IMPORTANT
Please could all clubs and race organisers note that:-
1. Every ranking race must have a nominated Event Safety Officer who has completed the British Canoeing Event Safety Management training who will be present throughout the event.
2. A Risk Management Plan or Event Safety Plan MUST be forwarded to the Slalom Committee Safety Officer (Peter Curry peter@limekilns.plus.com) in good time for approval for ALL EVENTS before they can proceed and next year (2017 season) before they can be included in the calendar.
3. There is no fixed format for such documentation and it should be updated dynamically to deal with the issues identified for the event. If sites have particularly requirement for format then this should be followed and will usually be entirely acceptable.
4. A final copy will require to be provided to the Jury Chair before the race commences as in 2015 season.
5. Plans should consider safety of Paddlers (including rescue), Spectators (including trip hazards and access), Volunteers as well as Welfare of minors, Financial viability, Catering, Traffic and Vehicle movements, Campsite provision, Cancellation and Weather. Not forgetting any other identified issues.
Failure to comply will unfortunately lead to removal of the race from the calendar in 2016.
Event Safety
-
djberriman
- Posts: 806
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:19 pm
Re: Event Safety
Please explain what financial viability has to do with Event Safety?
Re: Event Safety
And also why you felt it necessary to double post which is bad form. Hopefully the board admins will delete the spurious one. There's no reason why Peter can't post in both, but I have merged + shadowed them for convenience 
~Mike
"British Canoeing Event Safety Management training" - Yet another canoeing tax.
~Mike"British Canoeing Event Safety Management training" - Yet another canoeing tax.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Re: Event Safety
Peter
I suspect that it would help organisers, particularly those of lower division events who have relatively limited contact with the sport as a whole, if you were to publish a list of qualified Event Safety Officers, ideally with their contact details
I suspect that it would help organisers, particularly those of lower division events who have relatively limited contact with the sport as a whole, if you were to publish a list of qualified Event Safety Officers, ideally with their contact details
Re: Event Safety
John
It is a BC requirement that each club has some-one who has attended the event Safety Course, so they should know who they are. Only BC HQ will have a complete list.
Details and dates of courses (in England) are at http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/clubs-i ... ts-safety/
Les
It is a BC requirement that each club has some-one who has attended the event Safety Course, so they should know who they are. Only BC HQ will have a complete list.
Details and dates of courses (in England) are at http://www.canoe-england.org.uk/clubs-i ... ts-safety/
Les
Re: Event Safety
As a Safety Professional I feel it my duty to question the validity of this proposal on the following counts.
1. Are Qualified Safety Practitioners required to attend the course, if so what CPD points may accrue?
2. Please explain how can a centrally based Safety officer approve individual site plans, and therefore accept litigation and liability on behalf of the organisation, if they have not been involved in the construction of the plan and are also not familiar with the site demographics, has your insurance company been made aware of this?
3. It is wholly foolhardy to have no fixed format, how can you quantify assessments with no standard? Further; to expect them to be dynamic invalidates the original assessment the moment anything changes, meaning the initial assessment can be nothing more than generic, again are your insurers aware of this proposal?
4. What qualifies the Jury Chair to validate final assessments?
5. Finally as already mentioned what is financial viability doing in this proposal?
I'd always been educated to understand paddling as an assumed risk sport, please explain what has changed, what statistics (accidents incidents etc.) you have used to come to the conclusion that event safety plans are required.
Regards
Nigel Evans
1. Are Qualified Safety Practitioners required to attend the course, if so what CPD points may accrue?
2. Please explain how can a centrally based Safety officer approve individual site plans, and therefore accept litigation and liability on behalf of the organisation, if they have not been involved in the construction of the plan and are also not familiar with the site demographics, has your insurance company been made aware of this?
3. It is wholly foolhardy to have no fixed format, how can you quantify assessments with no standard? Further; to expect them to be dynamic invalidates the original assessment the moment anything changes, meaning the initial assessment can be nothing more than generic, again are your insurers aware of this proposal?
4. What qualifies the Jury Chair to validate final assessments?
5. Finally as already mentioned what is financial viability doing in this proposal?
I'd always been educated to understand paddling as an assumed risk sport, please explain what has changed, what statistics (accidents incidents etc.) you have used to come to the conclusion that event safety plans are required.
Regards
Nigel Evans
Re: Event Safety
Thanks Les
Indeed and there are courses running in all the home nations.
Indeed and there are courses running in all the home nations.
Re: Event Safety
Apologies for dual posting which I accept is less than ideal however this is a message that needs to get over to everyone involved in organising races and thus I decide to put in both. It is not the first time that this has been done with important messages. I have no problem with this, carry on ~Mike
Ensuring financial viability of events is something that we as a slalom committee are looking for organisers to ensure. Part of that is ensuring the capacity to deal with major catastrophe as we had a Tully a few years ago. Of itself it is nothing to do with event safety directly however the need to mitigate feeds into costs e.g. races where competent on river safety has to be funded. There is a need therefore to be comfortable that making profit is not taking priority over safety - that is not to say that I think it does but about ensuring that it has been considered.
Yes it is perhaps another tax imposed by British Canoeing requiring safety officers to attend the course and pay for it. I did not make the rules and I am certainly not going to defend them but I do have to make sure that we are complying with them. Slalom is very safe although it is not perceived as such by many unfortunately. Deaths in paddlesports do however continue and we unfortunately lost another paddle on the Findhorn here in Scotland the other day - not slalom.
Likewise Nigel I have professional responsibilities for ensuring safety and assessment of risk - yes I had no choice but to go and complete the BC Safety Course. Did I claim any CPD points for it - no because I did not learn anything new that was worthwhile.
As far as I can understand the new requirements are from British Canoeing themselves and were not dictated by the various insurance policies which cover paddlesports across the UK.
Of course a centrally based safety officer cannot and indeed is not accepting litigation and liability on behalf of the organisation. The insurance company has the liability and retains the right to manage litigation in the event of any claim against its coverage. BC makes its own rules that then need to be followed by the various disciplines of which we are but one. This for the slalom committee is a requirement that all organisers of events which accept entries from outside their club are required to produce plans in advance which the slalom committee has to 'approve' for all ranking and other open entry races.
Many of the sites we race on are controlled by organisations other than the organising clubs and have their own safety rules and requirements. Rather than create even more work for no benefit we have for the moment agreed to accept any format (there is not a perfect one anyway) that is required locally. The plan for an event in a swimming pool will be very different from one at a pumped site or an isolated river site.
The jury chair is the representative of the Slalom Committee at an event and should be experienced in the organisation of races. They have the final word as to whether an event can proceed and thus it is appropriate that the final risk management plan is made available to them - they are not validating them other than that they exist and that the organiser is providing evidence of what they have done or perhaps not done.
There are no particular severe risks associated with running slaloms and thus no requirements for inclusion of particular elements. Important areas will also be considered in the rules e.g. paddlers remaining at the bottom of the course to assist when they have completed their run.
There are other safety areas that are particularly challenging at the moment e.g. any stickers on a helmet or worse perhaps a camera mount will significantly alter its performance and thus invalidate its safety marking, we also have challenges with buoyancy aids where for example paddlers are using aids that are designed for smaller body weights which at the moment we are not even measuring let alone enforcing.
Risk management plans do have to change with time and things happen. BC requires the initial plan to be submitted with the calendar submission and this will inevitably be ages before the event, it cannot therefore be the last word.
I can assure you that the committee is committed to ensuring that racing continues and that the burden of these requirements with which we are obliged to comply is kept under control as far as is possible.
The liability remains with the clubs and organisers and ultimately it is them that would need to show that they have complied with the BC requirements. Provided they have done this the insurance should be available if required. The Slalom Committee has a responsibility imposed by BC to ensure that clubs and organisers are complying with the requirements hence the need to see risk management / safety plans.
~MikeEnsuring financial viability of events is something that we as a slalom committee are looking for organisers to ensure. Part of that is ensuring the capacity to deal with major catastrophe as we had a Tully a few years ago. Of itself it is nothing to do with event safety directly however the need to mitigate feeds into costs e.g. races where competent on river safety has to be funded. There is a need therefore to be comfortable that making profit is not taking priority over safety - that is not to say that I think it does but about ensuring that it has been considered.
Yes it is perhaps another tax imposed by British Canoeing requiring safety officers to attend the course and pay for it. I did not make the rules and I am certainly not going to defend them but I do have to make sure that we are complying with them. Slalom is very safe although it is not perceived as such by many unfortunately. Deaths in paddlesports do however continue and we unfortunately lost another paddle on the Findhorn here in Scotland the other day - not slalom.
Likewise Nigel I have professional responsibilities for ensuring safety and assessment of risk - yes I had no choice but to go and complete the BC Safety Course. Did I claim any CPD points for it - no because I did not learn anything new that was worthwhile.
As far as I can understand the new requirements are from British Canoeing themselves and were not dictated by the various insurance policies which cover paddlesports across the UK.
Of course a centrally based safety officer cannot and indeed is not accepting litigation and liability on behalf of the organisation. The insurance company has the liability and retains the right to manage litigation in the event of any claim against its coverage. BC makes its own rules that then need to be followed by the various disciplines of which we are but one. This for the slalom committee is a requirement that all organisers of events which accept entries from outside their club are required to produce plans in advance which the slalom committee has to 'approve' for all ranking and other open entry races.
Many of the sites we race on are controlled by organisations other than the organising clubs and have their own safety rules and requirements. Rather than create even more work for no benefit we have for the moment agreed to accept any format (there is not a perfect one anyway) that is required locally. The plan for an event in a swimming pool will be very different from one at a pumped site or an isolated river site.
The jury chair is the representative of the Slalom Committee at an event and should be experienced in the organisation of races. They have the final word as to whether an event can proceed and thus it is appropriate that the final risk management plan is made available to them - they are not validating them other than that they exist and that the organiser is providing evidence of what they have done or perhaps not done.
There are no particular severe risks associated with running slaloms and thus no requirements for inclusion of particular elements. Important areas will also be considered in the rules e.g. paddlers remaining at the bottom of the course to assist when they have completed their run.
There are other safety areas that are particularly challenging at the moment e.g. any stickers on a helmet or worse perhaps a camera mount will significantly alter its performance and thus invalidate its safety marking, we also have challenges with buoyancy aids where for example paddlers are using aids that are designed for smaller body weights which at the moment we are not even measuring let alone enforcing.
Risk management plans do have to change with time and things happen. BC requires the initial plan to be submitted with the calendar submission and this will inevitably be ages before the event, it cannot therefore be the last word.
I can assure you that the committee is committed to ensuring that racing continues and that the burden of these requirements with which we are obliged to comply is kept under control as far as is possible.
The liability remains with the clubs and organisers and ultimately it is them that would need to show that they have complied with the BC requirements. Provided they have done this the insurance should be available if required. The Slalom Committee has a responsibility imposed by BC to ensure that clubs and organisers are complying with the requirements hence the need to see risk management / safety plans.
-
Seedy Paddler
- Posts: 440
- Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 2:00 pm
Re: Event Safety
Unfortunately this has been brought about by a fatality in an other discipline. Not the first fatality but another involving a paddler not wearing a Buoyancy Aid nor lifejacket. A similar situation occurred a few years ago on BC HQ doorstep involving the then CEO training in a flat water racing craft.
Yet whilst Clubs and organisers continue to try to fulfil the various bureaucratic requirements established by goons in full time employ of BC the flat water racing community seems to be able to continue as the only discipline that does not have any requirement for participants to wear Buoyancy Aids far less sized and approved models. When (or if) BC actually get their house in order then perhaps I will understand their interference until then let us remind them they are the employees we are the volunteers - >95% of the events are run by volunteers do we really need so many staff ?? Just think if we cut back BC and other NGB staff perhaps the savings could be ploughed into supporting the voluntary sector and the various events instead of adding to their bills and time.
Event safety is important but this is just a load of bull designed to retain the salaries of staff that contribute so little to the sport...
Yet whilst Clubs and organisers continue to try to fulfil the various bureaucratic requirements established by goons in full time employ of BC the flat water racing community seems to be able to continue as the only discipline that does not have any requirement for participants to wear Buoyancy Aids far less sized and approved models. When (or if) BC actually get their house in order then perhaps I will understand their interference until then let us remind them they are the employees we are the volunteers - >95% of the events are run by volunteers do we really need so many staff ?? Just think if we cut back BC and other NGB staff perhaps the savings could be ploughed into supporting the voluntary sector and the various events instead of adding to their bills and time.
Event safety is important but this is just a load of bull designed to retain the salaries of staff that contribute so little to the sport...
Re: Event Safety
I don't think we need to be worried about if helmets have a gopro mount on them at the moment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/safety/resources/s ... elmet-cams
http://www.bbc.co.uk/safety/resources/s ... elmet-cams
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
Re: Event Safety
Most of this people are just sighing about and saying 'OK if we have to'. 'The bit that is causing puzzlement/irritation on the river bank is the bit about the Club's trained safety officer having to be on the bank for the duration of the event; and Peter does not address this in his response. Was this a typo?
Re: Event Safety
Not sure I agree with this; while I'd question motivations of somethings, I don't think the reason for holding the course (which will have to have some fees) and all this procedure is bull.Seedy Paddler wrote: Event safety is important but this is just a load of bull designed to retain the salaries of staff that contribute so little to the sport...
I'm heavily involved with sorting safety requirements at work, and compared with most of what I end up doing we're getting off very lightly! Despite the complexity of our safety requirements, people are injured every week, but health and safety is there to reduce this.
I don't think this is really the point though: a lot of it is covering our backs, making sure that we reduce the chance of things happening, and making sure that when it does, people aren't unnecessarily responsible and it doesn't damage our sport that was safe the rest of the time.
Maybe they're teaching her/him to use 12 throw lines at once, throw crash mats like ninja stars and fire burns gel around with sniper-like precision. This doesn't make much sense to me, Peter: is there any guidance on what this course includes and the role requires?the bit about the Club's trained safety officer having to be on the bank for the duration of the event
Re: Event Safety
Those who ran events after October 1st 2015 had to have sent somebody on this course. It covers what is an event, not just a slalom, but club events too and what you have to consider to make sure it's safe. Even though I'm a race organiser I didn't go as couldn't make the date so another club member went. He then proved a useful sounding board for considering safety. We didn't change much from 2014 but we did make some subtle differences which wouldn't have been seen at the event but did mean we could respond better if needed e.g pre printed directions to the nearest a&e in case of injuries which needed further treatment but not an ambulance. The event safety officer was not involved with any rescues during the event but he was a key pair of eyes outside of the control tent and had a radio to me.
This year with regards the form for Pete I'm planning to use the one that is in the British Canoeing document 'Event Safety' which the attendees are given. I'm just trying to get a word format of it from BC. I just feel more secure using their forms as I would be expecting them to support us if something did go wrong. I've been in charge of school trip safety and know the paper work we have to provide to county council's. What British Canoeing is asking the slalom committee to do and clubs is unfortunately not out of place in today's society and had not gone to the realms of ridiculous I've seen elsewhere. (I once had a trip form returned as we hadn't detailed how we would reduce the chances of injury to pupils during a train crash)
This year with regards the form for Pete I'm planning to use the one that is in the British Canoeing document 'Event Safety' which the attendees are given. I'm just trying to get a word format of it from BC. I just feel more secure using their forms as I would be expecting them to support us if something did go wrong. I've been in charge of school trip safety and know the paper work we have to provide to county council's. What British Canoeing is asking the slalom committee to do and clubs is unfortunately not out of place in today's society and had not gone to the realms of ridiculous I've seen elsewhere. (I once had a trip form returned as we hadn't detailed how we would reduce the chances of injury to pupils during a train crash)
Re: Event Safety
That's all very well, but we are all time-poor. If I go to a course it means me pretty much losing a day out of a weekend, which will probably mean a day less boating or coaching, and I don't expect that I will learn anything that couldn't have been presented to me in a short document that I could read at my leisure - and it would be far cheaper too.
Re: Event Safety
Thanks Alison - I was aware of the commission of TTRL by the BBC. They have however looked at primarily falls onto helmets or falls where the helmet strikes an object directly i.e. primarily climbing, dangerous environments. In canoeing we are far more likely to need to slide a head across an object that it impacts. While on an artificial course the obstacles are relatively smooth and unlikely to 'grab' the helmet this is not true of rocks in natural rivers where it is the helmet surface itself which is required to provide the 'slide'. In spite of this the manufacturers are not going to accept that a helmet complies with anything stuck to it that they have not expressly taken responsibility for.
Apologies if I have caused confusion John. My understanding of the BC requirement is that a 'BC qualified' safety officer should be present during the event, this does not mean that they should be on the bank watching all the time would be my interpretation, they are responsible for safety not necessarily delivering it. However I think I would have difficulty supporting them if they were supervising while on holiday in Southern Spain.
Thye relevant BC / Canoe England Document is BC Safety Guidelines which they have helpfully expressed copyright on. I will try and get permission to post it on the web site but it is good for 60 pages of bedtime reading.
Dave - I am sure that if you go on a course you would be able to contribute positively to the experience for those less practiced than yourself and possibly even the teacher.
I have absolutely no issue with following the format as suggested on the course. I will try and add a template to the organisers pack but I would stress it cannot be a standard form with the boxes ticked. There has to be some firing of neurones to identify relevant issues and approach. Just to illustrate following work with other water activities, a local council identified that they had a number of cardiac arrest events in swimming pools and that there is an issue with using a defibrillator which they have in their centres on wet patients!!! We worked out a procedure and process which we then tested that allowed staff to respond appropriately and safely both for themselves and the patient. I am not advocating that clubs need defibrillators but they need to identify who their local issues are and ensure that they are managed properly.
Apologies if I have caused confusion John. My understanding of the BC requirement is that a 'BC qualified' safety officer should be present during the event, this does not mean that they should be on the bank watching all the time would be my interpretation, they are responsible for safety not necessarily delivering it. However I think I would have difficulty supporting them if they were supervising while on holiday in Southern Spain.
Thye relevant BC / Canoe England Document is BC Safety Guidelines which they have helpfully expressed copyright on. I will try and get permission to post it on the web site but it is good for 60 pages of bedtime reading.
Dave - I am sure that if you go on a course you would be able to contribute positively to the experience for those less practiced than yourself and possibly even the teacher.
I have absolutely no issue with following the format as suggested on the course. I will try and add a template to the organisers pack but I would stress it cannot be a standard form with the boxes ticked. There has to be some firing of neurones to identify relevant issues and approach. Just to illustrate following work with other water activities, a local council identified that they had a number of cardiac arrest events in swimming pools and that there is an issue with using a defibrillator which they have in their centres on wet patients!!! We worked out a procedure and process which we then tested that allowed staff to respond appropriately and safely both for themselves and the patient. I am not advocating that clubs need defibrillators but they need to identify who their local issues are and ensure that they are managed properly.