Safety Matters

[noel]

non of the guideline changes would have helped poor Brian B

They might have, but you may be right.

That's why the FRA has also been educating fell runners about the dangers of hypothermia.

[Stolly]

There seems to be increasing confusion over the safety debate. Confusion about what each side is arguing over.

Alwaysinjured often doesn’t help his case by writing so many words and opposition to his postings is often based on their length or their ‘belligerence’ This isn’t helping.

I believe there is no doubting the veracity of AI’s arguments but his point is often overlooked because of the sheer wordiness of his posts, which are often too long even for me – and I have a relatively lengthy attention-span!

So, what’s it about?

Basically, some of us (AI, me, Witton Park, people in SHR and WFRA, and we believe many others) think that the organisation of races and the authority to decide how it’s done should be firmly in the hands of ROs.

We believe that the sport is unique and its ethos and atmosphere should be preserved.

We believe that fell racing is an adventurous sport and a sport with accepted hazards and a certain level of risk.

We believe that accepting this risk is principally a matter for the individual competitor.

We believe that race organisers (not the FRA) are the heart of the sport.

We believe that prescriptive rules should be kept to a minimum and that ownership of races should be in the hands of the ROs

We believe that ROs should not be placed in unnecessary ‘legal jeopardy’ if something should go wrong, provided the basic duty of care has been taken care of.

We believe that race organisers should be free to organise their races in their own way, but also that they should be helped in documenting how they do that so that everyone in the organising team knows what their role is and the risk of mistakes is minimised.

We believe in helping race organisers by providing as much guidance and information as possible.

WE DON’T BELIEVE IN “laying down the law” or in giving ROs unrealistic hurdles to jump over, or in laying tripwires for ROs among pages and pages of rules.

Regardless of what certain people might say, the FRA’s current actions are out of step with all this and thus with most fell runners. We wish they weren’t. That’s what it’s all about.

As far as alternative rules go, we have drafted a number of alternatives but we are now working towards an agreed set (shock – horror – they might fit on one page!)

We can already offer:

An alternative to the FRA’s current policy of imposing unrealistic one-size-fits all rules.

Alternative sources of race permitting/insurance. (safer for the organiser as there are fewer pitfalls inherent in it)

Support and help in working up a race plan and race entry requirements – a far more logical approach than the FRA’s current confusion of documentation.

A return to the core values of fell running (simplicity, informality, adventure, an element of risk, and responsibility being mainly in the hands of the competitor)

Hurray, bullets points at last

Just one point though,don't race organisers want to run races under the FRA banner so as to benefit from their know how, their profile/advertising, their minimum standards and their (as I understand it but forgive me if I'm wrong) centrally organised liability insurance. The terms agreed for that insurance probably dictate most of the minimum safety requirements don't they?

[Fellhound]

I think this is your key point. I'm not trying to ignore the others, but can't address them all.
..
..It sounds like we're arguing within the grey areas here. You think the guidelines are too restrictive, others think they're OK.

One of the key points you have missed Noel is that the Safety Requirements are not guidelines, they're Requirements. All 17 pages of them.

[Stolly]

Just for interest Graham, and prevent people misunderstanding please could you:
1. List the 'facts' fabricated by AI.
2 Give examples of his 'fetid imagination'.

These are very direct claims so it should be possible to give direct responses.

Sorry but thats the last thing this thread needs. All the mud slinging long ago drowned out the key facts and asking for clarification of mud already slung really doesn't help. Thank god for fell hound trying to click this all back to what the main points are

[Witton Park]

People have talked about the FRA know how.....

Well I know some on the committee are ROs and I believe that one on the Safety Committee is an RO.

But I haven't seen an example of any of their Safety Plans. I've published mine and it's been fairly well read judging from the hits that my website took from the FRA Forum link and messages of thanks I've received for sharing the info.
(I did pass it to the FRA Fixtures Secretary around a month before I put it in the public domain)

Do the Committee ROs keep a Safety Plan? Do they keep written records? Are any of the best practise documents on the Organisers section from FRA Committee Members Races or Safety Committee Members Races?

It's often been said on here, in defence of them, that they are volunteers and do a great job and it's a thankless task........
I buy in to that as I am similarly sometimes having to duck the potshots in the voluntary positions I fill in the sport - if you can't hack that, don't do it.

That doesn't give them a divine right to be correct, competent or guarantee experience. I have often been asked for guidance by serving FRA committee members and I still receive requests.
In some instances I wonder why

But doing something doesn't guarantee anything. Some of the most prolific ROs out there are amongst the worst that I have experienced.
Some might say I am even
But blindly accepting that the FRA has got it right because they are the FRA will only get us all in a mess.
They should be challenged as with any executive, they always have been and will continue to be. Even when they are right there will be those that challenge them, instigate a debate, it might become heated at times, but ultimately it should leave us all in a better place when it settles down.

[noel]

One of the key points you have missed Noel is that the Safety Requirements are not guidelines, they're Requirements. All 17 pages of them.

I disagree. Whatever they are called, a lot of the points are guidance, they are not "must"s they are "should"s.

There are some "must"s as you would expect. But to say it's 17 pages of absolute rules is not the case.

[Witton Park]

I disagree. Whatever they are called, a lot of the points are guidance, they are not "must"s they are "should"s.

There are some "must"s as you would expect. But to say it's 17 pages of absolute rules is not the case.

Fair point Noel. But the Safety Requirements of 2013 had 3 Pages. The equivalent now is 13 pages as 4 of the 17 are the UKA Rules for competition etc.

The point being made is that it's a huge lump and the Rules ie what must be done should be isolated from guidance which is there to aid.

[alwaysinjured]

LissaJous

There are (at least) two certainties in life:

i) AI will continue to fabricate "facts" because he never checks sources but relies on his fetid imagination

ii) The FRA Safety Committee will discuss their current work with SQEP(s).

This work, announced by the General Secretary, Nick Harris (FRA Website 25th February) to be carried out during 2015 will include drafting of some brief basic Principles but the priority is a significant rewrite of the Guidelines for Race Organisers ready for 2015 , together with consideration of the Safety Requirements in the light of experience as 2014 progresses. FRA race documentation will become shorter, simpler, integrated and devoid of duplication/repetition and, without the constraints of the Inquest, there will be broader and earlier consultation than was the case in 2013.

Regards,

Graham

Don't you dare graham.

You have NEVER put a substantive dent in any argument I have made. You seem to think picking an irrelevant nit makes any material difference to argument, and in any event those nits are generally non existent based your flawed understanding of words as evidenced time and again in the rules. Critical thinking is not your strong suit

As for SQEP you now know the word - since I used it, you have no idea what it means.

In this case suitable means someone who has been a directing mind and competent authority over custom operating procedures for hazardous process where substantial team operation is involved ( such as the certification and formalization of process for a nuclear control room (Like Keith Burn) or running dangerous engineering projects and processes on very hazardous plant (me)

You are very lucky to have had two of us - there are few of us about - but you have ignored everything we said. I have little doubt you will pick the wrong kind of person - a standard corporate safety officer is not suitable for this role.

In addition that person needs to lead the process in common with the concept of a "competent person" in safety practice, not be consulted and ignored. The approval process of documents needs changing too, so that nothing can be approved by any majority unless the competent person is happy.

That commitee also needs ridding of deadwood. Your past performance demonstrates your critical thinking or drafting of ideas is not good enough to take further part in the process. That is not an insult - it is the inevitable consequence that would be applied in any context other than FRA, you would certainly be considered too much of a liability in any corporate safety management, but no doubt you will linger like a bad smell.

The requirement is far more than drafting documents. FRA needs a safety officer to undertake a myriad of tasks, some noted over the period.

So no Lisa J - nothing is fixed, nor will it be for as long as the present leadership is determined to stay in place in that process. All their instincts have been proven wrong.





.

[noel]

Fair point Noel. But the Safety Requirements of 2013 had 3 Pages. The equivalent now is 13 pages as 4 of the 17 are the UKA Rules for competition etc.

The point being made is that it's a huge lump and the Rules ie what must be done should be isolated from guidance which is there to aid.

Yes, I think that is a fair point, and that might happen in future years too. But that's format not content. In terms of the 'must's, the rules are not too dissimilar to the old versions. The main changes are around ROs being able to account for people - which is understandable given what happened.

[MargC]

..........The FRA Safety Committee will discuss their current work with SQEP(s).

This work, announced by the General Secretary, Nick Harris (FRA Website 25th February) to be carried out during 2015 will include drafting of some brief basic Principles but the priority is a significant rewrite of the Guidelines for Race Organisers ready for 2015 , together with consideration of the Safety Requirements in the light of experience as 2014 progresses. FRA race documentation will become shorter, simpler, integrated and devoid of duplication/repetition and, without the constraints of the Inquest, there will be broader and earlier consultation than was the case in 2013

Graham, you had a very experienced SQEP and fellrunner on the committee in Andy Walmsley. Instead of listening to his ideas you effectively chose to force him off the FRA committee.

Now you seem to have realised that the FRA documentation needs to be shorter and simpler which was part of what Andy and others were trying to advise you about. It would be interesting to know what has caused this Damascene conversion. It might have been better if you had taken on board Andy's offer of assistance several months ago! Time has been lost and we are where we are with a significant and increasing risk of splitting the fell running community in England.