Legal advice..FRA Website

Lecky seems to think that the way to address the current issues is to get onto the committee and “sell” the alternative to the FRA. I have to remind everyone that I was on the committee and did try to GIVE the FRA a better way.

The problem is not AI’s long posts. The problem is that the FRA (by which I mean the current committee leadership) is so entrenched in its old-fashioned, out-moded and impractical approach to safety that is doesn’t want to listen to anyone who puts forward a different view.

As I’ve said before, you cannot achieve safety through rules. It’s achieved through planning: If an RO makes and delivers a proper plan, almost all rules are obsolete, unnecessary, not required.

What makes me think I'm right on this? I do it every day, professionally, and I demonstrate it to auditing bodies such as Lloyds Register, who see it as the leading edge of safety management. It’s not about industry or whether H&S legislation applies, it’s about sound safety practice which is applicable to ANY event or project.

The posting on the front page of the website about seeking advice is just so much propaganda. Advice has been offered and rejected months ago, last week, and numerous times in between. The aim is to appear open and receptive to new ideas simply by broadcasting that that is the case, when all the actions (which ought to speak louder than words) are demonstrating the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

Lecky seems to think that the way to address the current issues is to get onto the committee and “sell” the alternative to the FRA. I have to remind everyone that I was on the committee and did try to GIVE the FRA a better way.

The problem is not AI’s long posts. The problem is that the FRA (by which I mean the current committee leadership) is so entrenched in its old-fashioned, out-moded and impractical approach to safety that is doesn’t want to listen to anyone who puts forward a different view.

As I’ve said before, you cannot achieve safety through rules. It’s achieved through planning: If an RO makes and delivers a proper plan, almost all rules are obsolete, unnecessary, not required.

What makes me think I'm right on this? I do it every day, professionally, and I demonstrate it to auditing bodies such as Lloyds Register, who see it as the leading edge of safety management. It’s not about industry or whether H&S legislation applies, it’s about sound safety practice which is applicable to ANY event or project.

The posting on the front page of the website about seeking advice is just so much propaganda. Advice has been offered and rejected months ago, last week, and numerous times in between. The aim is to appear open and receptive to new ideas simply by broadcasting that that is the case, when all the actions (which ought to speak louder than words) are demonstrating the opposite.

---

Well said Andy!

As I have previously stated my heightened interest in these matters started in November last year when I became aware that the FRA Chair had refused to allow Andy to present his proposals for management of safety at fell races to the committee at their meeting in early December. Andy is professionally employed as a safety manager and was then a member of the FRA committee. If he had been allowed to present his proposals the committee would have been free to accept or reject them. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone would want to refuse to even listen in this situation.

I was so surprised that I (and others) decided to attend the December committee meeting to hear what if anything was said about this refusal. In the event there was some discussion at which some spurious reasons for not listening to Andy were given or implied such as H&S legislation not being applicable and that safety management experience in industry not being relevant to fellrunning ............. What did not seem to be appreciated by some of the committee was that experience in the methodology of managing safety is equally applicable and transferable across the board!

So I'm afraid that Lecky's suggestion of getting on the committee to influence safety management seems to be a non-starter. We've already been there and have been ignored.

compare and contrast:

Quote:

---

if you side against the current committee you will lose.

---

Quote:

---

I have already talked about the limited accountability of the committee, and I am not going to repeat it.

---

with

Quote:

---

nothing will change unless you either get elected on to the committee and work within the organisation to turn things around

---

Quote:

---

f anything you ever read on this or other threads gives you any grounds for concern about the way the committee is actually going about its work then you can get in touch by phone or email or...and I (or any of my committee colleagues) will try to put your mind at rest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MargC

So I'm afraid that Lecky's suggestion of getting on the committee to influence safety management seems to be a non-starter. We've already been there and have been ignored.

---

In which case, the other alternative was, you have to produce a set of coherent documents and "sell" them to the FRA's ROs. I am a RO, sell them to me! Oh, but these need more time to be considered by the "right" people.

BTW, I hope you have remembered to include Junior Races in your discussions.

seems to me that they've been pretty convincingly "sold" at the AW......
didn't seem to require the permission of any committees, either.

Well, they did need to register with someone else for insurance purposes and they chose Scottish Hill Runners, who seem to be using an edited version of earlier FRA rules, which have in them some of the problems that AI has been complaining about. They are, however, much briefer than the current FRA rules, which is a good thing.

For example:

Quote:

---

You, as organiser, have the responsibility to make your race as safe as it can possibly be by ensuring that the nature of the race and the rules relating to safety have been drawn up and formally communicated to each runner.

---

or

Quote:

---

Size of field
This must be limited to numbers that your race organisation can completely monitor and control, and will not create a risk of accidents to runners because of overcrowding.

---

Have a look at the insurance sign-off document, it is here.

And there is a more comprehensive race pack document here.

Quote:

---

they did need to register with someone else for insurance purposes

---

obviously

Quote:

---

some of the problems that AI has been complaining about

---

and has talked about elsewhere on this forum if you care to look

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

In which case, the other alternative was, you have to produce a set of coherent documents and "sell" them to the FRA's ROs. I am a RO, sell them to me! Oh, but these need more time to be considered by the "right" people.

BTW, I hope you have remembered to include Junior Races in your discussions.

---

Lecky - firstly this has nothing to do with FRA or FRA ROs unless they are considering using another body going forward in to 2015.
This is not an FRA review.

The FRA has had 18 months to react - I think we should give SHR and WFRA at least time to review their situation and decide which way they go, which may be to adopt the FRA method, or one of their own, or they may opt for a joint approach.