Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

Lecky, the race plan is not an alternative to the FRA’s documentation; it’s a good idea for an RO to have one regardless of whose rules the race is under. The FRA documentation offers no help with producing one.
The race plan needn’t be anywhere near as big as AI is suggesting either.

The key thing is that the ‘rules’ are on one or two pages only, and everything else is at the RO’s discretion. It’s his/her plan. He/she can make it a big or as small as desired.

We will provide a template if one is requested and help with filling it in (it’s currently happening with Pendle Cloughs) but the RO decides what he needs to document what he does, to ensure the race goes as planned, and no-one goes missing.

This is a normal approach in safety management, is preferred by insurers, and makes the ROs position more defensible in a court scenario.

The FRA’s multifarious rules are more likely to be used to defend the FRA and leave the RO hung out to dry… As AI has already explained concisely in 1.5 million words

Andy. A race plan involving 50 people, ( I guessed at simply on the purported scale of three peaks - I may be off on that, but it is surely more than 30?) having a page for each person is already 50 pages long, one for each. With standardized function, it could be reduced to one per group, but problems can come out of that.

Do not underestimate the size of it. I have rarely seen a works plan or standard operating procedure for teams of people shorter than 2* the number of people.
If and assuming (which would be mandatory as far as I am concerned) you want those pages to pull out for each person, then a lot of that is whitespace. Only if MOST of the people are doing exactly the same thing can the same task list be given to several. And that is rare in reality.

That is the point. Taking 100 pages as a number out of context until you see what they comprise is not a good basis on which to discuss.

The difference between most of those criticing and me, is I have had to go there and do it. Procedures for large teams of people to do things which are inherently hazardous on many engineering projects. And the KEY to it all is simplicity of communication and that alone generates paper. Even if one mans job is only three lines long, it is better to make a single bit of paper labelled with his name, so he does not get confused with the rest or with what others have to do. Experience speaking.
That is why "joint marshal briefings" except to refer to exceptional matters, are a problem in the making, and it was very unwise for FRA to mandate it. One man hearing the job that someone else has to do. One man assuming that someone else was going to the job that he has to do. Verbal communications often misinterpreted, and incapable of being replayed. That is how accidents happen.

[Witton Park]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Three Peaks is already over 100 pages when all is considered. When we've had the Northern XC Champs at Witton, due to size of event we have to engage with the local ESAG. When you have several thousand people all converging on an area at the same time, you need a lot of planning and prep before you even consider the competitive side of the event.

But that would be the whole darn event file.

When it comes to the Rules and Safety Requirements, I reckon 3-4 pages will cover it and then a robust set of guidelines and useful templates to aid ROs in their event organisation.

[alwaysinjured]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Three Peaks is already over 100 pages when all is considered. When we've had the Northern XC Champs at Witton, due to size of event we have to engage with the local ESAG. When you have several thousand people all converging on an area at the same time, you need a lot of planning and prep before you even consider the competitive side of the event.

But that would be the whole darn event file.

When it comes to the Rules and Safety Requirements, I reckon 3-4 pages will cover it and then a robust set of guidelines and useful templates to aid ROs in their event organisation.

When I speak of plan - I am speaking of what you call the event file richard.
That is a simple terminology issue, further proof that all this needs formalizing.
The document needs a single name, and in my view wants to be a single document with consistent structure and pull out sections for everyone involved, and for everything that needs doing, both before and after the race. Not a myriad of smaller documents, (which is my observation of how many are doing this seat of the pants at present) if only because of document control considerations - what was updated, why and when.

My rules at the last count were 1.5 pages. In the extended version about 2.5.
So I beat you there. The guidelines on the other hand are a lot longer. The schedule 1-2 pages, and the checklist probably no more than 2-3 more depending on how much a control freak the present FRA chair is - it does not necessarily need to be more than a single page, but with MUST mentality prevailing, I dare say we could keep it down to 3.

Anyway. I have offered to document somebodies race to produce a case in point. An offer for the most part not taken up, but I would do an alternative plan for your darwin race if you wish Richard, then everyone can see what I mean.

[Graham Breeze]

Personally, I think that the FRA rules could be better, by being shorter; more clearly set out and allowing more flexibility for the Race Organiser.

If you believe that the FRA's rules are putting off RO, then AI's reams of paperwork would put me off.

Lecky,

The Safety Committee has started work on producing some Principles and revising the Guidelines for RO for 2015 and while these are at framework draft stage I did notice a reference to the usefulness of a concise management plan. The Committee do listen!

As everyone knows the Handbook for 2014 was produced under difficult circumstances and was based on historical documentation.

Looking ahead, in my personal view, I could envisage the Introduction being significantly shortened and much of the data referring to race organisers being placed only in the dedicated RO Guidelines. The Safety Requirements for Competitors could be reformatted so the "musts" are summarised towards the front and the "shoulds" become more guidelines for competitors. We will see.

However, whatever the outcome the documents will be much shorter, less "clunky" and more user friendly. The current Handbook is based on work done decades ago so I hope the Committee is given a year or two to get everything right.

As you know the Committee is made up of active fell runners and active RO so it will want to produce something it would like to use itself.

Regards,

Graham

[Swoop]

I would do an alternative plan for your darwin race if you wish Richard, then everyone can see what I mean.

There's a capital D in Darwin, even in Australia!

[alwaysinjured]

Lecky,

The Safety Committee has started work on producing some Principles and revising the Guidelines for RO for 2015 and while these are at framework draft stage I did notice a reference to the usefulness of a concise management plan. The Committee do listen!

As everyone knows the Handbook for 2014 was produced under difficult circumstances and was based on historical documentation.

Looking ahead, in my personal view, I could envisage the Introduction being significantly shortened and much of the data referring to race organisers being placed only in the dedicated RO Guidelines. The Safety Requirements for Competitors could be reformatted so the "musts" are summarised towards the front and the "shoulds" become more guidelines for competitors. We will see.

However, whatever the outcome the documents will be much shorter, less "clunky" and more user friendly. The current Handbook is based on work done decades ago so I hope the Committee is given a year or two to get everything right.

As you know the Committee is made up of active fell runners and active RO so it will want to produce something it would like to use itself.

Regards,

Graham

You have had years and years to do it Graham - should have been an ongoing thing from long before the horse bolted so How long do you need?

In the time I have spent arguing for the need to involve proper planning, and to take a lot of unnecessary stuff out, I could have done it 20 times over. On serious engineering contracts involving a lot of bodies and far more layers of safety redundancy - you get a couple weeks (max) to do write plans far more sophisticated than this.

The wrong people are doing it is the problem.
It needs leading by someone more used to the process.

Another person can die on the timescales you have already taken and now propose.

[theitmancometh]

I only have three comments about this thread and I realise the irony of contributing to it.

1. It is utterly turgid that this subject is always top of the list of subjects in the forum.

2. What do you think any newcomers to the sport make of all this petty bickering? (BTW don't answer this, just reflect).

3. Rule changes are not unique to fell running, they change in all sorts of different sports. For example years ago you could go motor racing and not have to wear a seatbelt. After a bit people who organised things thought hang on, let's make competitors wear a seat belt. Amazingly the sky didn't fall in, the spectacle was just as good and people still took part & enjoyed it. Those that didn't went elsewhere. So if you don't like the new rules simply go elsewhere to enjoy what you like doing.

[wharfeego]

...So if you don't like the new rules simply go elsewhere to enjoy what you like doing.

Quite right.

AL; instead of papping on and on and on and on with your really difficult to comprehend posts (I guess that few readers totally understand them) why don't you just once and for all put together a simple to read list of the new rules you'd like to see put in place. And post them on here, not as a PM.
I'm beginning to wonder if you are totally serious about this thread, or perhaps you're the perfect wind-up merchant?

[Lecky]

And there of course is the problem. A wholesale misrepresentation based on a refusal to even read what is written and a heap of erroneous assumptions. And also a breach of the basic protocol that what is said privately should remain private.

...

So I took the trouble to speak to Lecky in the hope of opening up a cordial dialogue.

I might even have sent him a couple of documents, having explained the context of them briefly, but we never got that far.

So now you see why I cannot be bothered.

So, having told me that you had answered all my questions previously, you now tell me that I have misrepresented what you said?

My question, and it is the same one I have been asking since you started was "why don't you rewrite everything yourself?"

Your private answer was (I summarise), "this is how it should be done, but I need help from other ROs to write it".

Rather than spending your time railing against everyone else you could have published your own plans, which were (for you) quite succinct, but for me were far too complicated to meet your main premise of moving the safety risks from the RO to the runner.

Now one or two others are saying that a race plan needn't be anywhere big as you suggested to me, but as what you suggested is in private, no-one can comment on your thoughts.

You also say that you will only deal with those with the "right attitude". So, if you publish what you sent to me, those with the wrong attitude might be able to comment.

Stop hiding your work and let everyone see what your plans are. Some are quite reasonable and might help produce a decent set of documents in the future.

[Lecky]

In the time I have spent arguing for the need to involve proper planning, and to take a lot of unnecessary stuff out, I could have done it 20 times over.

Could have, but didn't.