Insurers running orienteering

[pete.owens]

The way the workshops work tends to be interactive - with people sharing experiences with each other, rather than an instructor teaching passive students. It is not going to work on-line - and the experiences of those here who claim to have nothing to learn would be particularly valuable to the exercise.

I don't see the problem being existing commited officials. If you are putting in the time and effort to plan organise and control several events a year then you are not going to pack it all in just because you have to spend an afternoon in the company of some like minded people. Most of our regular officials have already been through a session, and I think it is already mandatory for controllers.

The difficulty from now on will be to find enough people who have not yet attended to provide the minimum number to put on a workshop in the first place - so those that haven't attended yet might have to wait a while before their club runs a session. Though if it does really become manadatory next year I would imagine there will be quite a few workshops this Winter - attended with all the enthusiasm of participants at a speed awareness course.

Then the problem will become even worse. Effectively ALL existing officials will have attended a workshop - thus all the attendees at any workshop will be by definition inexperienced and have little to share with each other at a workshop. That is if a club ever has enough potential officials at any one time to justify running one in the first place.

[DaveK]

will be quite a few workshops this Winter - attended with all the enthusiasm of participants at a speed awareness course.

Yes, the analogy with the Speed Awareness course had occurred to me too - having been to one of those, as well as an Event Safety course fairly recently
However, I came out of both thinking things like 'yes, I'd forgotten that' and 'yes I must be more careful about that in future'.
As it happens, I was pleasantly surprised at the content of both courses and always believe that there is more to learn/re-learn - especially from others with similar but different backgrounds/experiences.

[Snail]

The difficulty from now on will be to find enough people who have not yet attended to provide the minimum number to put on a workshop in the first place - so those that haven't attended yet might have to wait a while before their club runs a session...
... That is if a club ever has enough potential officials at any one time to justify running one in the first place.

Exactly this.

How will the requirement will be policed? Does the membership database already hold a marker for everyone who has attended a course? (How long has it been run - 10 years?) Once the rule is in place, will BOF reject event registrations if the officials are not so recorded? Will controllers be able to sign-off a risk-assessment without evidence that the planner and organiser have attended the course? Etc

And if the database does already hold that information, then hopefully BOF already know what proportion of recent or forthcoming officials might have (had) to to withdraw, and so how much of a problem they might be creating.

[pete.owens]

Does the membership database already hold a marker for everyone who has attended a course?

Yes - if you log on with your member login you can see your qualifications. There is now also a marker for a "Map Safety Workshop" in anticipation of things to come.

(How long has it been run - 10 years?)

Since 2011.

Once the rule is in place, will BOF reject event registrations if the officials are not so recorded?

Unlikely - the system accepts registrations with very little details (check out the 2018 Scottish Champs for example)

Will controllers be able to sign-off a risk-assessment without evidence that the planner and organiser have attended the course? Etc

I doub't controllers would even have access to the information.

And if the database does already hold that information, then hopefully BOF already know what proportion of recent or forthcoming officials might have (had) to to withdraw, and so how much of a problem they might be creating.

That wouldn't show the problem up. I would expect that a large majority of officials will already have attended a workshop and BOF would assume that the remainder will be trained during the forthcoming year. The problem will gradually show itself up years down the line as the existing officials retire and it becomes virtually impossible to replace them.

[Paul Frost]

Then the problem will become even worse. Effectively ALL existing officials will have attended a workshop - thus all the attendees at any workshop will be by definition inexperienced and have little to share with each other at a workshop. That is if a club ever has enough potential officials at any one time to justify running one in the first place.

At the risk of upsetting even more people...

Perhaps it should be a requirement to attend a refresher workshop every 3 years?
I suspect many people are required to do CPD for their job, so it's not that unusual/unprecedented.
You are required to refresh your first aid certificate regularly, why shouldn't accident prevention be treated in the same way?

Even very experienced people admit that they need reminding of good practice. We should never stop learning.

Yes, the analogy with the Speed Awareness course had occurred to me too - having been to one of those, as well as an Event Safety course fairly recently
However, I came out of both thinking things like 'yes, I'd forgotten that' and 'yes I must be more careful about that in future'.
As it happens, I was pleasantly surprised at the content of both courses and always believe that there is more to learn/re-learn - especially from others with similar but different backgrounds/experiences.

[Big Jon]

Ahh yes the mapping issue - is BOF going to reject professional mappers who aren't active orienteers? If so its cutting off its nose to spite its face.

[DaveR]

At the risk of upsetting even more people...

Perhaps it should be a requirement to attend a refresher workshop every 3 years?
I suspect many people are required to do CPD for their job, so it's not that unusual/unprecedented.
You are required to refresh your first aid certificate regularly, why shouldn't accident prevention be treated in the same way?

Even very experienced people admit that they need reminding of good practice. We should never stop learning.

At the risk of upsetting different people....

It still hasn't been explained why it is an absolute requirement that the planner AND the organiser AND the controller should have attended one of these courses.

If they all want to and have the time to do so then fine, I'm sure they will be useful, but provided one person has the relevant "training" I can't see why we should require it of everyone. Making such a course a requirement will reduce the pool of potential volunteers, so it is not a zero cost option.

[Paul Frost]

It still hasn't been explained why it is an absolute requirement that the planner AND the organiser AND the controller should have attended one of these courses.

Well, you could argue that they all have different responsibilities, and to ensure that all potential safety issues are mitigated they should all be aware of all of the potential risks and ways to reduce them.
The controller may have the overall responsibility, but if the planner and organiser were more aware it would make the controllers job easier.
There are things that the planner could do to make the organisers job easier if he was more aware of the ramifications of some of his decisions.

The time spent by officials over the course of a year probably runs into 10's or 100's of hours, which they all give happily, so why should 3 hours once every few years be so objectionable. So rather than get uptight about the fact that it might become a requirement, just think about why it might just be a good idea in the first place.

[RJ]

Just a thought.....

The basic idea of the Event Safety Workshop is to help the planner, organiser and controller make good decisions. Most experienced officials will! The evidence is there.... we have had many decades of relatively safe orienteering with few accidents.

If an accident happens and the affected person goes to one of the 'ambulance chasing law firms' and initiates a claim, then the insurance company will be able to defend the club more easily if the officials have taken the appropriate training. It will only take one or two 'incidents' to feature in newspapers with court action reported to destroy the local club and damage the sport. These things get blown out of all proportion once 'money orientated lawyers' have the opportunity to define the situation.

It is the world we live in. Not terribly attractive I have to say. But, we could perhaps just put up with small measures (of inconvenience) to keep our sport (the brand.... orienteering) safe!!

[DaveR]

It still hasn't been explained why it is an absolute requirement that the planner AND the organiser AND the controller should have attended one of these courses.

Well, you could argue that they all have different responsibilities, and to ensure that all potential safety issues are mitigated they should all be aware of all of the potential risks and ways to reduce them.
The controller may have the overall responsibility, but if the planner and organiser were more aware it would make the controllers job easier.
There are things that the planner could do to make the organisers job easier if he was more aware of the ramifications of some of his decisions.

The time spent by officials over the course of a year probably runs into 10's or 100's of hours, which they all give happily, so why should 3 hours once every few years be so objectionable. So rather than get uptight about the fact that it might become a requirement, just think about why it might just be a good idea in the first place.

I don't doubt that event safety workshops are a good idea, my problem is that I don't see why it should be a requirement for the planner AND the organiser AND the controller.

I could perfectly logically extend your argument to say that all helpers should have event safety training.

I could extend it even further to say that all competitors should have some form of safety training.

To me, both of these options would be clearly daft.

As for why an extra few hours every 3 years is objectionable. I am not saying it is necessarily objectionable, but it is an EXTRA 3 hours that in my view is not necessary for all officials. Mandatory training is not a no-cost option. Mandating training will reduce the pool of potential volunteers.

[roadrunner]

Is orienteering getting a bit hung up on just having three named roles for each event, i.e. planner, organiser, controller? OK, the latter has to be someone independent (like an auditor) but why not let the other roles be split or combined as convenient. For example, there could be a "safety officer", just responsible for the risk assessment etc, who would have done the course, leaving others free to carry out the other aspects of planning and organising.

I don't think road/XC running is as prescriptive, even though the risks are probably higher: there has to be a risk assessment, and it has to be submitted to various people, but I'm not aware of any requirement that the person carrying out the assessment needs any sort of formal training to do so. That said, there are courses for race organisers that probably include such things, and all coaches/leaders will have covered it as part of their training.

[DavidJ]

I can see both sides to this discussion. However one aspect that has not been mentioned is that orienteering can attract a wide range of 'competitors' with differing ages, fitness and navigational abilities. This is, in my view, very different from the fell racing and road running which have been mentioned for comparison. There are many events where we have inexperienced 'competitors' giving our sport a try for the first time - perhaps a young family out for a walk who happen upon an event. They are unlikely to be aware of the hazards that they may face and the related risks.

As society has become progressively litigious, so the insurance companies seek to ensure that their exposure is limited by requiring additional precautions. I suppose an alternative is to significantly increase the premium. On balance I can see the value of the workshops and will try to attend one this year.

[graeme]

Is there some secret information I can only learn at this workshop that can't be put on the BOF website?
What?
Why?

I am an old person, and so I tend to forget things unless they're written down. I've noticed that many event organisers are also old persons.

[pete.owens]

As I've mentionned before, the problem is not those who are commited and longstanding organisers and planners - for whom attending a workshop is not a big issue - though it seems some have not managed to get round to it in the five years since the scheme has been running. Most people reading this will have already attended a workshop or will make the effort to do so by the end of the year.

The problem occurs when you are seeking volunteers to run next years programme of level D Saturday morning events:-

One of your regular competitors whos work commitments mean that they can not officiate much but who always volunteers to organise the event in their local park in June. She always runs the event well, is on good terms with the rangers, there is a regular car park, they have the use on an indoor room for download, the terrain hazards are trivial and don't change from year to year. Do we say to her no thanks - not until you've been on a workshop to discuss open moorland evacuation plans?

You have an experienced M16 keen to try their hand at planning. Do you assign them an experienced controller who can offer more guidance than they would for an old hand - and make sure any safety issues are addressed? Or do you tell them to wait until the next work shop (which happens to be in the middle of their GCSEs).

Your most commited official (who has planned 3 events organised 2 and controlled 4 every year for the past decade) has not seen the need to attend a workshop yet - and is unavailable at the date your club runs a workshop to mop up the last untrained officials. Do you dispense with his services until your club has sufficient other potential officials to run the next work shop? It might be some time; All your regulars are now through the system so its just him and the M16 at the moment.

[SeanC]

Just skimmed through the MIke's enews over breakfast.

Does this workaround option for managing local events at clubs work.

Level D events normally are part of a series and normally have a series co-ordinator.

Each series has 2 or 3 series co-ordinators. Between them they will be the organiser and planner for each event. They take responsibility for safety and must between them go to each event. The buck stops with them. These people have all gone on to to the workshop.

Each event also has "delegate organisers" and/or "delegate planners" that help the series co-ordinator. These do most of the work. On the website these are not named as organising officials. These don't have to have attended an Event Safety Workshop.