Event Safety

[davebrads]

There has to be some firing of neurones to identify relevant issues and approach.

My neurones are perfectly capable of firing adequately from reading text. In fact I am one of a large number of people who appear to learn better from the written word. It's still going to be a waste of my time, and I feel justified in feeling angry (unless I can get someone else to do it)

[paddlerparent]

Despite a number of very experienced people potentiality being competent enough to create a risk assessment & mitigate any significant risk at the events, it sound very much like this post illustrates whats become the industry standard of ensuring adequate training & a competent person before a risk assessment is created; and why not?

I read the Tully risk assessment on line after a race there a year or so ago & wasn't surprised to see a note about the boat breaker & where gates should & shouldn't be ahead of it - The organizers clearly noted a high risk to any paddler capsizing before the boat breaker & the aim was to keep them away from it in such case. This may well have impacted on the course & taken a couple of trickier moves out, but so what 'Paddling is an assumed risk' ain't gonna help if your pinned to the boat breaker - so well done race organizers

So back to the training - surely its just common sense to have a qualification against your name to prove you are actually competent & not just experienced; if not then who's to say the decisions you make are thought through or not; or that you consulted in anyway - or perhaps just made it up in your front room on evening.

[davebrads]

I've looked at the courses. The first available in my area is on the 5/6th March. Oops. it's Shepperton that weekend. The next is on the 24th September which is too late as it is after all our events, and besides I will be at West Tanfield as I am every year (and so are most of our other coaches). Finally there is a midweek one in October - in Ely, over 100 miles away, starting at 6.00pm.

Perhaps I can get someone based in Manchester to go to one of the Northern ones. There's one in Sunderland (?????) on the 19th March - clashes with Matlock, one of our local races at which most of our coaches will be racing or coaching. Then a midweek one in April in Leeds - I can see that being popular fighting their way across the M62 with the evening rush-hour traffic. Finally one in Preston on the 22nd October, again after all our races, and again it clashes with another local race at Stone.

I'm sorry Peter, it just doesn't look like it's going to happen for Manchester, and I don't think I'm being overly awkward (just a little bit perhaps).

I will ask around to see if there is anyone willing to attend the one in Birmingham in March or Leeds in April, but I don't hold out much hope. So it looks like we are going to lose three races from the calendar next year. Not a problem though, with the people at the top end of our sport doing all they can to discourage any ambitious paddlers north of Watford from having any ideas of a making a future as a slalom paddler I am sure that the reduction of capacity will be matched with a downturn in numbers competing.

[jjayes]

I would assume that most of the syllabus of the course, if not all would be a duplicate of what any qualified coach would have covered in the past. Is it not a good idea to save time, money and hassle for such coaches to be exempt from the qualification and course required to help run events?

I think accidents are most likely to happen during training, maybe that is where safety education should be aimed.

Probably one of the best things anybody can do to be safer on and in the water is to have airbags in the boat!

[Seedy Paddler]

Unfortunately JJ you hit the juxtaposition of this requirement:

As qualified BC Coach I do not require to attend or complete the course to run a coaching course including courses where I will require paddlers to enter the water and evacuate or self rescue. However irrespective of my Coaching Qualification if I organise a race event (e.g. slalom) I must have attended the course. We cannot nominate a qualified Coach as our Safety Rep under the requirements.

In terms of the course - it is an attendance course there is no test nor evaluation of comprehension, indeed there were several challenges to some of the presentation - not least the failure to modify requirements and wearing of PPE at Marathon and Sprint races which demonstrated that the Course is not really fit for purpose - hence my suggestion that the requirement was Bull - not that safety does not merit appropriate and knowledgeable consideration.

This is a CYA exercise to attempt to protect BC staff and Exec from potential liability as they are starting to understand how 3rd Party and Public Liability actually works and as BC Events it is drawing them into the firing line.

[Canadian Paddler]

Do hope the Seedy is not including the Slalom Committee in his rant. We are trying to keep 'bums in boats' and 'smiles on faces', after all canoe slalom is our hobby / pastime / obsession NOT our profession.

Just a reminder of the background, an extract from the BC circular recieved by my club on 1st April 2015 (yes 9 months ago, so plenty of time to organise compliance)

An open event would be one to which other clubs / independent paddlers may be invited and/or is publicly promoted. However, it remains a club event and not an event the club have been asked to run on behalf of a Discipline committee or RDT. In such instances the responsibility for the authorisation of the event still falls to the club committee and as guided by the appointed club Safety Officer.

Discipline Committee and Regional Development Team Events.
These events are organised and run by (or on behalf of) a Discipline Committee or RDT. Examples of such would be:

• Divisional slalom events
• Hasler Canoe Marathon Races
• Regional Tours
• National Championships
• Coaching Matters Events

In such instances the event must be authorised by the discipline committee or the RDT directly. Authorisation requires a full event risk assessment, Event Safety Management Plan and confirmation of status by the discipline committee or RDT in writing.
British Canoeing Event
These events are British Canoeing National or International events involving funding and resource commitment by British Canoeing directly. Such events might include a World Cup/Championship. Authorisation requires a full event risk assessment, Event Safety Management Plan and confirmation of status by the British Canoeing Senior
Management Team.

Yes we are a specific example despite the good record of actual competition. Whereas Sprint is not specifically mentioned, nor is white water racing (you know those events where you race off, out of site and the only safety is the boat a minute behind you)

[James Hastings]

In that case BC's position is inconsistent and the question the Slalom Committee should be asking the powers that be is why the Event Safety 'diktat' is not being applied to all competition disciplines in which BC has an organising hand.

Cheers,
James

[JimW]

Peter, I did the event safety course for my non-slalom club in November, one of the points I made a definite note of was that the BC requirement is that each club organising committee have a trained event safety officer involved in the planning, but that this person does not necessarily need to be present at any point during the event because it is primarily about planning for possibilities rather than actually dealing with them. Indeed it may be more appropriate to create a safety team which runs safety on the day which does not include any committee members (but in most cases would report to the committee). Extending this idea further, discipline committees (i.e. the slalom committee) must have 2 event safety officers so they can split the workload of checking what clubs are doing, but neither necessarily has to attend any event, and there can certainly be more than 2 events per weekend.

So, I am wondering if the slalom committee has made the positive decision that safety officers are to be present during the event, or if BC are delivering a slightly different course to SCA, or is there a misinterpretation of the requirements, or indeed - was my trainer incorrect?

For those of you who do not have event safety officers trained yet, our course was an evening (2 or 3 hours) of which about 50% was instructed and the remainder workshop based, breaking into groups and thinking about the possible issues for a hypothetical event (or you can think about one your club ones, or the trainers have examples which are based on actual events). For those in the SCA, check the funding available for club development, I believe we got 50% of the course cost paid by SCA, leaving about £10 each for the club to pick up - we ended up sending 5 delegates since we have a mostly autonomous youth sprint section.

I do not beleive the course is directly required by the insurers, BUT it has come about because the insurers have recently realized that BCs safety officers are not involved with every single event and thus they started to take more interest in how BC ensure proper safety consideration is taken at all events. The course, and requirements to appoint a trained safety officer to club committees and discipline committees is what BC have come up with to ensure that there is an audit trail which will reassure the insurers - so it is not entirely down to either BC or the insurers, but both have a part in it's origination.

As noted, all fully qualified coaches (and I don't even know any more which levels are for independant coaches and which need to work under the auspices of a more senior coach, so by 'fully qualified' I mean a coach at whichever level allows them to run courses without higher supervision - 3 maybe?) will have received a similar level of health and safety training at least once in their coach progression, and in fact one of the things we bottomed out fairly quickly is that if a club is running a course / taster event to raise money, but using a qualified coach to deliver it, the event safety officer can offload most of the responsibility to the coach, who probably has a lot more experience in any case.

I'll be honest, I didn't think the course was a complete waste of time, at least for my club and the guys I ended up workshopping with, because none of us have really done much if any event planning. I can see how committees who orgsanise 2 or 3 races each year will find it less useful. The interesting thing is that myself and our president went in thinking it wasn't very necessary since we don't run any events, but in fact as the main club committee we are jointly responsible for everything the youth sprint section do too - any they ran 2 or 3 events last year and have similar plans this year.

I'm not sure what BC policy is regarding BAs for sprint, our own section makes them mandatory for juniors, and seniors use them in winter or on open water in windy conditions etc. We have not yet met to plan any events, I have no idea whether we will have conflict between the sprint and the WW committee members in this respect when we do....

From my perspective, when I took the course, I kept thinking about the slaloms I had been to, and the infrastructure and expereince that slalom has in place, and it struck me that almost certainly everyone involved in running slaloms is already doing just about everything required, except perhaps formal documentation of what they are doing. Yes it's a bind to have to do another course, especially if you are a coach or have an H&S role at work, but I don't think this is going to have a very big impact on the way slaloms are planned.

[JimW]

In that case BC's position is inconsistent and the question the Slalom Committee should be asking the powers that be is why the Event Safety 'diktat' is not being applied to all competition disciplines in which BC has an organising hand.

Cheers,
James

This dictat applies to all clubs running any kind of event that includes people who are not members of the club, so that includes sprint, Marathon, WWR, Polo, Freestyle, and every club that runs taster sessions or star courses to raise funds.

It also affects all NGB discipline committees who have to appoint 2 event safety officers, including SCA recreation with respect the Wet West Paddle Fest, Moriston race etc, and the new SCA touring committee.

[PeterC]

I do understand the concerns that this is generating.

All of us should have had plans in place for all racing last year so it is not completely "New".

Slalom is not inherently unsafe and we do not have a lot of incidents. However BC has created the requirement and we have to comply with it for insurance to be valid. Events do have to have safety officers who have attended a course which I absolutely agree is no guarantee of effective learning. That includes me. I suspect the course provider was perhaps a little intimidated having me there but hopefully some of us learnt something. It will obviously be of more value to some than others.

The requirement is for ALL events and is not just Slalom. Slalom is as a result of planning by the BC Slalom Committee for this better organised perhaps than some of the other disciplines.

With regard to the requirement that the Safety Officer should be present this is not a Slalom Committee decision that has been discussed and concluded and something I will raise for discussion at our next BC Slalom Committee meeting in February. My personal view is that they need to be involved in the event and available but do not need to be on the bank throughout. This is based on the need for them to be responsible for verifying that what has been planned has been done. I can see that this might pose a problem if the nominated safety officer is sick etc. I am not a course provider but am slightly surprised that a course would indicate that presence was not required. The wording of the requirement could however I suppose be interpreted this way.

I agree it is not not going to hugely impact the way slaloms are planned however when it does go wrong we need to be able to show that we have followed the BC requirements and while problems are rare they do occur.

Dave I am not able to offer an exception for Manchester, I am quite happy to discuss accepting an appropriate plan with a safety officer supporting from another club if that is the only way we can get around it this year. As CP notes we are trying very hard to make sure it does not impact on planned racing. I fully accept that your personal attendance might not be the most productive evening of your life but your club does need to engage with this.

Clubs are engaging and a number of plans have been completed satisfactorily while others are going round for consideration of additional items.

[lesf]

My understanding from the website is that there is no requirement for the event safety officer to be on site during the event. Their role is to advise on/approve safety plans to ensure these are adequate in considering and controlling the risk for the event. This is also my understanding as someone who tutors the Event Safety Course for BC.

Within the safety plan there will be a role for someone to have overall responsibility for safety at the event and depending on the nature of the event other safety roles too (i.e. Water safety) this could be someone who has attended the safety course or not.
E.g. In Yorkshire, Washburn Cruise releases are run by clubs on behalf of the region, so are regional events and have an event safety plan signed off by the region's Safety Officer. The event plan for these require the organiser to have some one overseeing safety at the event, but not for someone who has attended the course to be on site throughout.

A couple of other points:

For those that are coaches, attending the Events Safety Course now provides you with a coach update (18month like other short course) - this has only just been agreed but hopefully it will also update those that attended earlier.

There is an additional course at HPP on Sat 30 Jan time to be confirmed but it will be after 4pm. This has been requested by the freestyle committee to tie in with their selection event at HPP that day (hence the time of the course). This may be of interest to other and the details are on the old Canoe England website at http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/clubs-i ... ts-safety/.
I guess if there is a need out there, then the Slalom Committee could request a course to run on the Saturday evening of an event also (although I'd accept it may not be the way you'd choose to relax in the evening between race days!)

[djberriman]

"we have to comply with it for insurance to be valid" - I thought the insurers had stated this is not true and it is not there requirement.

Clearly there can be no guarantee whatsoever that the event safety officer can be on site and in attendance for the whole of an event. If that is to be the case I therefore assume that the moment they are not there or not able to fufil this requirement the event must stop.

Presumably common sense will prevail....

[davebrads]

There is an additional course at HPP on Sat 30 Jan time to be confirmed but it will be after 4pm.

Thanks for that Les, I have booked on. Though I have had to miss a chance of watching Villa vs. City from our company box!

[lesf]

Just confirming that the Event Safety Course this Saturday 4-7pm at BC offices, HPP is definitely running.
I know it's late notice but it has only just been confirmed as it is for the freestyle committee linked in to their selection event (which was waiting on confirmation of water levels at HPP to go ahead).

If you or some-one else from your club wants to join the course then you can book with: Natasha Devonshire, 0845 370 9502 Email: Natasha.Devonshire@britishcanoeing.org.uk

By the way, I believe freestyle selection is just using one feature (probably the inlet wave) so if you were wanting to paddle before the course that shouldn't be an issue.

Les

[PeterC]

It is not as I understand it a requirement imposed by the insurers.

BC has however reviewed its responsibilities and has introduced the safety requirements for all events. The insurers will take this into account in coming to a premium for the insurance, it therefore becomes a requirement for insurance to be valid as the insurers are entitled to assume that there is compliance with the BC requirements and if there is not there may be consequences. I hope that makes sense.

As to the requirements for the safety officer to be present at the event I do not have a definitive position and as previously stated we will discuss it at the next Slalom Committee meeting at the end of February and come to an agreed position. It is my personal view that since safety is an ongoing process that it is appropriate to expect the safety officer to be available during the event to ensure both that what has been planned is enacted but also to facilitate dealing with that which has not been planned for. This does not by any means suggest that I think they should be bolted to the bank for the duration and obviously common sense must prevail in this respect.

I am not a provider of the course so accept and understand that others such as Les have been interpreting the material as not requiring the SO to be on site. The responsibility for making it all happen etc. would then need to be taken by someone else who was present.