaviour

As for bringing serious business to committee meetings. We tried. The chair deliberately obstructed the sensible suggestions we made - or any vote on the matter - like putting a safety qualified person on the safety committee, and the secretary decided not to minute what we said, despite an obligation to minute meetings. So you have a rose tinted view of our committee process. Minutes say what the chair wants them to say. Votes are taken and discussion occurs only on things the chair wants to discuss. Andy W was already on committee but wholly impotent because of that, and the rest of committee did not rally to his support when actively prevented from bringing a sensible motion for vote.

We have offered multiple times to assist the committee on safety matters. All prevented, so inundated with offers or not, they turn them down regardless. Indeed FRA decided to make statements so in opposition to good practice the only safety qualified person on committee found himself having to resign rather than associate himself with such statement.

FRA is dysfunctional, which is alarming when it comes to safety matters, and that is unlikely to change, whilst the present leaders are in office and until a competent person leads the process. Which is unlikely any time soon.

So Enough. Better things to do.
Given up trying to make it better within FRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

Ian, a request for clarification.
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?

---

Hi OBI

yes you are correct re 5 minutes at cp points but certainly on the GnB and the Trigger we have other unofficial CPs where numbers were taken, I my self was at the fence corner taking pictures and numbers beneath LE, we see this as very important as particularly over Bleaklow there is a huge route choice so knowing which route you are on is vital. Numbers/times would have been taken on Bleaklow summit also so at two places before the official cp at Shelfmoor. These would not be radioed through though unless some one was walkabout and they give us a last known location which speeds searches up no end...hope this helps

The eFRA Ltd thing is yet another example of unintended consequences (like UKA affiliation). The WFRA committee throroughly considered the same action and stepped back from it (for the time being) at the eleventh hour...precisely because we could sense rather than clearly elucidate the perils therein. I for one am very glad that it did.
Corporatisation and commercialisation. Poisonous words for our amateur, minimal profile and simplistic sport.

And, yes OB1, I am proposing to trial a different way of managing an AL race....you never know, it might work!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studmarks

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?

---

Dear oh dear :( If that really is the case then some people need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

Dear oh dear :( If that really is the case then some people need to take a long hard look at themselves.

---

"hell hath no fury like a woman scorned!" springs to mind ...rather childish is it not.

Thanks for reply AI. Clearly the FRA did not handle things in the best possible way last year, we all know that; we also know that some of our exec committee had to spend many unpaid and uncomfortable hours in public and legal settings which they never dreamed they were signing up for. You are not making it any easier for them by constantly bringing up every unguarded or unwise comment from six months ago.

I am not sure how a slight lack of respect, quite possibly in both directions, escalated into the insults and total communication breakdown you have reached now. On the one hand, committee members who are experts at safety in fell races, and on the other hand experts in Corporate Safety and writing Safety Documentation. Both sides had much to contribute to the safety discussion.

It often seems that you simply want heads to roll, because they made a few very public and shocking mistakes last year. Or you want the heads to just fall off by themselves, because you felt insulted. But this is not a business, they are not employees, and I have not in any case heard of any alternatives for the role of Chair (etc), just an offer of help with the safety rules which was somehow made in such a way as to alienate the committee even further.

The running of the FRA can indeed feel a bit like a closed shop, with a seeming lack of accountability both of individual committee members and of the committee as a whole. From what I know, committee members often appear to have a large degree of freedom in their roles rather than being held closely to account. But those who have tried to engage with feedback from the membership or the public have historically found that their every decision is challenged. If there were alternative candidates at the AGM, I can not say who I would vote for, but whatever might happen I am thankful to the current committee for their time and effort through such a challenging period.

Finally, the safety rules:
Many of your criticisms seem to be throwbacks to last summer/autumn. I do not see how you could still think the FRA's safety approach is bound by numerous and excessive rules. There are lots of guidelines and ideas, which an RO can incorporate into their individual race plan or not.

In the safety guidelines, I personally would include something along the lines of

Quote:

---

The (increased) risk in a race is mitigated by the system of marshals so that it should not be significantly worse than any normal walking or running expedition, but help cannot be guaranteed any faster than can otherwise be expected on the mountains, and there is no guarantee of finding a missing runner quickly, especially if they are away from the expected race route, or if they have not reported difficulties to another runner or to a checkpoint marshal

---

which (first part) I already see as implied in the safety guidelines. This is a world ahead of the "Anni Waltz" approach of flatly denying there is a duty of care away from the start/finish. I wonder what a court would make of that.

Your main outstanding points are then the approach to race planning, and continuous review by a safety officer? As I indicated before, the FRA's system does not seem that dissimilar to me. Maybe some documents need tightening up and some emphasis on the procedural approach added. But the way you talk, it is as if everything should be torn to pieces and a new system written from scratch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Thanks for reply AI. Clearly the FRA did not handle things in the best possible way last year, we all know that; we also know that some of our exec committee had to spend many unpaid and uncomfortable hours in public and legal settings which they never dreamed they were signing up for. You are not making it any easier for them by constantly bringing up every unguarded or unwise comment from six months ago.

I am not sure how a slight lack of respect, quite possibly in both directions, escalated into the insults and total communication breakdown you have reached now. On the one side, committee members who are experts at safety in fell races, and on the other side experts in Corporate Safety and writing Safety Documentation. Both sides had much to contribute to the safety discussion.

It often seems that you simply want heads to roll, because they made a few very public and shocking mistakes last year. Or you want the heads to simply fall off by themselves, because you felt insulted. But this is not a business, they are not employees, and I have not in any case heard of any alternatives for the role of Chair (etc), just an offer of help with the safety rules which was somehow made in such a way as to alienate the committee.

The running of the FRA can indeed feel a bit like a closed shop, with a seeming lack of accountability both of individual committee members and for the committee as a whole. From what I know, committee members often appear to have a large degree of freedom in their roles rather than being held closely to account. But those who have tried to engage with feedback from the membership or the public have historically found that their every decision is challenged. If there were alternative candidates at the AGM, I can not say who I would vote for, but whatever might happen I am thankful to the current committee for their time and effort through such a challenging period.

Finally, the safety rules:
Many of your criticisms seem to be throwbacks to last summer/autumn. I do not see how you could still think the FRA's safety approach is bound by numerous and excessive rules. There are lots of guidelines and ideas, which an RO can incorporate into their individual race plan or not.

In the safety guidelines, I personally would include something along the lines of

which (first part) I already see as implied in the safety guidelines. This is a world ahead of the "Anni Waltz" approach of flatly denying there is a duty of care away from the start/finish. I wonder what a court would make of that.

Your main outstanding points are then the approach to race planning, and continuous review by a safety officer? As I indicated before, the FRA's system does not seem that dissimilar to me. Maybe some documents need tightening up and some emphasis on the procedural approach added. But the way you talk, is it as if everything should be torn to pieces and a new system written from scratch.

---

Everything should be torn to pieces and rebuilt.

Most of what is in the rules as a must or should belongs just as a consider in guidelines on how to create a plan. Some has no place anywhere. The documents have no proper structure.

No other sport but ours tries to operate on a skeleton of rules, and uses seat of the pants to fill in the gaps, with "whatever the RO feels like" acceptable as a plan to fill in the gaps.
Which method failed lamentably at Sailbeck, and until I see something which addresses those problems I will continue to believe there is still a problem. So they are not "experts at fell race safety" because the policies failed for reasons which are evident to safety trained people used to managing safety of team projects.

You have a choice.
(a) Either you think the present approach is OK, and in need of tweaking but in general an RO screwed up badly at sailbeck - ie the ROs fault.

or (b)you think that the RO was badly advised on what he should have been doing instead, and there should have been a system in place that stopped one screw up becoming a catastrophe, and FRA have sat on their hands for far too long doing nothing on safety so the old ways are just not good enough.

I am firmly in camp (b) having read the evidence of the inquest.

The reality is like all other disciplines, the formal understanding of safety management needs melding with the technical skills of organising races to come up with a proper formula for safety with both sides contributing some of the answer. It is not my fault that it took so many attempts to get people to see reason on many of the issues( whilst the but of many offensive remarks from "them" ) that the situation got so polarized. If they had acted responsibly they would (a) recognised that their understanding was flawed (b) have seen the need for qualified assistance (c) taken it on board long before relationships deteriorated.

In a corporate setting there would have been less scope for the situation to get out of hand, because they would have been legally obliged to seek a "competent person" , and those seeking to stay in control of it, would have been obliged to take a sideways step: but the lack of that mandate in law does not alter one iota the need to do it.

This is not a me issue Lauren. They dispatched Andy W who is a safety professional for standing up for his professional ethics. They have treated such as Richard Taylor with equal disdain who has taken legal advice stating they are wrong in their assertions. Wynn who is one of the best RO out there, was treated like a naughty schoolgirl for having qualms about the rules imposed on her.

Even UKA demand assessments (which leads to control measures for people, the combination of which is a "plan") and our constitution does not allow us to ignore that, but we do.
But there is a lot more to safety than that, I highlighted a few of the issues.

No intention of repeating.But the problem continues: it did not stop last october. Take the secretary continues to claim untested documents up as good practise. And that has consequences, take the "Number grids" which because they were introduced without an SOP and without qualification, so caused a problem at a race because of it. None of this is done properly still.

You have misunderstood. It is the leadership of the safety committee which concerns me not the organisation as a whole, and the process by which documents and methods are approved. I have alienated the commitee by saying their process of approval has failed since they all had a hand in approving duff stuff, and when apparent consent at a preston meeting was ignored, they should have supported andy W right to a motion vote, even if they voted him down. But instead of accepting that they have something to answer for in all that, they prefer to shoot the messenger instead.

But in the light of letters to coroner, motions prevent, minutes culled and so on, it does question leadership of the whole. I certainly have no aspirations there, indeed cannot work in an organisation in which "toeing the party line" is considered more important than doing it right. The problem is there is no pleasant way to say it. When a document was extremely badly drafted, you have to question the competence of the one who did it, and whether they should stay in place. It would be far more preferable for people to accept their own limitations and not take control of things they do not properly understand.

You would not allow it in your private life. I cannot imagine if a garage bungled mending your car making a myriad of basic mistakes, you would take it to the same place again, and let the same guy work unsupervised on it, and belief you had that the mechanic or garage was an "expert" at what they do would evaporate right there, regardless of whether they later fixed it. But that is what you seem to support for FRA in respect of safety, because you still consider them "experts at safety" when they have proven they are not.

Let me assure you the lack of respect was entirely from the executive in origin. My taking the gloves off came later.

Anyway...I entered the thread because of what was said in fellrunner.
Enough is enough.

[QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579736][QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579730]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak

I would say it depends on many things, weather, person missing, is he/she alone, terrain they are missing in, time to night fall?

got to leave now...going to Lads leap.
Will answer OB1 on my return

---

For the sake of example, I said one runner. The time of day and length of day is as they are at edale race. With 2 hours more or less to mam tor. The conditions cold and inclement as they often are, definite possibilities of hypothermia.. You have a decision to make on time to call out. It is a decision that in principle you can - and probably should - make as part of an incident plan before you start the race.

You have no idea where the guy is, only that he left mam nick in whiteout clag and has failed to show up anywhere else. The only ones you have asked say they think they saw him after that, but it was so claggy that they could not be sure, all they really saw was shadows of runners in the gloom.So what time do you send out the heavies? Sooner or later it becomes a yes /no time. Not a list of what to consider.

Not a trick question.

I am genuinely interested in how a mountain rescue guy / come someone heavily involved in organisation thinks - at what time do you change concern to action - and in practice whether that is before the race has already finished for many or most of the field, or the ones "around" the missing runner in the field- and what areas do you commmence the search - how many bodies are sent out to search?

I think check points in races aren't there primarily for safety and, with that in mind, shouldn't really have too much safety responsibility thrust upon them. The original reason for check points was surely to make sure runners were visiting the peak or route markers concerned (ie not cheating) rather than to look out for lost souls? For example the checkpoint on the Fairfield Horseshoe is at the summit windshelter at the half way point 5 miles in whereas the checkpoints of the Full Tour of Pendle are all over the place, probably no more than 2 miles apart on average due to its convoluted route. So just on checkpoint count, some races get closer scrutiny of where runners are than others. If you take that to its logical conclusion you'd have the barmy situation of enforced checkpoints at what every mile or something, making for really really boring race routes. For sure checkpoints should look after runners if they need to but the real business of looking for any one missing should be left to the end of the race. Certainly its only at the end that you can realistically tally who's finished and who's still out.

As for the Edale Skyline example, although runners are relatively high up for most of the race, making things dodgier in bad weather, its an easy race to bail from if a runner needs too (just head into the valley) so, in that respect, I'd say its a pretty safe race.

[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579878][QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579736]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

For the sake of example, I said one runner. The time of day and length of day is as they are at edale race. With 2 hours more or less to mam tor. The conditions cold and inclement as they often are, definite possibilities of hypothermia.. You have a decision to make on time to call out. It is a decision that in principle you can - and probably should - make as part of an incident plan before you start the race.

You have no idea where the guy is, only that he left mam nick in whiteout clag and has failed to show up anywhere else. The only ones you have asked say they think they saw him after that, but it was so claggy that they could not be sure, all they really saw was shadows of runners in the gloom.So what time do you send out the heavies? Sooner or later it becomes a yes /no time. Not a list of what to consider.

Not a trick question.

I am genuinely interested in how a mountain rescue guy / come someone heavily involved in organisation thinks - at what time do you change concern to action - and in practice whether that is before the race has already finished for many or most of the field, or the ones "around" the missing runner in the field- and what areas do you commmence the search - how many bodies are sent out to search?

---

I'd certainly give them time to;
a)return to finish if they are decided they were too tired and would walk back to race control.
b)get to the next cp as happened this year when some missed a cp
c)we would also try and get in contact via phone, check his car, runners who he travelled with.
d) race control had a telephone number so even if the runner wasn't carrying a phone the peak is a busy place and a telephone could be borrowed.

There is no steep/rocky ground in the area so I wouldn't be worried of a fall like I might in the Lakes. the time problem there if a runner decides to descend the wrong valley is much worse that the peak.

I wouldn't be calling out the reinforcements for 90 minutes unless I had other information which would make me concerned..ie reports of a whistle blowing.

Searching, well other than the sweep I wouldn't expect the CP marshals to do any searching of the route, their priority is to them selves first and the other competitors unless directly called upon, all CP marshals on the skyline carry bivvy bags/shelter/sleeping bag/first aid kits/spare clothing and food.. in case of a problem.
EMRT are on standby at the event and it would passed over to them once we had a last known position/concerns. They would put people on the hill whilst some further checking was done initially so they would be ready to search, a "hasty search" would be done first of the obvious descent routes/paths. This is where the majority of missing people turn up.

I can see this being a bigger problem in the Lakes though where comms are tougher

On long races why couldn't all runners carry a tracking device like when folk do a BG or the Spine this year?
The highest percentage chance of locating a person and the technology is there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stagger

On long races why couldn't all runners carry a tracking device like when folk do a BG or the Spine this year?
The highest percentage chance of locating a person and the technology is there.

---

Steam bunny and wheeze are trying that.

But you need to understand a few limitations stagger.

The trackers acquire GPS, but only dump the tracks out over comms, when they manage to make contact. So if you watch the traces you see them disappear on descending scafell, and reappear on top of yewbarrow with a trace between. You have no idea where they were in the "blind period" until they come out of it. So they are not a complete answer to where you are, only where you were, subtle difference.

I was pointing wheeze to true satellite trackers (which use satellite phone links for comms as well as GPS) , (there are some cheap and nasty, not much good, but the next level up seem to be what is needed. They use satellites not GPRS or 3G so in principle do not have blind spots even in himalaya!. I did some math that implied it could be funded at less than a fiver a race per person, if I can get 20-30 races a year to sign up, and was potentially willing to invest in a 100 or so, to rent out to races - but provided a couple had been tried to confirm they are OK. Waiting for Wheeze to come back on that suggestion.

This is the sort of stuff that a safety officer of FRA should be trialling.

[QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579886][QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579878]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak

I'd certainly give them time to;
a)return to finish if they are decided they were too tired and would walk back to race control.
b)get to the next cp as happened this year when some missed a cp
c)we would also try and get in contact via phone, check his car, runners who he travelled with.
d) race control had a telephone number so even if the runner wasn't carrying a phone the peak is a busy place and a telephone could be borrowed.

There is no steep/rocky ground in the area so I wouldn't be worried of a fall like I might in the Lakes. the time problem there if a runner decides to descend the wrong valley is much worse that the peak.

I wouldn't be calling out the reinforcements for 90 minutes unless I had other information which would make me concerned..ie reports of a whistle blowing.

Searching, well other than the sweep I wouldn't expect the CP marshals to do any searching of the route, their priority is to them selves first and the other competitors unless directly called upon, all CP marshals on the skyline carry bivvy bags/shelter/sleeping bag/first aid kits/spare clothing and food.. in case of a problem.
EMRT are on standby at the event and it would passed over to them once we had a last known position/concerns. They would put people on the hill whilst some further checking was done initially so they would be ready to search, a "hasty search" would be done first of the obvious descent routes/paths. This is where the majority of missing people turn up.

I can see this being a bigger problem in the Lakes though where comms are tougher

---

Interesting Ian. Thanks for that.

I was envisaging someone going off bearing headed towards mount famine west rather than north to brown knoll, maybe thinking the first bump was edale cross then thinking mount famine was grindslow knoll...and descending east maybe thinking it was into edale, when in fact they would go down to a valley and have a long way back to hayfield even, assuming they managed to guess where they were. Could be out for a very long time - plenty of time to get hypothermic

My hayfield FRA relay partner managed to slip get injured in one of the cloughs just northwest of brown knoll and needed carrying out from there. So no rock it is true, but any of the steep stuff is a place where you get immobile through falling and where you would not get found in a very long time, and you cannot communicate either - so there are hazards other than rock...if you are unlucky of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Steam bunny and wheeze are trying that.

But you need to understand a few limitations stagger.

The trackers acquire GPS, but only dump the tracks out over comms, when they manage to make contact. So if you watch the traces you see them disappear on descending scafell, and reappear on top of yewbarrow with a trace between. You have no idea where they were in the "blind period" until they come out of it. So they are not a complete answer to where you are, only where you were, subtle difference.

I was pointing wheeze to true satellite trackers (which use satellite phone links for comms as well as GPS) , (there are some cheap and nasty, not much good, but the next level up seem to be what is needed. They use satellites not GPRS or 3G so in principle do not have blind spots even in himalaya!. I did some math that implied it could be funded at less than a fiver a race per person, if I can get 20-30 races a year to sign up, and was potentially willing to invest in a 100 or so, to rent out to races - but provided a couple had been tried to confirm they are OK. Waiting for Wheeze to come back on that suggestion.

This is the sort of stuff that a safety officer of FRA should be trialling.

---

Good work, Mike, you and Wheeze and whoever else is involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I think check points in races aren't there primarily for safety and, with that in mind, shouldn't really have too much safety responsibility thrust upon them.

---

Stolly,

Good. A point well made.

When I was giving evidence to the Belfield Inquest and explaining the purpose of the different CP marshals in the Sailbeck race the Coroner interjected with "So some of the marshals are there just to stop cheating then?" (Although at the outset the Coroner suggested that he did not know much about fell running in fact he was a hill walker and by the end of the 4 days it was clear how much he did understand about the sport and particularly the culture of fell running).

When the FRA rewrote the Safety Requirements for 2014 it eradicated the phrase "Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that the organiser is always in a position to make reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race ..." because we had concluded that "must" and "always" meant compliance by a RO was almost impossible. It was one of the two phrases in the “old” requirements that I believe put RO in a position of extreme vulnerability, as almost unachievable. (Incidentally SHR still retain it but they are allegedly reviewing their documentation).

This is why the 2014 FRA Safety Requirements in 10.2 say:

"Must use reasonably practicable measures to monitor runners in Long/Medium A and Long B races by identifying the number and location of marshals critical to runner safety..." (my emphasis).

In my view this relieved the RO of the "must” and "always" and allowed him the discretion I am sure we all believe he/she should be allowed.

The full significance of the change has not been recognised by a number of RO with whom the 2014 Safety Requirements changes have since been discussed (and I take my share of blame for the lack of emphasis in the Calendar that might have highlighted the importance of the change ) but this was one of the changes the FRA made for 2014 which the members of the Safety Sub-Committee (and then the FRA Committee) believed made the 2014 document far more protective of RO than any earlier document.

The final version of the 2014 Safety Requirements had, after all, been re-drafted in the light of the 4-day Belfield Inquest attended by Madeleine, as Chair, and Jon Broxap, Alan Brentnall and myself: all four being members of the Safety Sub-Committee.

The changes the FRA made to better protect RO from 2014 were important, the most significant changes for 20 years, and the 8 RO Workshops were organised to explain to RO why from 2014 they were in a much better place.

Of course, if RO choose to register with another body from 2014 that is their decision; but it will be tragic if any RO for an English fell race has to attend an English Coroner's Court having left the English governing body family for the wrong reasons.

Regards,

Graham

[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;579891][QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;579886]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Interesting Ian. Thanks for that.

I was envisaging someone going off bearing headed towards mount famine west rather than north to brown knoll, maybe thinking the first bump was edale cross then thinking mount famine was grindslow knoll...and descending east maybe thinking it was into edale, when in fact they would go down to a valley and have a long way back to hayfield even, assuming they managed to guess where they were. Could be out for a very long time - plenty of time to get hypothermic

My hayfield FRA relay partner managed to slip get injured in one of the cloughs just northwest of brown knoll and needed carrying out from there. So no rock it is true, but any of the steep stuff is a place where you get immobile through falling and where you would not get found in a very long time, and you cannot communicate either - so there are hazards other than rock...if you are unlucky of course.

---

we had a runner go to Hayfield on the Trigger, he called the emergency number to let us know he was ok and got a lift back and handed in his number. all good.

I certainly agree it easy to get hurt in a clough or even with a rabbit hole but it's unlikely you knock your self unconscious where you may do slipping over a crag. so a whistle would attract attention off route. we heard/found some one over a mile away on a recent search blowing a whistle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak

Hi OBI

...hope this helps

---

Ian,

Thanks, Yes, but only partially. Better I discuss the race-specific nuances with you offline before next year's race, rather than clog this thread.

(Maybe then they will have the chance to be reflected in the 2016 or even the 2017 FRA rules). Will PM or email you in due course.

PS. Your post #91 adds more clarity anyway. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

I am not sure how a slight lack of respect, quite possibly in both directions, escalated into the insults and total communication breakdown.

---

LJ - your recent posts have been 'well balanced', and for me personally, (seriously), they have been hitting the mark, where other posts cant reach.
,
,
,
,
LJ for a Chair!
.
.
.
:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

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.
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.

---

Studmarks, WP, well noted and posted. I (probably like you) spotted this a while back, regarding these named races, that happened to elect to change their insurance, and yet then suddenly fell off the FRA online calendar, despite the traditional ethos that all suitable hill races (however insured) are OK to 'list'. What went wrong with tradition?

PLEASE - could a suitable Committee member come on and explain why this has happened? I feel sure there is an innocent explanation.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Thanks for reply AI. Clearly the FRA did not handle things in the best possible way last year, we all know that; we also know that some of our exec committee had to spend many unpaid and uncomfortable hours in public and legal settings which they never dreamed they were signing up for. You are not making it any easier for them by constantly bringing up every unguarded or unwise comment from six months ago.

I am not sure how a slight lack of respect, quite possibly in both directions, escalated into the insults and total communication breakdown you have reached now. On the one hand, committee members who are experts at safety in fell races, and on the other hand experts in Corporate Safety and writing Safety Documentation. Both sides had much to contribute to the safety discussion.

It often seems that you simply want heads to roll, because they made a few very public and shocking mistakes last year. Or you want the heads to just fall off by themselves, because you felt insulted. But this is not a business, they are not employees, and I have not in any case heard of any alternatives for the role of Chair (etc), just an offer of help with the safety rules which was somehow made in such a way as to alienate the committee even further.

The running of the FRA can indeed feel a bit like a closed shop, with a seeming lack of accountability both of individual committee members and of the committee as a whole. From what I know, committee members often appear to have a large degree of freedom in their roles rather than being held closely to account. But those who have tried to engage with feedback from the membership or the public have historically found that their every decision is challenged. If there were alternative candidates at the AGM, I can not say who I would vote for, but whatever might happen I am thankful to the current committee for their time and effort through such a challenging period.

Finally, the safety rules:
Many of your criticisms seem to be throwbacks to last summer/autumn. I do not see how you could still think the FRA's safety approach is bound by numerous and excessive rules. There are lots of guidelines and ideas, which an RO can incorporate into their individual race plan or not.

In the safety guidelines, I personally would include something along the lines of

which (first part) I already see as implied in the safety guidelines. This is a world ahead of the "Anni Waltz" approach of flatly denying there is a duty of care away from the start/finish. I wonder what a court would make of that.

Your main outstanding points are then the approach to race planning, and continuous review by a safety officer? As I indicated before, the FRA's system does not seem that dissimilar to me. Maybe some documents need tightening up and some emphasis on the procedural approach added. But the way you talk, it is as if everything should be torn to pieces and a new system written from scratch.

---

The best post I have read so far on the safety situation, thanks Lissajous.
For me there's far too much extra information (info on top of the already written new rules) being thrown about on this matter.
I feel that it's time to let things calm down and give the FRA Committee a chance, a committee that we should be thanking for all their recent extra work.
I have every confidence in the FRA Committee and am not impressed by some of the criticism that's been aimed at it.
For crissakes we're talking about FELL RUNNING here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wharfeego

For crissakes we're talking about FELL RUNNING here.

---

Ex-fricking-actly. Another big cheer for Lissajous from me.

I'm fed up with all the wordage, talking of hind legs off of donkeys, the sniping, the bigged up resignations and, for lack of a better word, anti-FRA propaganda that is being thrown about. Each and every time someone makes a long(winded) splurge about the FRA they are kind of applying an emotional form of blackmail to get someone from the FRA to respond - the tactic presumably being that if they don't respond they look guilty by implication (whereas if they do it will all turn into an undignified bun fight). Anyway who else has as much time on their hands as AI to even be able to?

I for one am glad that the FRA have restrained themselves as far as they can from responding. If I've learnt anything from this thread (and all of the others) at all, its that actually replying to one of Mike's posts sure as heck isn't going to shorten the 'debate' :D

If you have a look at the most recent "committee post" - yesterday I think, they haven't exactly refrained from responding Stolly.
But if they can post a self-congratulatory item like that, why can't a simple question like why has Pendle Cloughs been removed from the events page be answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wharfeego

The best post I have read so far on the safety situation, thanks Lissajous.
For me there's far too much extra information (info on top of the already written new rules) being thrown about on this matter.
I feel that it's time to let things calm down and give the FRA Committee a chance, a committee that we should be thanking for all their recent extra work.
I have every confidence in the FRA Committee and am not impressed by some of the criticism that's been aimed at it.
For crissakes we're talking about FELL RUNNING here.

---

And therein lies the problem. A wholesale misunderstanding of what is needed. So the wrong presumption repeated by Wharfe that current rules are the answer. What Lisa J regards as detail is the essence. What she regards as the essence is detail.

And the presumption by Lisa J that they are "fell race safety experts" when Graham identifies the four people at the inquest from the so called "safety" committee, only one of which is an active RO that I can see, and none are either qualified at or experienced in managing hazardous things, so a 1/8 score for "expertness" in those leading our response.

For chrisssakes This is peoples lives. we are talking about someone LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE FELLS HERE after everyone went home, and but for "luck" an RO in serious civil if not criminal trouble for want of bad instruction and advice by FRA on managing safety. and they have not even tackled the basics of why that happened, and what is really needed to fix it from a professional safety understanding standpoint. Our sport is out on a limb and found wanting.

The criticism is all justified. And the lack of action deplorable. And but for the criticism we would have been left with the old version of rules- the changes graham takes credit for now, were done grudgingly, against staunch resistance and rudeness only because we raised them multiple times, and only then done wrongly. The rules are slightly less bad, not good.

The dual standards implicit in posts such as yours are a problem too,. As I said to Lisa J , if you took your car to a garage and they bungled it making basic errors, you certainly would not allow the same people to do your car again without supervision of someone more competent, if you allowed them to touch it again that is. I cannot think Wharfeego would "thank them" for their efforts. He would be annoyed they accepted a job they were not qualified to do.

The majority can agree the rules are right. But if I have a medical problem, I want one doctor to decide what is needed not the majority view of lay people. That is why safety law in the corporate sphere demands a "competent safety person" with authority to act. Our safety committee have turned down all offers for such help

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

And therein lies the problem. A wholesale misunderstanding of what is needed. So the wrong presumption repeated by Wharfe that current rules are the answer. What Lisa J regards as detail is the essence. What she regards as the essence is detail.

And the presumption by Lisa J that they are "fell race safety experts" when Graham identifies the four people at the inquest from the so called "safety" committee, only one of which is an active RO that I can see, and none are either qualified at or experienced in managing hazardous things, so a 1/8 score for "expertness" in those leading our response.

For chrisssakes This is peoples lives. we are talking about someone LEFT FOR DEAD ON THE FELLS HERE after everyone went home, and but for "luck" an RO in serious civil if not criminal trouble for want of bad instruction and advice by FRA on managing safety. and they have not even tackled the basics of why that happened, and what is really needed to fix it from a professional safety understanding standpoint. Our sport is out on a limb and found wanting.

The criticism is all justified. And the lack of action deplorable. And but for the criticism we would have been left with the old version of rules- the changes graham takes credit for now, were done grudgingly, against staunch resistance and rudeness only because we raised them multiple times, and only then done wrongly. The rules are slightly less bad, not good.

The dual standards implicit in posts such as yours are a problem too,. As I said to Lisa J , if you took your car to a garage and they bungled it making basic errors, you certainly would not allow the same people to do your car again without supervision of someone more competent, if you allowed them to touch it again that is. I cannot think Wharfeego would "thank them" for their efforts. He would be annoyed they accepted a job they were not qualified to do.

The majority can agree the rules are right. But if I have a medical problem, I want one doctor to decide what is needed not the majority view of lay people. That is why safety law in the corporate sphere demands a "competent safety person" with authority to act. Our safety committee have turned down all offers for such help

---

Don't you think you should just let it go and move on? Things are what they are, its time to move on.

Haha, I suspect that there's a reasonable chance that when I do pop my clogs I might well be left for dead on the fells Mike. I can't think of a better place to go either. I can't talk for anyone else here but I run in the hills for the sense of freedom and adventure and trying to turn fell running into a health and safety water tight ship will gradually erode the sport into a vacuous and sterile version of its former self. Yes sensible efforts to get the basics right are great but all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

On the day of the Edale Skyline I couldn't race because I had Harry with me. We were there supporting Hester though who was racing, so me and Haz ran the route on our own anti-clockwise to co-incide with the race. From the marshalls we visited, I could be wrong but I sort of got the impression that they weren't particularly enjoying themselves and, both times that me and Harry met the race sweepers coming the other way, I was interrogated almost in a panicky way to see whether I was involved with the race (even though I was running the wrong way, with a border collie and wearing a Leeds Rhino's top and without of course a race number pinned to my chest).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Haha, I suspect that there's a reasonable chance that when I do pop my clogs I might well be left for dead on the fells Mike. I can't think of a better place to go either. I can't talk for anyone else here but I run in the hills for the sense of freedom and adventure and trying to turn fell running into a health and safety water tight ship will gradually erode the sport into a vacuous and sterile version of its former self. Yes sensible efforts to get the basics right are great but all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

---

I completely, 100%, totally and utterly agree with both this statement and the sentiments behind it.

It is precisely why I am doing what I am doing with my race.

My wonderful, wise and clever wife has asked my on a couple of occasions 'why are you doing this?' and I have struggled to put it into words. Now, when she asks again (which she will...as she worries for my sanity!), I shall print that out and give it to her.

Thanks Stolly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Yes sensible efforts to get the basics right are great but all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

---

This is the problem with safety experts they want to get rid of all feasible risk at the expense of the actual activity.

I see this where I work where the safety experts focus totally on the risks and do not look at the activity more pragmatically. This either puts people off doing things are just costs more to undertake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

all this worrying about runners being too stupid to look after themselves and placing added responsibilty on race organisers (whether as suggested by you and/or the FRA) will kill the sport.

---

I thought this was what AI was arguing against? ie, arguing for more responsibility to be placed on the runner, less on the RO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.F.F.

I thought this was what AI was arguing against? ie, arguing for more responsibility to be placed on the runner, less on the RO.

---

I honestly have no idea :)

I said last summer that institutional change is next-to-impossible.
It isn't about being right.
It is about politics, and what is achievable, and when this is achievable.

________________________________________________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I think check points in races aren't there primarily for safety and, with that in mind, shouldn't really have too much safety responsibility thrust upon them. The original reason for check points was surely to make sure runners were visiting the peak or route markers concerned (ie not cheating) rather than to look out for lost souls? For example the checkpoint on the Fairfield Horseshoe is at the summit windshelter at the half way point 5 miles in whereas the checkpoints of the Full Tour of Pendle are all over the place, probably no more than 2 miles apart on average due to its convoluted route. So just on checkpoint count, some races get closer scrutiny of where runners are than others. If you take that to its logical conclusion you'd have the barmy situation of enforced checkpoints at what every mile or something, making for really really boring race routes. For sure checkpoints should look after runners if they need to but the real business of looking for any one missing should be left to the end of the race. Certainly its only at the end that you can realistically tally who's finished and who's still out.

As for the Edale Skyline example, although runners are relatively high up for most of the race, making things dodgier in bad weather, its an easy race to bail from if a runner needs too (just head into the valley) so, in that respect, I'd say its a pretty safe race.

---

what Stolly said (I've emboldened the point that I stressed about a year ago)

take the example of a "score" type "O" event, where you're out in a big area with say a 4 hour time limit and there is no set route anyway...

you have to trust that the entrants have the mountain-craft to look after themselves or to plan/find/execute escape routes (experience requirements spring to mind here)

or are we saying that any old muppet can enter and they'll be kept safe by the marshals under any/all eventualities?

there will always be the chance of a tragic accident (look at what happened to Ayrton Senna in F1 for instance)

or we could all stay at home in bed under the duvet with the curtains drawn, worrying about a meteor strike...

(oh and btw, I myself was "temporarily mislocated" off the back of a long, exposed winter race in poor vis recently...)

I think I'm finally able to crystalise AI's hundreds of thousands of words into something more tangible.

AI's main point is: Qualified safety experts should be involved in drafting the new guidelines.

Since this is what a few others have been saying too. Can be perhaps debate this point and stop insulting each other.

Graham, I'd be interested to hear your take on this. Specifically:

Do you agree, and if not why not?
If we were to get some qualified safety experts involved, what would be the timelines and the process (next year's guidelines possibly)?

Very well said Noel!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

[SIZE=2]Stolly,


Of course, if RO choose to register with another body from 2014 that is their decision; but it will be tragic if any RO for an English fell race has to attend an English Coroner's Court having left the English governing body family for the wrong reasons.

Regards,

Graham

---

It would also be tragic if any of the RO of English Fell Races permitted under the English governing body family found there insurance was void.
Quote: Fellrunner Magazine Spring 2014 Secretarys Report page 5.
We have also been reviewing various issues in relation to insurance cover for races and intend to issue a paper for Ro's.
Commitee meeting 8th february Skipton, members endorsed further action to review the FRA documentation and insurance as mentioned above.

This wouldn't be anything to do with the UKA athletics Insurance cover for event organisers.
General points to note.
Hazardous activite exclusion, this policy does not apply to liability arising out of hazardous activities which increase the risk of bodily injury or damage to property. This includeds but is not limited to amusement rides, bonfires, bouncy castles, fairground rides, fireworks, and inflatables.

Right or wrong I for one aint taking any chances.

Andrew Hirst
RO Pendle Cloughs Fell Race

Having just returned from flagging the route for tonight's Liver Hill Race I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist on Snorkel and flippers. There will be a strict kit check at the start, finish and at other strategic points along the route. Come along and join in the fun.

You have to be careful Lefty. You could impair the field of vision with a snorkel and the flippers are a trip hazard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studmarks

Right or wrong I for one aint taking any chances.

Andrew Hirst
RO Pendle Cloughs Fell Race

---

Andrew,

Well thank you for admitting you might be wrong!

As you know I was completely involved with the Belfield tragedy from before his body was even found up to and including the 4-day Inquest 17 months later (and since) and I have never had the slightest doubt about the FRA/UKA Insurance cover and have stated this publicly over and over again.

I and Morgan Williams (a lawyer), when he was FRA Secretary, met with the Insurance Company shortly after Brian died. I/we dealt with UKA and the lawyers being paid in full by the Insurance Co. I know the background to the separate lawyer plus a barrister representing Mike: again all paid for by the Insurance Company.

Some members having read some documents raised some questions which the FRA was obliged to explore, despite its experience of what had actually happened in the real -world case of a death of a runner in a fell race where procedures were not as good as they might have been.

I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.

This response will now be issued in detail by the sub-group dealing with this which, as you know, includes Graham Wadsworth to whom I have talked at length in the past about what actually happened following the death of Brian Belfield.

When they were needed the Insurance Company did what we hoped and expected they would; which was just as well because if the FRA, and not the Insurance Company, had had to fund the legal costs for the Inquest the FRA might now be bankrupt.

In some circles it is glibly fashionable to criticise the FRA and its relationship with UKA but, as in other walks of life, sometimes having a big brother standing behind you can be very reassuring.

Regards,

Graham

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Andrew,

Well thank you for admitting you might be wrong!

As you know I was completely involved with the Belfield tragedy from before his body was even found up to and including the 4-day Inquest 17 months later (and since) and I have never had the slightest doubt about the FRA/UKA Insurance cover and have stated this publicly over and over again.

I and Morgan Williams (a lawyer), when he was FRA Secretary, met with the Insurance Company shortly after Brian died. I/we dealt with UKA and the lawyers being paid in full by the Insurance Co. I know the background to the separate lawyer plus a barrister representing Mike: again all paid for by the Insurance Company.

Some members having read some documents raised some questions which the FRA was obliged to explore, despite its experience of what had actually happened in the real -world case of a death of a runner in a fell race where procedures were not as good as they might have been.

I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.

This response will now be issued in detail by the sub-group dealing with this which, as you know, includes Graham Wadsworth to whom I have talked at length in the past about what actually happened following the death of Brian Belfield.

When they were needed the Insurance Company did what we hoped and expected they would; which was just as well because if the FRA, and not the Insurance Company, had had to fund the legal costs for the Inquest the FRA might now be bankrupt.

In some circles it is glibly fashionable to criticise the FRA and its relationship with UKA but, as in other walks of life, sometimes having a big brother standing behind you can be very reassuring.

Regards,

Graham

---

Graham

Thank you for your quick response.
I was just asking for clarification on the matter of insurance.
"I would just like to correct you on one point I had no idea that Graham Wadsworth was on the Sub commitee dealing with this point."
Actually I believe I am right in my decission to take my race permit away from the FRA. Not just for the safety issues reasons, but I no longer have faith in the way the FRA is being managed at this present time. But if ever I feel there is a time when I am wrong. "We can all make mistakes Graham" I would be the first to hold my hand up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by studmarks

Graham

Thank you for your quick response.
I was just asking for clarification on the matter of insurance.
"I would just like to correct you on one point I had no idea that Graham Wadsworth was on the Sub commitee dealing with this point."
Actually I believe I am right in my decission to take my race permit away from the FRA. Not just for the safety issues reasons, but I no longer have faith in the way the FRA is being managed at this present time. But if ever I feel there is a time when I am wrong. "We can all make mistakes Graham" I would be the first to hold my hand up.

---

Andrew,

OK I note that.

In my view the FRA does what it does and I think it does it well. It does not always present what it does clearly but the Committee are all volunteers, many with full time jobs, trying to serve the different needs of 7500 members, and the PR sometimes falls by the wayside.

I respect and admire race organisers. I have organised a few myself and I know how grim it is when you have missing runners. In my case they were juniors lost in clag, one was Alistair Brownlee!

I regret you de-registering Pendle Cloughs but it your race. All I want is that any RO considering leaving the FRA talks to a Committee officer first so there are no misunderstandings.

Regards,

Graham