Please forgive the plagiary of Mark's thread, but this is an interesting
question. You may think the answer is obvious, and to a great extent you
would be right. Those on the WSC work *** behalf of the members.
However it has come to light that an important issue of water safety is now
apparently not to be dealt with by these good and true folk. Buoyancy, it
seems, is now the remit of a pair of fellows, whose track record on the
subject is, not to put too much of a shine on it, pathetic.
We had imagined that Tommy Thomson had sailed off into the sunset after his
resignation. But no, he continues to lurk in the shadows, having secret
assignations in the heart of Berkshire, and still exerts his influence. We
are to be denied the benefit of the new broom that is the new Hon. Water
Safety Adviser, and must continue to deal with the old guard.
The internal politics of the ARA are generally of no interest to us
whatsoever. There is a culture of secrecy and mutual backscratching at the
highest level which we find childish, and quite frankly unbelievable in a
group of people whose sole remit should be the promotion of high standards
and safe enjoyment of the sport. It's obvious that some think they still
work under the official secrets act, and the best approach is to deny
everything, and censor the rest. Crazy. However when these politics stand
in the way of safety advances, then we have no choice but face up to them.
(PLEASE NOTE that we do not include in our criticism the vast majority of
those who are ARA officials - who do sterling work - especially those who
make the effort to keep this group informed. But unfortunately they are
relatively powerless to counter the damage perpetrated by members of their
executive).
Here is an extract from our latest letter, soon to be winging its way to the
ARA, which sums up the problem:
_______________________________
"With all due respect Mr Harris and Mr Thomson have neither been very
successful, nor useful in their approach to buoyancy. They have a number of
inappropriate fixed ideas, which prevent progress on the matter.
Why is it that Mr Harris and Mr Thomson have been allowed to create
unnecessary barriers to the implementation of safety measures?
They seem to dismiss what has actually happened, to instead favour
irrelevant non-scientific (and therefore non-significant) tests. They do
not understand that first establishing the level of buoyancy of all existing
boats is completely unnecessary. It is already established (not least by
our sons death) that there are potentially dangerous boats in use, and that
it is possible for a boat to be manufactured to reach an appropriate
buoyancy standard.
They persist in refusing to give a precise definition of buoyancy i.e. one
which gives a measurable effective standard. All that needs to be done is
to regulate precisely on what is an acceptable and safe buoyancy
requirement, and then the boatbuilders duty will be to adapt their own
designs to comply. We are aware that some ad hoc adaptations made by some
boatbuilders are insufficient this is a reflection on their attitudes,
skills and their own agenda, not on the achievability of the correct
standard. If one manufacturer can achieve an acceptable standard (and this
company declares itself confident in this), then they all can. It is
already the legal duty of all manufacturers to ensure their product is as
safe as current technology and knowledge allows, so as to avoid unnecessary
risk to the users health and safety. The ARA, in its safety role, has a
duty to its members to facilitate this. Representatives of the ARA should
not be complicit in seeking to undermine this aim.
They refuse to be involved in any collective checking of standards.
Instead they expect individual rowers and clubs to each be responsible to
ensure equipment meets an undefined standard. It is the club that bears
health and safety responsibility for its members but the ARA should
support its members and help them to meet this requirement. After all the
ARA has a Duty of Care to provide guidance and rules which dictate a safe
background to the sport (Water Safety Code 2.7.2)
All of this was said and done in our presence and in front of witnesses at
the 20 July meeting with the boatbuilders. This present situation is
clearly unworkable, and must be remedied. If Mr Thomson and Mr Harris
cannot overcome this difficulty, then someone else in the ARA must."
________________________________
In the last few days the ARA will have learned that a much higher authority
than ourselves is now cognisant of the facts, understands them, and requires
action. Let's see if the Executive are brazen enough to continue with their
complacent inertia. Let's see if they can work out what might happen if
things don't improve.
ON A MUCH BRIGHTER NOTE, for there is some progress, Mr Ward informs us that
the WSC are undergoing an overhaul of the accident reporting system. What
is more....they are considering an on-line system and have invited our
comments and input. We are, of course responding forthwith. No doubt that
if any of you wish to contribute your ideas and expertise your input would
also be welcome. This is your NGB, which represents your interests - go do
it!
For what it's worth here is a summary of our wish list for the new system -
but we're in no doubt that others of you will be able to improve on this:
______________________________
INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM
For any system to be effective it needs to be designed with its users in
mind both those reporting, and those receiving reports.
Requirements:
1) For members, the system must be:
Known about advertised and accessible.
Inclusive i.e. anyone can report on any incident or concern
Quick on line option (though not exclusively, as some will still wish to
put pen to paper) - easy as sending an e-mail not to be made tedious by a
long pro-forma this is a barrier/turn off and unnecessary more details
can be supplied later if necessary quick list of absolutely essential
details for guidance is all that is required.
Responsive i.e. with feedback to the reporter acknowledgement of
receipt can be automated.
Non- threatening i.e. no blame constructive approach to learn from
event, and no names named in public. Reporter can request to be anonymous
to those who may need investigating (but system must have a name for
reference, and contact).
Published (anonymised) for all to see /compare with own experience / jog
memory to report similar experiences so as to reveal trends / act as
warning.
Perceived by its users to make a difference a final report of action
taken and result should be posted on the website, and possibly also
forwarded to the individual (positive reinforcement).
2) For the ARA the system must:
Collect ALL appropriate data, even incidents where no-one is hurt as
next time they might not be so lucky. Any potential danger e.g. equipment
failure, locality hazard, design fault.
Ensure minimum essential information, especially contact details (to
enable request for further information if necessary).
Be searchable in an on-line form e.g. by use of keywords.
Allow data to be sorted e.g. by nature of incident, locality, date,
equipment failure etc.
Be subject to regular analysis (e.g. by the Water Safety Committee) to
identify trends or recurrent problems.
Linked to a regular system of review so that identified problems are acted
upon in a co-ordinated and effective manner.
Published (anonymised) so as to attract other relevant reports (even from
abroad), and ultimately to publicise action taken.
Outcome:
Raised profile of safety.
Improved standards of safety - (but only if action taken)
Will act as early warning system (but only if action taken)
Promotion of partnership more participation from members, as they will
feel that what they do makes a difference.
Enhanced credibility for ARA.
Jane and Stephen.