I know one shouldn't talk about qualifications on an FRA forum but outdoor first aid quals, which I hold to work as an ML, is all about escaping the cold and getting the casualty down ASAP. One of the core messages is its the cold that kills, not the ankle.. so if a casualty can keep moving, keep moving... the message is quite different from standard urban first aid situations when one can rely on help within minutes...Originally Posted by IainR
One of the advantages of windproof kit is that you are actually more likely to wear it - and therefore avoid getting cold - in the context of a race it is so much easier to take out of and particularly put back into your bumbag. Being cold of course increases the risk of falls/navigational errors/poor decision making, and therefore getting even colder - though most of the time nothing "bad" happens. Where required by the RO and/or where the conditions look dodgy I do carry waterproof kit - with hood and taped seams, as well as a hat and gloves, but not a balaclava! Whole body cover does not actually mean whole body cover!
I cannot see the purpose of windproof. It's like water resistant - it means very little in my book. Perhaps handy on a clear blue sky at times as you get the wind on the tops but my waterproof does the same as the windproof + more.
We are not like walkers with poles, accessorising. This is safety kit, we can carry limited kit, so I would always go for waterproof jacket.
I always have waterproof with me and with good reason - I'm not the most experienced, but I've done 2 races in the Howgills where 16C in Sedbergh and clear skies became around 8C, wind and rain on the tops and had similar at Fairfield a few years ago.
In both cases I was delighted that I had a waterproof jacket with me and it has no consequences in terms of weight and packability.
At the FRA Relays in Ennerdale I ran the whole NAV leg in the jacket and it was perfect - I'd have really struggled in a windproof.
The debates on the merits of windproof v. waterproof, getting off the hill as a priority, taking all kit to a race, seeking clarification from the RO are all constructive. However, in race registration this year, I have heard dozens of runners ask "Do I need to take kit?" not, "What sort of kit do you want me to carry?" In most cases the weather was poor, or deteriorating. How do we educate this potentially dangerous minority (as in putting RO insurance and license at risk, endangering fellow competitors, marshals, and even MRT). They seem to lack basic common sense and knowledge. It takes little effort to study the rules, or research safety in the hills. If it takes a ban to prevent them continually putting others and the sport at risk, then so be it.
I've never been asked for those at a kit check!
Most of the debate seems a bit more constructive than usual. I totally agree about the level of safety that waterproofs provide - they aren't a magic bit of kit that will keep you alive until the MR find you, and I think there is sometimes a false assumption that carrying or using them will keep you safe. A lot of this might be semantics but I suspect that if we ever are unfortunate enough to have another death in the sport those same semantics could be picked over at length by a group of highly paid lawyers with 20/20 hindsight and no comprehension of what fell running is actually about and if we can do something to avoid that situation then so much the better.
It should be simple and thats why I hoped some simple agreements would clarify things. I've done kit checks - I've been asked if its OK not to take overtrousers because I have a bivi blanket (easy), my cag hasn't got a hood but I've got a wooly hat is that OK? (bit harder) and I've heard a very experienced runner explaining why they didn't need to carry overtrousers because they always ran in tracksters or tights (I've no idea but I suspect this isn't what the rules intended). I've seen 20 year old PB suits passed off as waterproof and the same cag accepted by one checker and rejected by another - Its not a perfect system, which should be news to nobody and we are all human and make mistakes or have different opinions.
We will never agree on the windproof or waterproof debate, I think it will always remain a matter for personal choice - and long may it stay that way. But I really hope we can sort out the doubt that surrounds some races about what the organiser actually wants us to carry - not what you, me or Joe Bloggs thinks is appropriate based on our ever so many years of experience or undoubted wisdom and common sense but what the bloke (or lady) who has actually gone to the bother of arranging this race on our behalf would actually like us to take.
The ending up in court bit could well happen. Back in the late 90's a mountaineering guide was taken to court by the wife of a client who had died when the guide and him were climbing in the Alps. The guide had made a decision that may have led to the clients death but the decision was made to avoid and even greater potential threat in the form of rockfall. Myself and many experienced mountaineers i spoke to felt the guides decision was correct but in court the prosecution expert stated that it was the wrong decision, the judge found in favour of the prosecution and the guide was found to be negligent.
So a case could be brought by a relative of a runner who has died in a race even though the runner themselves was experienced and accepted the risks (and not a novice who hadn't bothered to learn read the rules) and the RO could end up in court trying to defend their definition of windproof/waterproof. Obviously, we all hope that this scenario never happens but it shows that while it may be as Mark G said might just be semantics and everyone contributing to this debate is pretty much in agreement, it only takes a differing opinion in the right context for there to be serious consequences.
He did say minor breaks, and he is actually correct. If you can move, you get off the hill unless help has reached you or you're 100% that help are on the way and know how long they will take. If you can't move then obviously there's not much you can do but hope for the best as it sounds was the situation for the guy with the serious knee injury. MRT do a very good job and are always appreciated, but in an ideal world I would sooner be rescued from the tamest environment I could drag myself to rather than rely on them reaching me in time.
Windproof kit is actually excellent. I have a featherlite marathon jacket and the great thing about it is that it keeps you warm even when soaking wet (providing you're moving) and because it's much more breathable than a waterproof jacket I can run in it much more comfortably and tend to don it much sooner than I would a full waterproof. I wouldn't expect to use it in poor weather, nor in a race calling for a waterproof, but neither would I dismiss it completely.
That's really the crux isn't it. Kit talk is all very good, but if you can't choose suitable kit yourself judging by the conditions then it's likely that all the kit rules in the world won't make you safe. However, the problem still stands of accidentally falling foul of a kit check because your opinion of waterproof is different to somebody else's. I tend to carry a H2O jacket for waterproof, but have a cheap fully waterproof cag in the back of the car in the event that somebody think's that isn't waterproof enough. I know what I feel safe with.
This was the point I was trying to make last night. The link I put to a jacket that I was allegedly going to buy was waterproof, taped seams, but no hood, yet still the debate ends up simply "wear what the organiser says". For the first time in a long time the debate has featured what I think is the right answer several times, but frequently in the past it's not been obvious based on peoples answer to the question. Waterproof jacket and trousers with taped seams and a hood. That plus hat, gloves, compass, map and whistle. I'm not saying that if you carry this kit you'll stay safe, but I reckon you'd be hard done by if you didn't pass a kit check.
Just need to agree how many jelly babies now.... :w00t:
I can pretty much understand where all points of view are coming from on this one but i'd like to add my 10p if thats ok.
For what its worth I was a walker first and as such was taught that self preservation was paramount. I now work and run with members of Wasdale MRT who stress that this message cannot be repeated enough. They spend a lot of manhours rescuing people who are inadequately equipped, be it through the lack of a torch, map, compass, knowledge or warm clothing. They often comment how fell runners really get this one in that self preservation is key.
However I get the impression that whilst this is true for a reccie or a trot out, races seem to attract a different mindset. Is 30 seconds off your time really worth losing the extra weight of carrying the right kit for you to be safe ? (And please note I made no reference to what the RO requires, this is about what you NEED in the event of an incident). If an MRT is faffing about getting an ill equipped runner off the fells they may be in no position to assist someone with far greater injuries on another fell. The same is true for walkers I know but do we really want to push the limits of safety too far? We're supposed to be the hardy peeps of the fells after all and in a position where we can assist others (thats my view anyway).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote