Buttermere Sailbeck

[alwaysinjured]

Fantastic effort by Rhys and his team to get this one back in the calendar, and great organisation on the day - chapeau!!

Lovely words from Hazel before the start - I did think of Brian as I ran along the main ridge, and despite the tragedy of it all, he did pick a bloody amazing place in which to leave us.

Well done as well to Scoffer, surely the patron of the fell running peloton, for his words beforehand.

When all is said and done, despite the unnecessary politiking from some parties, and the problems we've seen for poor old race organisers this year, I bloody love fell running, and I love being amongst the likeminded folk who get out and race on days like yesterday.

Still buzzing!

Well chevin. Since you have failed to address my concenrs by PM which I would have preferred,

I am obliged to protest at your totally inappropriate characterisation of the legitimate concerns of worried RO - who carry the can as "unnecessary politicking"

The arguments surfaced in public because of the legitimate concerns of Wynn of the Waltz (and myself as a helper with that race - later others) - who are the RO you profess to show concern for - that you insult with the phrase that their protests were "unnecessary politicking"

Wynn was one of the only ones to actually to read those rules in september - why the others did not is beyond me, but not surprising given the lack of proper consultation, and seemingly an apathy amongst many RO.

She discovered her inability to comply with the wholly incompetent and dangerous drafting contained in them : which was potentially disastrous for her when combined with the double whammy of the clear and ridiculous statements that it would void her insurance if she failed to comply. (how can she have no "hazards?" - when all fell courses are full of them? - the drafter had not even read page 1 of any safety book)

Considering her race travels over the same ground as the sailbeck incident , and she read the inquest evidence with horror UKA role in that, and FRA prevent her from doing what they do themselves to escape liability, which is to become a limited company> So she had and has every right to be worried. She did not as she said "want to lose her house over a fell race"

So It is not politicking. And it is very necessary.

That was then compounded by the completely inappropriate response of the executive treating her like a delinquent schoolgirl : her protests were met with derision, the chair calling her "deluded" , (not to mention what the chair says about the previous sailbeck organiser behind his back) - our rule drafter called her "recalcitrant" because she refused to sign a load of inconsistent twaddle, in the hope it might be put right later.. No responsible person in their right minds,signs a legal document in anticipation that it might be changed, only in the knowledge of what is there at the time.

So She was not given the respect she has earned as one of the best RO in the business. In her company the executive and rule drafter, should have been listening, not talking.

In the end It was only at her behest and those around her, that some wholly idiotic statements were removed from rules from which all RO now have the benefit - but the changes do not go far enough.

Does not alter the fact that FRA is still out on a limb in safety terms, and there was no "competent" person allowed into the process of change, nor is the approach they are taking anything like comparable sports (or indeed home office guidelines for similar events - not that our safety committee, either know or care such things exist - and they resent outsiders pointing this out)

It is all done back of a fag packet/ seat of the pants. Our sport deserves better. So do our RO.

In short, it is not her fault that such a bad job was done of drafting the rules.
So please rescind your remark "unnecessary politicking". It is inappropriate.

So on to sailbeck 2014

Well done to the RO for the outcome of Sailbeck 2014, which I too am glad to see back, and someone filling the "hot seat"- but does not alter the fact that in keeping with proper safety practice, and as recommended in the related home office documents, there must be a review conducted because of the serious potential for disaster that might have occurred with events as they transpired.

Safety concerns itself with reviewing what might have been the outcome of such incidents, not just what did happen. And not just those that actually ended badly, for what can be learned from them. FRA thinks of safety only in terms of shutting doors after the horse has bolted - even then misunderstanding the door they have to shut. All events must be reviewed in hindsight, and plans amended as part of proper safety process.

So the competent safety officer (we do not have) should be reviewing this with the RO to determine what lessons are to be learned

From what I have gleaned from this thread:

- there are clearly a number of problems that surfaced, not least the rules as drafted, ( we have said so many times in the past, but nobody is listening) lull people into a false sense of security that "fra requirements are enough". They are not, and sailbeck 2014 proved it again. Some runners went out without enough kit (for them and the conditions - enough kit is subjective, not objective, and only because of fortunate support that cannot be guaranteed, disaster was averted.

It is just fortunate that those hypothermic runners were noticed and assisted , before they strayed out of the range of help, or the outcome could have been very different.

Also not enough is seemingly being heeded by runners in terms of navigation. Why is it those that went of course, a significant number appeared not to notice that in heading for grass moor they were travelling at over 45 degrees, even 90 degrees from the rough bearings they should have memorized in advance?

It is my view that the RO instructions to runners for an event like this should be to study the route on the map and "memorize the critical bearings and directions of travel so that they can be aware when they are travelling in substantively the wrong direction, demanding stopping and studying the map". The runners are not paying enough attention - and the runners instructions need beefing up because of it. Another point I have made in the past.

Both of the previous need review by a competent person in FRA with access to all the facts - not just what seems to have happened from information I have gleaned reading this forum (when and if they decide to appoint one) for, potential amendment in instructions to runners and dissemination

I await the report in fell runner of the outcome of the review, with interest and anticipation - and for the rule changes that should follow the review. But with the present people in charge, and their disregard for safety practice, I will not hold my breath waiting.