Safety Matters

[Witton Park]

You forgot to mention ex-Committee member MargC as one who sat through the inquest as well.

The inquest and it's outcome should not lead safety policy on the fells. An incident as tragic as it was, that happened at arguably the toughest AM in England, in foul conditions.
Several people with lots of experience including but not exclusive to Graham and his colleagues attended the inquest and that there are differing opinions as to the necessary response should be noted.
The FRA response has lead to the SHR and WFRA not accepting the FRA policy review in full to the extent that they are working on either old or amended documentation for 2014 and will most likely have further divergence in 2015.

How's that for the FRA who claimed to the inquest that the review was conducted with full consultation of the other UK bodies that oversee fell running? I'd like to know a few details on exactly how WFRA and SHR were consulted.
Or were they just told?

[Witton Park]

completely

LJ - you've confused me with your participation in this debate. I haven't really known which side of the debate you are on.
So your use of "completely" would perhaps be better replaced with "partially".

[OB1]

You are contradicting yourself.
....
And that's the problem with your position AI. You criticise the FRA for specifying minimum kit but you have done it too.

Aye, I must say I've been thinking that for a while too (whilst admitting to not necessarily reading 100% of AI's posts, though most, up to a point).

I work in Hazardous Industry, and for 25+ years I have taken mandatory PPE (personal protective equipment) requirements without complaint - whether by employer, client, main contractor, or my own company. I accept that certain (specified) mandatory PPE is required all the time for certain 'at risk tasks' or in certain 'potentially at risk environments', even if in reality (actual likelihood) only a proportion of the time in those tasks / environments the risks are low, on the basis that at other times (however small) the risks could be much higher (so its like an insurance in the face of dynamic risks). I could start to quote lots of analogies, but I cant be arsed, partially for fear of breaking.... ahem, Noel's 'word quota'.

[OB1]

LJ - you've confused me with your participation in this debate.

Aye, me too (you've confused me too, ever so slightly).
Again, I started to elaborate, then just deleted several paragraphs as its probably been said already on here before.

[alwaysinjured]

You are contradicting yourself. If the issue is not what kit is required, but the runner rather than the RO taking responsibility, why is full windproof body cover a minimum requirement for entering the Anniversary Waltz?

If you are claiming it is only a rule required to avoid disqualification divorced from actual safety considerations, then you're painting the wrong picture.

And that's the problem with your position AI. You criticise the FRA for specifying minimum kit but you have done it too.

The devil is in the detail. No contradiction.
Read the terms, that demand the runner decide what kit is needed for safety.
In the weasel words we are having to tread a fine line between trying to comply with rules, whilst at the same time doing what is safe and sensible.

FRA demand the RO specify (with no requirement for the runner to consider at all )- and as I indicated above, specifying only light waterproofs is a wholly inappropriate recommendation as sufficient for very cold conditions - which bad advice from committee is why I entered the thread again.

The coroner in essence echoed UKA misguided recommendations which should have been contested but were not, and then lamely agreed to by FRA , in addition adding a few idiotic undertakings all their own making , such as Marshall's "ensuring the safety of runners" as if they have any such power ( till we argued with that, and got it amended but only slightly) . If you are looking for contradictions look no further than that. Whose responsibility was safety? 1.1 then contradicted several times over.

Notice none of those mentioned as attending the inquest have any safety training at all, nor will they listen to any that have - (and the needed skill is managing the safety of custom operating procedures for significant teams of people - which is an unusual skill - not normal workplace safety - anyone who has actually done it knows written tasking for critical people is a must as part of an event plan)

A lack of common sense some of them, judging by some of what was in many places previously, and is still there in places in the rules.

You find me someone who is willing to state there is no risk of accidents in crowded areas of a rocky fell race, and I will show you a liar, needlessly forced to be so by silly FRA rules. I have fallen in borrowdale start as have many others. I have seen people fall in langdales first mile because of the normal crowding issues, and even later in the Esk pike traverse because it is hard to see when in a crowd or group on a narrow trod. Ask Michael Schumacher about what happens when heads hit unfortunate badly placed rocks even wearing a helmet.

Drawing attention to runners to the risk is the right way to tackle that issue ( and a variety of others), telling them to be careful is the right response. Denying it is crass stupidity. How can an RO now draw attention to problems he is no longer allowed to have, when they exist regardless? Solicitors have drawn attention to that as an issue... But then it doesn't take a legal or safety brain to decide the wording is daft on field size.

[OB1]

A lack of common sense some of them....

AI your 'conciliatory tone' suggests that you would do much better service to mankind by getting along to the Geneva 'Ukraine' talks tomorrow. Try to be nice, please?

[Witton Park]

A and for 25+ years I have taken mandatory PPE (personal protective equipment) requirements without complaint - whether by employer, client, main contractor, or my own company.

I note that you don't say mandatory by the HSE.

The FRA in the role of Fell Running are something akin to the HSE. The RO is equivalent to a business or organisation.

What the FRA have done (with kit as an example) is to say that all races of a certain spec must mandate the carrying of this kit adn must have some sort of scrutiny of that kit, in some instances with the number of inspections also mandated.

Contrast that with the HSE who would adopt a stance of "You the RO must assess what kit is appropriate for your event and then decide how you want to handle that in terms of mandating it, recommending it, kit checking....."

[alwaysinjured]

AI your 'conciliatory tone' suggests that you would do much better service to mankind by getting along to the Geneva 'Ukraine' talks tomorrow. Try to be nice, please?

I long since gave up on conciliatory. Tried that. With people like this it does not work.

Fudge

The FRA Safety Requirements (page 9) say:

1.1 The Competitor must accept primary responsibity for his/her own safety.

My FRA Committee colleagues and I heard what the Coroner said in addressing the Court at the conclusion of the Belfield Inquest. We were listening hard because a runner had died in a fell race on our "watch"- for us it wasn't a matter of Forum debate.

The Coroner had studied in detail the FRA Safety Requirements, line by line. He clearly did not think these diluted the fundamental issue (1.1) and in support of that view he refused to endorse eight (8) additional safety requirements sought by the Belfield family.

The Coroner further publicly indicated his recognition that the FRA was a responsible body which had the best interests of fell runners at its core in the context of the actions it had taken following the comments his colleague had made following the death of Judith Taylor.

As I say, there were others from the FRA Committee present during the Inquest like the Chair, Madeleine Watson, the FRA ex-Secretary Alan Brentnall, and Jon Broxap; all of whom are members of the FRA Safety Committee (and other Committee Members such as Scoffer) which, as I have previously posted, is currently looking at the "safety" documentation and considering new elements such as formal management plans.

If you wish to be consulted on any redrafts you are free to send me a PM.

Regards,

Graham.

I will return to my self imposed exile. But not until having noted the following..

- I reentered the thread because of the prescriptive false premise restated, that £15 leggings mandated are an answer to issues of what to carry regarding hypothermia.At best it gives a false sense of security. "do this and you will be OK" What is needed is sufficient runner experience, education and forced proactive decisions on what to carry based on prevailing conditions and expectation of no support.

- For us it is not a matter of forum debate either. It is far more real to us than you. Wynns race is one of the very few that travels over the same ground as the sailbeck incident at the very same time of year. So she has every right to be worried, and unlike you she carries the can and is not allowed to hide behind a limited company. You unwisely told her her insurance would be voided if she broke rules that were impossible to comply with. Then treated her like a delinquent for worrying about it. The rest all flowed from there.

- What you need is to ask someone with sufficient experience and qualification how they would manage the process of safety, not restrict them to tweaking documents already established. Since there are many facets to that, (not just documentation even) it needs a presentation to all decision makers on all aspects of that. It needs that competent person to lead, not tinker with it from the sidelines - the authority of a competent person is mandated in the corporate world because it is critical to success.

- What it needs is wide dissemination, not hiding behind closed doors allowing the bits "you like" to trickle out, the rest kept buried or un-minuted. Forums at least do that. They keep a minute of what was said.Dissemination is why it needs wide presentation and debate. We have offered from long before bad blood, to do such a presentation, me and Andy but you have never taken us up on the matter.

- Even the very issue of the need to have reviews, was fought tooth and nail, us on the side of keeping under review in perpetuity, the chair doing everything she could to frustrate it - "no rule changes till 2016".
How can you consider formal management plans? You don't know anything about them in a safety context. Let someone used to drafting them, explain what , how , what they need to contain, and how they fit into the overall scheme of things, and do the baseline drafting of them.

It has all been said before. No doubt will be disregarded as always.

And with that , back into the ether. ( all can heave a collective sigh of relief).
It is looking increasingly as though my latest knee problems are terminal for fell running, so I will probably slip quietly away all together.

Unless the spectre of £15 leggings is held up as a cornerstone of FRA safety policy/ anti hypothermia again that is...I might just comment again.. it needs well informed and experienced runners to decide for themselves on the basis of conditions.

Let them be responsible for their own safety.

[noel]

I will return to my self imposed exile.

Oh no you won't.

Let me come back you in AI style.
[into character]
Fact: you say safety should be up to competitors, yet AW has minimum kit requirements
Fact: you can't even get consensus among those qualified as safety experts
Fact: you have not released a set of draft guidelines despite on numerous occasions saying you could and having written over 100,000 words on the subject.

Therefore your arguments are totally flawed and need redrafting by me.
[out of character]

Can you see why people might not be engaging with you?

[alwaysinjured]

Oh no you won't.

Let me come back you in AI style.
[into character]
Fact: you say safety should be up to competitors, yet AW has minimum kit requirements
Fact: you can't even get consensus among those qualified as safety experts
Fact: you have not released a set of draft guidelines despite on numerous occasions saying you could and having written over 100,000 words on the subject.

Therefore your arguments are totally flawed and need redrafting by me.
[out of character]

Can you see why people might not be engaging with you?

Noel I have long since given up expecting other than the nitpicking above.

eg It is not me that wrote SHR rules. (or even SHR - they adopted them at a time when they thought FRA knew best and they wanted to be consistent, now they know that is not true, they are left scratching their heads as well) but until they have a new set of rules,
AW entry conditions, have to do something to protect Wynn, whilst not actually countermanding rules as they are at present. In short a diplomatic fudge trying to sidestep a few landmines on the way. And in the end, it is not the minimum kit that is the problem. It is the context of it that causes a problem.


etc

As for holistic disagreements, you will not find a competent safety advisor who will disagree with most of what I have said on a myriad of issues. Take the issue about wide disseminatio to tellrunners what to do urgently (and what not to do)if they find another fallen runner immobile unconscious.
Marshalls even if trained, are highly unlikely to get there in time to help - you have only minutes, if they stop breathing.

Yet FRA have not heeded that, fellrunner magazine refused safety articles from me because of not wanting to be seen as "partisan" (by the way I would get an A&E doctor involved in drafting that because unlike FRA I know the need to involve experts even though I am a trained first aider, ABC and all that..).

So if a fatality or paralysis happens because that common sense safety suggestion was not heeded by those in power (like most of the rest of what I have said). I will blame current FRA executive, and make sure everyone knows who had the power to make that happen, but failed to use it.

So nitpick away Noel...