Safety Matters

[IanDarkpeak]

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

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

[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.

[alwaysinjured]

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.

[alwaysinjured]

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

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.

[mr brightside]

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.

[Graham Breeze]

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

[IanDarkpeak]

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

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.

[OB1]

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.

[OB1]

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!
.
.
.

[OB1]

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.