New safety rules

[IainR]

I presume you meant "no bad thing" not "now bad thing"
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 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.

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.

[alwaysinjured]

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!

[Witton Park]

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.

[Witton Park]

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!

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?
I've always wondered

[crowhill]

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!

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.

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.

[Lefty]

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.

That sounds perfectly sensible to me.

[Amex]

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?
I've always wondered

Now here is an interesting subject
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."

[alwaysinjured]

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.

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.

The point I am stressing is to take real world situations that actually happen and design the rules around coping with them.

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.

[Wheeze]

[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!

[MargC]

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 all

I know.. I just don't get why.. I can understand Scotland because the legal system differs.. but Wales?

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.:-

England - Fell Runners Association
Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Mountain Running Association
Scotland - Scottish Athletics
Wales - Welsh Athletics

1. 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.
2. 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.