Official - Leo Blockley Campaign Succeeds!
Carl Douglas
with the ARA:
"The ARA has agreed that, effective 6 months from today, all new rowing
shells must have sufficient in-built buoyancy to float with their seated
crew when full of water."
There is much more to come, all of it good. Jane & Stephen will report
the full details to RSR in the next couple of days. But first they
deserve a little time to themselves.
Congratulations to Jane & Stephen. What a memorial they have made to
Leo!
And our thanks & congratulations to everyone who helped in any way with
this Campaign
Three cheers!
Carl
--
Carl Douglas
Caroline Smith
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Adrian Turner
Hip-hip HOORAY!
Hip-hip HOORAY!
Hip-hip HOORAY!
John Mulholland
The next thing is to find a supplier of suitable airbags that will fit the
various designs of older boats which do not have in-built buoyancy. Our old
wooden four is of open lattice construction which will probably need two
thin tubular bags under each seat. They'll need to be rigid enough not to
bulge up through the lattice around the slide when the boat takes on a
little water (still rowable but perhaps a couple of inches in the bottom).
Some recommendations on what to look for, and where to look for them would
be a great help.
John Mulholland
Hexham Rowing Club
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Richard Packer
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
> with the ARA:
>
> "The ARA has agreed that, effective 6 months from today, all new rowing
> shells must have sufficient in-built buoyancy to float with their seated
> crew when full of water."
Excellent news!
But while we're thinking about boat safety in general, let's be careful not
to lose sight of the other safety features that are still far too often
neglected - bow-balls, heel restraints, lifejackets etc. - and keep up the
pressure on everyone in the sport to continue to develop their overall
awareness of these issues. It's not just about buoyancy after all.
Nevertheless, this is a significant and very welcome development.
Richard
Henning Lippke
> shells must have sufficient in-built buoyancy to float with their seated
> crew when full of water."
Great.
Now let's spread the message all over the world.
-HL
Tony Curran
Now lets head to the top. Its time to take this to FISA.
Anybody have a contact name and e-mail address.
Tony
Ottawa RC.
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Rob Collings
Tony Curran <tony....@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:GJTy8.75$1k5....@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Great news.
>
> Now lets head to the top. Its time to take this to FISA.
>
> Anybody have a contact name and e-mail address.
Straight from the FISA website. Although Europe seems to be missing... And
they don't seem to have a Safety Commission that I can find. Materials
maybe?
Rob.
Africa
Khaled Zain El Din
c/o Egyptian Rowing Federation
3, El Shawarbi St. kasr El Nil
Cairo
Egypt
kze...@yahoo.com
North America
Pablo Span
Calz.San Juan de
Arágon 251
Col Granjas Modernas
07460 Mexico D.F
Mexico
pabl...@intranet.com.mx
South America
Ivan Dibos
Blvd Tarata #261
"Edificio Central"
Miraflores, Lima 18
Peru
oli...@terra.com.pe
Asia
Zhang Qing
BOCOG
Beijing Xinqiao Hotel
100004 Beijing,China
Tel: -86-10-652 221 27
zhan...@olympic.org.cn
Oceania
John Coates
Level 27
2 Chifley Square
Sydney 2000
Australia
a...@aoc.org.au
Nick Morrell
>
> Great news.
>
> Now lets head to the top. Its time to take this to FISA.
>
> Anybody have a contact name and e-mail address.
>
Or try some of these people - they are the executive committee. For
those of us in the UK, Mike Sweeney might be worth a try as he's a
council representative. In Canada there is Tricia Smith.
Nick
Executive Committee
President
Denis Oswald
Case postale 2330
2001 Neuchātel
Switzerland
etude...@swissonline.ch
Vice-President
Anita DeFrantz
Amateur Athletic Foundation
2141 West Adams Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90018
USA
adef...@aafla.com
Treasurer
Michael Williams
Casamajor
Pack & Prime Lane
Henley-on-Thames
Oxfordshire RG9 1TT
Great Britain
will...@ebrd.com
Executive Director
Matt Smith
Avenue de Cour 135
1007 Lausanne
Switzerland
matt....@fisa.org
Council Representatives
Denis Masseglia
37 ch.de la Calanque du Puit
13820 Ensues Redonne
France
denis.m...@wanadoo.fr
Tel: -22 44 24 59 955
Fax: -33 44 24 59 642
Mike Sweeney
36 The Ropewalk
Nottingham
NGI 5DW
Great Britain
mike.s...@dial.pipex.com
Tricia Smith
Barnes Craig & Ass.
West Georgia
Street 605 1185
V6E 4E6 Vancouver, BC
Canada
tcms...@barnescraig.com
Carl Douglas
>>
>> Now lets head to the top. Its time to take this to FISA.
>>
>> Anybody have a contact name and e-mail address.
>
>Straight from the FISA website. Although Europe seems to be missing... And
>they don't seem to have a Safety Commission that I can find. Materials
>maybe?
>
You'd be going for the FISA Materials Commission, one of whose members
is the USA's Paul Fuchs.
I have discussed buoyancy with Paul before. I wrote as follows on 2
January 2001, just 4 days after Leo died, as follows:
> Paul -
>
> This is a rather sombre note on which to welcome in the New Year,
> but may I ask you to review the attached which I posted to RSR
> today.
>
> It is my view that few eights (& fours) have adequate buoyancy
> when swamped, and that this is not a necessary feature of such
> boats.
>
> In the UK at least one manufacturer (Janousek) does build fours &
> eights with enclosed (or enclosable) compartments beneath each
> slide-bed. These boats do manifestly provide a reasonably safe &
> rowable platform when completely swamped.
>
> I do not think this is an area in which FISA should necessarily
> legislate, but I do think FISA might well exert influence by
> issuing an advisory to all federations?
>
> With best regards -
> Carl Douglas
>
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
> RQ publishes a detailed account of this tragic accident on her
> New Rowing Information page:
> http://www.total.rowing.org.uk/oulrc00dec.html
> I have refrained from commenting until facts became available,
> but Rachel's account is clear & appears authoritative.
> The crucial element is that both eights *sank* - presumably
> meaning they filled up &, while not actually sinking, became
> immersed to the point that they could nolonger support the crew,
> who were then forced to disembark into cold, fast & deep water
> (10 were said to be suffering effects of hypothermia on rescue).
>
> RSR readers may recall that, a few months back, I expressed my
> great concern over the lack of buoyancy in most fours & eights.
> Every single & double in good condition already has enough
> enclosed volume to float its crew with the stateroom full of
> water. But few eights & fours provide that essential inbuilt
> buoyancy.
>
> With more inbuilt buoyancy, a waterlogged eight will float far
> enough above water level to provide safe accommodation for the
> crew & be rowable towards safety. There is ample volume under
> the slide-beds of an eight which, if enclosed, would allow the
> boat to meet that requirement & be "safe" if completely swamped,
> maybe even if broken in two.
>
> I know of previous entirely avoidable drownings of a member of
> an eight's crew (one was a friend of mine) under similar
> situations on exposed waters. I have also seen quite a few
> eights completely swamped on relatively narrow waters where the
> crew were able to swim ashore, albeit at some risk. But both
> situations are entirely avoidable. It is fatuous to be wise
> after such an event, by saying with 20/20 hindsight that the
> crews should not have been on the water in those conditions.
>
> Mistakes can be made, weather can change, but boats *can* be
> made safer.
>
> So I would appeal to my fellow boatbuilders (we don't make
> eights & fours) across the world to give deep consideration to
> future provision of greater inbuilt buoyancy in crew boats.
>
> I shall copy this posting to Paul Fuchs at FISA's materials
> commission, this being an issue on which I cannot believe that
> he & I hold differing views. While residual hull buoyancy can
> hardly be an issue for well-regulated 6-lane International
> regattas, & therefore should remain "ultra vires" for FISA,
> those who race in FISA regattas often train in far more exposed
> & inhospitable locations - in which at least one International
> team member known to me has drowned after a boat-swamping
> accident. Thus an advisory from FISA on boat buoyancy might be
> an appropriate response.
>
> Meanwhile the thoughts of the rowing world must be with the
> family & friends of Leo Blockley.
>
> Carl
Paul's courteous answer of to my questions was, unfortunately, greatly
impaired by the fundamental misconceptions therein, as you will see from
the text:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Actually this is an issue which we have discussed and decided that
> we did not have any jurisdiction. An inquiry on this may have come
> from the French federation in 2000. Interestingly, one part of the
> discussion was that if the boat is 'open' throughout, while it
> doubles the potential flooding volume (almost halves the buoyancy)
> it means that the coxswain cannot bail all the water while the crew
> is rowing. This is also a safety consideration.
> I have never seen an eight such as the Janousek being rowed while
> flooded, it would be interesting to see. A tough question, which is
> more important;
> being able to row toward safety in bad conditions or 'float' the
> crew so they can 'row' when the boat swamps (fast enough to get to
> shore?)? Our thinking was that the boat should be used to maintain
> the crew in the water without having to 'swim' until the
> accompanying boat picked them up. Standard eights and fours can do
> that.
>
> We can revisit this question when we meet in March and I will bring
> it up again to our commission now. My belief is that general safety
> in rowing is assumed to be handled on a national level. (In the US
> we have a comprehensive poster for boathouses and is taught at each
> level of the coaching certification, Chapter 1.) That's not to say
> that the National Federations can't use some encouragement. We did
> discuss this with the competition commission who is responsible for
> training and coaching issues, but of course that only relates to
> the international level. Ultimately the crew and coach should be
> prepared and responsible for these situations.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Paul Fuchs
> FISA Materials Commission
>
> pa...@pfna.com
To us on RSR it seems redundant to re-run the arguments against the
points Paul raises (as FISA spokesman, of course). However I will
dispose of a couple directly here:
1. The idea of advocating bulkhead-free 'flow-through' construction on
the grounds that this would allow the cox to bail out, disintegrates on
the following grounds:-
a) the rate of inflow, at the onset of swamping, is normally in excess
of 1000kg/minute (1 tonne/minute). An eight filled to the brim can
carry about 1.5 - 2 tonnes of water, and when it swamps is often filled
from nothing within 20 seconds - indicating an inflow of maybe 6
tonnes/minute. Please show me the cox (or battery-operated pump) which
can handle a tiny fraction of that!
b) The ability of water to flow from bow to stern of a 'flow through'
eight in seconds explains why a perforated eight swamps so quickly & a
swamped eight buries its stern & fills up while the bow is almost dry.
So clearly the ability of cox to bail *cannot* be a safety
consideration.
2. FISA's stated preference for constructions of minimum buoyancy so
that the crew must swim if swamped, rather than maximum buoyancy so that
the crew *can* stay in its boat regardless of swamping, is irrational.
I'll note, as we know, that:-
a) it is being in the water that kills, every time
b) when the crew swamps, the conditions also make rescue difficult
c) evacuating the boat deprives you of all control over it destiny
d) full in-built buoyancy costs nothing in performance, weight,
durability or financial terms
Finally, I understand that the ARA is now prepared to make
representations to FISA on buoyancy. However, I can have no confidence
that those who have been so blindly obstructive and shown such ignorance
about the issues affecting buoyancy and safety for the last 16 months
will suddenly become convinced, competent & convincing advocates for our
case. So that proposal worries me more than it cheers.
While everyone is free to contact Paul Fuchs, it might be worth waiting
a day or two before doing so, until we have the complete details from
Jane & Stephen Blockley on their discussions yesterday with the ARA.
Diplomacy failed with the ARA, but the ground for diplomacy may now be
better prepared.
Cheers -
Carl
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Stephen Blockley
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Yes indeed! We had a very constructive meeting with Tommy Thomson, Rosemary
Napp. Simon Darnbrough, our NW Div. Rep, also very kindly agreed to be there
at our request (thanks Simon). We achieved agreement on all our points.
Our stated aim was to substantially reduce the risk of rowers becoming
unexpectedly immersed in water, and so to avoid the subsequent risk of
serious injury or death.
Here is what was agreed:
1) The ARA are to give all boat manufacturers 6 months notice that all new
rowing shells to be used by their members must have sufficient in-built
buoyancy to float with their seated crew when full of water (so that the
crew are not significantly immersed). It will be up to individual
manufacturers to meet this standard in their own way.
2) The new ARA water safety code which will be published in September will
include advice to affiliated clubs and members that all their boats should
meet the above standards at all times.
3) To facilitate this the ARA are in negotiations with boat manufacturers
to supply retro-fit kits, and progress is being made.
4) The new water safety code will include advice on the dangers of water
immersion.
5) The ARA will take the matter to FISA, and expect that they will be able
to promote similar action worldwide.
The new water safety code sounds to be quite a radical change. There is to
be an emphasis on safety being the responsibility of all involved in rowing,
and the promotion of the use of 'risk assessment'. This will apply to all
rowing activity at all times, to clubs and individuals alike. The aim is to
heighten safety awareness at every level. Training will incorporate this
approach, from juniors upwards.
These measures should give the best combination of making the equipment as
safe as possible, while encouraging individuals and clubs to use it as
responsibly as they can.
The ARA have kindly agreed to let us see a draft of the new code for
comment, and have promised to keep us informed of progress.
Well done, and HEARTFELT THANKS to everybody who has contributed to the
campaign. We've all shown what can be done when we work together.
Special thanks to Carl, who has given us amazing support, and kept us going.
(We think he should be hitherto known as Sir Carl). Also to Caroline for
the website and her enthusiasm (which often cheered us in bleak moments).
And a special mention for Alex Taylor for his networking, and determined
promotion of the cause.
BUT we must keep on our toes and ensure that the agreement is translated
into action. We will of course continue to keep this group informed.
Jane and Stephen.
Stephen Blockley
"Stephen Blockley" <Stephen....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3ccc50da$0$8513$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> Here is what was agreed:
>
> 1) The ARA are to give all boat manufacturers 6 months notice that all
new
> rowing shells to be used by their members must have sufficient in-built
> buoyancy to float with their seated crew when full of water (so that the
> crew are not significantly immersed). It will be up to individual
> manufacturers to meet this standard in their own way.
Here should be added.........
' -provided that this in-built buoyancy is distributed in discrete
compartments throughout the boat.'
The exact wording of the notice was not hammered out, but we expect to be
informed before it is finalised.
Ryan Morris
we strip down? Usually they go in the compartment under the seat.
?
-Ryan
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Philip Barton
Well done.
Phil.
"Carl Douglas" <ca...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MdR6wRA7...@rowing-cdrs.demon.co.uk...
Caroline Smith
> we strip down? Usually they go in the compartment under the seat.
they'll have watertight hatches on top. Just like Janouseks and Stampflis do
at the moment.
Andy Lees
dry if it rains or you get some splash from teh guy in front.
Andy Lees
St Aidans College, Durham
Ryan Morris
my clothes are always soaked by the end of the row, even if there's only a
little splash.
Go ARA, make the change! For safety's sake, primarily, that is.
-Ryan
"Andy Lees" <a.d....@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CCC7EAB...@durham.ac.uk...
Nick Suess
I now intend to seek the response of rowing authorities here in Australia,
but in framing my approach to them I want to check back on some of the
recent postings. However, for some reason, messages more than a couple of
days old are now showing as unavailable on the server. I hardly need remind
anyone that I'm a computer ignoramus, so could someone please remind me how
to access these old messages.
I'm also looking for a website and/or e-mail address for Rowing Victoria.
Does anyone over there have it? Alister, how about you?
Nick
"Stephen Blockley" <Stephen....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3ccc70cc$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Rob Collings
Nick Suess <ni...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:3cccef9b$0$20...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
> This is all excellent news.
>
> I now intend to seek the response of rowing authorities here in Australia,
> but in framing my approach to them I want to check back on some of the
> recent postings. However, for some reason, messages more than a couple of
> days old are now showing as unavailable on the server. I hardly need
remind
> anyone that I'm a computer ignoramus, so could someone please remind me
how
> to access these old messages.
>
> I'm also looking for a website and/or e-mail address for Rowing Victoria.
> Does anyone over there have it? Alister, how about you?
>
> Nick
Your best bet is to look on Google at www.google.com Go into groups and
search for rec.sport.rowing
Or just go here
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=rec.sport.rowing&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
You can then search RSR for specifics if you want - google keeps posts from
a long way back. News servers tend to delete ("expire") old messages to save
on space. How long they last is up to the administrator.
HTH
Rob.
Rob Collings
news:3ccc50da$0$8513$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> Yes indeed! We had a very constructive meeting with Tommy Thomson,
Rosemary
> Napp. Simon Darnbrough, our NW Div. Rep, also very kindly agreed to be
there
> at our request (thanks Simon). We achieved agreement on all our points.
>
> Our stated aim was to substantially reduce the risk of rowers becoming
> unexpectedly immersed in water, and so to avoid the subsequent risk of
> serious injury or death.
>
> Here is what was agreed:
>
> 1) The ARA are to give all boat manufacturers 6 months notice that all
new
> rowing shells to be used by their members must have sufficient in-built
> buoyancy to float with their seated crew when full of water (so that the
> crew are not significantly immersed). It will be up to individual
> manufacturers to meet this standard in their own way.
When you say all - which manufacturers does this include? Those who build in
the UK, or those who have UK agents or those who sell to the UK? It seems
that to implemement this, every manufacturer in the world would need to meet
the recommendation. Or will the ARA simply restrict the boat that are
permitted for racing in to try to force others out of the UK market?
Just a thought I had after seeing boats from overseas manufacturers at BUSA
(where mine stayed firmly on the rack :-( )
Rob.
Anne Harrison
news, thanks to everyone who has been involved in this.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Stephen Blockley
"Rob Collings" <R.P.Co...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:aaivdk$8p1$1...@sirius.dur.ac.uk...
.
>
> When you say all - which manufacturers does this include? Those who build
in
> the UK, or those who have UK agents or those who sell to the UK? It seems
> that to implemement this, every manufacturer in the world would need to
meet
> the recommendation. Or will the ARA simply restrict the boat that are
> permitted for racing in to try to force others out of the UK market?
>
> Just a thought I had after seeing boats from overseas manufacturers at
BUSA
> (where mine stayed firmly on the rack :-( )
>
> Rob.
>
It will include all boat manufacturers whose boats are used in this country,
if they wish to continue to sell boats here, because their entire customer
base belongs to the ARA. The ARA have already been in touch with eg
Vespoli.
If it happens that FISA can be persuaded to advise other national rowing
governing bodies to take similar action (which no doubt will require
continued pressure from all of us, as well as the ARA) then of course all
boat manufacturers worldwide will have to comply, or lose all their
customers.
Any manufacturer with any sense will see this coming and make the
adaptations - as we all know, that shouldn't be too difficult or costly
anyway. All they need to do is to compare the cost of doing it (should be
cheap), against the cost of not doing it (serious injury, a life, cost of
defending litigation, cost to rowing of courts promoting over reaction and
unnecessary restriction). Then all becomes clear.
Jane and Stephen.
Rob Collings
change over (or at least offer alternatives) anyway even without FISA
intervention.
Rob.
Rob Collings
Richard Smalman-Smith
THe problems with the Jano compartments is when they boats age and are
passed down to the novices and juniors (who are the ones one might be
more concerned about in terms of safety):
1) they do not stay watertight once slidebeds and wiring etc has
had to be fiddled with etc, .
2) water gets into the compartment and stays there: it rarely dries
out properly (lets face it, how many jnrs and novices really do open all
hatch covers when they rack the boat? and all the strings have long been
borken) resulting in rotting shoulders that then break.
Yes, I suppose we should all spend even more time and money upgrading
equipment, but some of us already seem to be fighting a battle to keep
old boats on the water in order to cope with large numbers of beginners.
In message <vJ1z8.39445$Il1....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Ryan Morris <rmo...@rogers.com> writes
--
Richard Smalman-Smith
j...@durge.org
<stuff>
Swamping is a danger to everyone, not just beginners.
If you think your boats are unsafe you get them checked over and fixed.
You're right that rowing with a false sense if security is wrong, and I
guess this was your point, but then if you're worried about that then
the boat needs to be looked at.
Can the compartments be re-sealed?
It can't be that hard for a competent person.
The number of rowers using equipment is irrelevant, though.
If you're thinking of relying on equipment you get it checked, or you
don't trust it at all.
Jon
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durge: j...@durge.org http://www.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Packer
news:0QZzAoFo...@smalman-smith.demon.co.uk...
> 1) they do not stay watertight once slidebeds and wiring etc has
> had to be fiddled with etc, .
stores).
> 2) water gets into the compartment and stays there: it rarely dries
> out properly (lets face it, how many jnrs and novices really do open all
> hatch covers when they rack the boat?
Isn't that why crews have coaches - to tell them not only how to row, but
also how to look after the equipment?
> and all the strings have long been
> borken) resulting in rotting shoulders that then break.
Replacing missing hatch covers, or replacing the broken bits of string is
another straightforward and inexpensive task.
> Yes, I suppose we should all spend even more time and money upgrading
> equipment, but some of us already seem to be fighting a battle to keep
> old boats on the water in order to cope with large numbers of beginners.
I'll agree that the issue of what to do with old boats that don't already
have built-in buoyancy still needs to be addressed in detail, including the
timescale for any retrospective action, but keeping old Janousek (and
similar) boats well maintained really shouldn't be a big issue. Looking
after people new to the sport, and juniors, deserves our full attention,
especially as they are often relegated to the oldest boats in a club's
fleet.
Richard
Rob Collings
Richard Smalman-Smith <ric...@smalman-smith.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0QZzAoFo...@smalman-smith.demon.co.uk...
>
> passed down to the novices and juniors (who are the ones one might be
> more concerned about in terms of safety):
>
> 1) they do not stay watertight once slidebeds and wiring etc has
> had to be fiddled with etc, .
But a slightly leaky compartment lets in very little compared to a huge
wave. You should still be able to keep afloat for long enough to make shore
or be rescued.
> 2) water gets into the compartment and stays there: it rarely dries
> out properly (lets face it, how many jnrs and novices really do open all
> hatch covers when they rack the boat? and all the strings have long been
> borken) resulting in rotting shoulders that then break.
That's probably a question of education - if people want their subs to go
towards unecessary repiars on old baots, rather than buying new ones then
that's theit choice.
> Yes, I suppose we should all spend even more time and money upgrading
> equipment, but some of us already seem to be fighting a battle to keep
> old boats on the water in order to cope with large numbers of beginners.
Hmm. I know the feeling very well. But then who wants to risk sending out
crews in unsafe boats? Eventually, this should become as common as checking
bowballs and heel restraints (although that may not be saying much...)
Rob.
Alan Cox
> 1) they do not stay watertight once slidebeds and wiring etc has
> had to be fiddled with etc, .
>
> 2) water gets into the compartment and stays there: it rarely dries
> out properly (lets face it, how many jnrs and novices really do open all
> hatch covers when they rack the boat? and all the strings have long been
> borken) resulting in rotting shoulders that then break.
>
> Yes, I suppose we should all spend even more time and money upgrading
> equipment, but some of us already seem to be fighting a battle to keep
> old boats on the water in order to cope with large numbers of beginners.
>
remain watertight (hatches in place, gaps around wiring holes filled etc),
and they do need airing (hatches open when racked, with strings to make sure
they go back) to stop rot. It's not hard to do. I now coach people from
the start to check their own equipment safety points before and after each
outing (applicable to all types of boat, rowing or sculling), and try and
reinforce it at every outing:
-Bowball in place and secure,
-Hull/bouyancy chambers intact, dry (no sign of leaks), closed in outing,
open on rack,
-Heel restraints effective.
My club (Cygnet) has a Janousek 8 (1988) and 4- (1987), amongst others from
that maker, which still seem good as new (if not as shiny), despite heavy
use and many repairs. The 8 was once rowed back from Syon to Barnes missing
2 feet of the bow after a collision with "The Barges", a fate which seems to
have befallen every boat in our boathouse.
It really pays to look after your boats, both for safety and long term
economy.
Don't stint on maintenance expenditure, and keep communicating these issues
to your members/pupils.
Alan Cox
Carl Douglas
>"Richard Smalman-Smith" <ric...@smalman-smith.demon.co.uk> wrote
detail.
You have the privilege of rowing, for an annual outlay of maybe
GBP200/US$300, with equipment which can cost, boat & blades, around
GBP15000/US$22000 or more. No rower is so precious, busy or skint that
they cannot be expected to spend a few bob of their own money & a half
an hour of their time, maybe a couple of times a year to keep that
valuable capital equipment in good & safe order.
To do otherwise is the equivalent of driving around on split tyres &
with torn seat-belts. And since that maintenance will include running
checks on all performance-related factors as well, it will not only keep
you and other rowers safe, but help your crew's competitive success.
So get on with it. You know it make sense.
Richard Packer
news:MP_z8.2916$%1.19...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Sound advice Alan.
There's been plenty of very useful debate going on in rsr over recent months
(and not just confined to the headline issue of buoyancy), perhaps we should
try to develop some decent on-line resources to help spread this good
practice to a wider audience?
FWIW I have a section on my website with various rowing safety related
items, and would be very happy to add new material / links as part of this
process. URL is www.richard.packer.dial.pipex.com/rowing/rowing_index.html
(recently updated with heel restraint and bow-ball pics from BUSA 2002).
Constructive criticism is always welcome.
Richard
Christopher Francis Shea
> (and not just confined to the headline issue of buoyancy), perhaps we should
> try to develop some decent on-line resources to help spread this good
> practice to a wider audience?
>
> FWIW I have a section on my website with various rowing safety related
> items, and would be very happy to add new material / links as part of this
> process. URL is www.richard.packer.dial.pipex.com/rowing/rowing_index.html
> (recently updated with heel restraint and bow-ball pics from BUSA 2002).
> Constructive criticism is always welcome.
>
> Richard
This is all good stuff for those willing to take safety seriously on a
voluntary basis but we all know there are many who need some
encouragement. Safety Codes are only the Emperor's new clothes
without some effective means of enforcement.
It seems to me that control commission checks at Regattas are of only
limited use. They ensure that boats comply with safety requirements
only whilst at events, where safety cover is provided. It is even
more important equipment satisfies safety requirements out of
competition, when there might be no additional safety cover. Many
boats are not used in open competition and are never checked.
I suggest the ARA safety code require clubs to have an annual safety
audit of their equipment carried out by a registered Umpire,
(preferably not a member of the Club being inspected.) The audit
report to specify each boat owned by the club with a list of remedial
actions required with time limits for their completion. After a clean
audit, or reinspection if remedial action is required, an inspection
certificate could be issued. Clubs would be required to submit this
with their annual registration. Failure to provide such a certificate
should lead to a clubs automatic suspension from competition until a
certificate is provided.
Chris
Richard Packer
"Christopher Francis Shea" <chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:959643f5.02050...@posting.google.com...
> I suggest the ARA safety code require clubs to have an annual safety
> audit of their equipment carried out by a registered Umpire,
> (preferably not a member of the Club being inspected.) The audit
> report to specify each boat owned by the club with a list of remedial
> actions required with time limits for their completion. After a clean
> audit, or reinspection if remedial action is required, an inspection
> certificate could be issued. Clubs would be required to submit this
> with their annual registration. Failure to provide such a certificate
> should lead to a clubs automatic suspension from competition until a
> certificate is provided.
Funny you should mention that. I have been Safety Adviser at two separate
clubs, and I did exactly that. Conduct a review of the club, and produce a
local safety plan, which I copied to the ARA. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to work out what feedback I got. Not even an acknowledgement!
The new Water Safety Code is, I understand, going to be much more based
around a local risk assessment. But I think it unlikely that anyone, least
of all umpires, will end up "certifying" clubs safety plans. Any scheme
that appears to remove the responsibility of the club and its individual
members, and place it on an external official (umpire or otherwise) would be
unwise. Either that or the ARA will have to consider employing a dedicated
(probably full-time) team of official Water Safety Advisers, part of whose
role will be to certify clubs and events. I personally prefer a scheme of
effective self-regulation, which needs to be backed up with a proper
training and support scheme for clubs and their safety advisers in
particular. Then let umpires at events do their job properly, and start
excluding boats that don't come up to the required standards.
Richard
Christopher Francis Shea
>
> Funny you should mention that. I have been Safety Adviser at two separate
> clubs, and I did exactly that. Conduct a review of the club, and produce a
> local safety plan, which I copied to the ARA. It doesn't take a rocket
> scientist to work out what feedback I got. Not even an acknowledgement!
>
> The new Water Safety Code is, I understand, going to be much more based
> around a local risk assessment. But I think it unlikely that anyone, least
> of all umpires, will end up "certifying" clubs safety plans. Any scheme
> that appears to remove the responsibility of the club and its individual
> members, and place it on an external official (umpire or otherwise) would be
> unwise. Either that or the ARA will have to consider employing a dedicated
> (probably full-time) team of official Water Safety Advisers, part of whose
> role will be to certify clubs and events. I personally prefer a scheme of
> effective self-regulation, which needs to be backed up with a proper
> training and support scheme for clubs and their safety advisers in
> particular. Then let umpires at events do their job properly, and start
> excluding boats that don't come up to the required standards.
>
> Richard
I have no doubt there is a lot of good practice out there and I think
there has been a healthy change in general attitude over recent years.
Not so long ago the drive to improve safety was widely regarded as
some kind of racket. Now it seems to me there is a more general
acceptance it is a good thing to avoid unnecessary risk. There are
still however a sizeable minority who remain to be convinced and a
smaller minority who will not comply without encouragement.
I don't agree an 'MOT' would remove responsibility for safety from the
club to the tester. After all we get our cars tested annually but
know we personally will be prosecuted if the car is later stopped with
bald tyres, no suspension, lights or brakes. It is accepted the MOT
certificate is only a certificate of the state of the equipment at the
time of the test. I don't see why it would be any different with an
inspection of rowing equipment. There is much equipment that never
sees the light of day at a regatta and therefor falls outside the
current inspection system. Old equipment is often used for beginners
and it is most essential that equipment for these people meets the
highest safety standards.
You would prefer a scheme of effective self regulation. So would I.
I would also prefer people not to drink and drive, world peace and
Carl Douglas to express his views, (many of which I agree with,)
without being personally offensive. Both of us should be patient
because none of these are going to happen. The aim of any scheme of
enforcement is to encourage those to comply who will not comply
voluntarily. By definition recidivists are not going to be encouraged
to comply by a voluntary scheme. Off course there should be a proper
training and support scheme to enable voluntary compliance, but
experience of life tells one this will not be enough on its own. Of
course I realise it is most likely we will end up with a system of
voluntary self regulation. People like you and I will seek to comply
with the spirit as well as the letter of the code and others will not.
Whilst on my soapbox I will also say that the control commission
checks need to be backed up by penalties. The requirements of the
safety code are simple and straightforward. Arriving at a Regatta
with equipment that does not meet the code, shows a cavalier attitude
to safety that requires a more robust response than ensuring the
equipment is repaired before being allowed to race.
Chris
Richard Packer
> Whilst on my soapbox I will also say that the control commission
> checks need to be backed up by penalties. The requirements of the
> safety code are simple and straightforward. Arriving at a Regatta
> with equipment that does not meet the code, shows a cavalier attitude
> to safety that requires a more robust response than ensuring the
> equipment is repaired before being allowed to race.
Amen to that. It was pointed out at a recent umpires' seminar that the
Rules of Racing state that boats that don't meet the required standard shall
be excluded. Nothing about allowing crews to repair, sorry bodge, their
defective boats on the raft. The teeth are there - we just choose not to
use them.
Richard
Rob Collings
Would you be supported by the Regatta Control and Regional Umpires comittee
if you banned a boat from racing once it had been repaired, though? I can't
see that happening in many places.
Rob.
Carl Douglas
Both Richard & Chris might be missing a key point which I have attempted
to bring to NG attention:
At present there is no firmly supported & enforced policy on equipment
safety. One cannot exist without changes which address the present
Water Safety Committee's institutional laxity and its technical
ignorance & ineptitude.
The conduct of these technically ignorant people, who'd hate their
councils to be sullied by those with technical knowledge, should make
them a laughing stock. They thought traditional shells more buoyant
than thicker-skinned modern honey-comb shells. They preferred swamped
crews to swim around near-submerged waterlogged shells, rather than have
those shells made so buoyant that swimming was unnecessary. They think
bendy balls are OK (actually, a ball that deflects doesn't protect).
They suppress critical letters to Regatta.
Those with longer memories may recall how in the '80s the same ARA set
out to buy untried shells from E.Germany with public funds but without
competitive tender. They claimed those boats were "ideal for squad use
on the Tideway", but none had never been near the Tideway. They
wouldn't ask indigenous suppliers to tender for their supposed
requirement, so several of us showed them that UK manufacturers could do
better & cheaper than E.Germany. Such a boat was built & 'officially
inspected' by someone from the ARA - who new nothing about boat
construction but wouldn't (& couldn't) say why it wasn't 'quite right'.
The boat was then raced in the pairs trials - & won - but still the ARA
persisted. Then Margaret Thatcher heard what was going on, & told them
she'd cut off their public funds if they bought a single E. German
shell. That stopped them! But in pique they promptly announced that
the requirement nolonger existed! So no boats were bought from anyone.
Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose. So:
Who in the ARA is sufficiently expert to prescribe technical standards
for boats to meet? Where are all the inspectors who will diligently &
unimpeachably certify acceptable equipment & fail the rest? And how
will a governing body which habitually bins reports on safety breaches
respond when defective equipment goes afloat next day with a bunch of
kids or novices aboard?
Don't expect responsible action from those who wouldn't publish a report
on the near tragedy to Durham University women's eight at Hambledon
Sluices. Who spent 16 months obstructing the Leo Campaign. Who will do
nothing towards making unguarded Thames sluices safer. Who don't know
their bow-ball from their elbow. Whose damn-fool letter is published in
the current Regatta issue arguing that making rowing equipment more safe
will cause rowers to act irresponsibly.
If we all want safer rowing (which we do - despite a niggly comment
about personalities, Chris), then first accept that there is a major
institutional obstacle, presently run by some who are keener to hold
office (& whatever importance that brings them) than to risk
institutional opprobrium by actively guarding the safety & real
interests of their members. What are we going to do about that?
Carl Douglas
>You would prefer a scheme of effective self regulation. So would I.
>I would also prefer people not to drink and drive, world peace and
>Carl Douglas to express his views, (many of which I agree with,)
>without being personally offensive. Both of us should be patient
>because none of these are going to happen.
In a thread concerning the first stage of success of the Leo Blockley
Memorial Campaign, one wonders what motivated that interesting remark.
Some of us, Chris, gave huge time & effort, at great expense, to the
success of this campaign. I didn't see you leaping in to help us. I
don't even see your signature on the Campaign website. Had you worked
for what this Campaign has achieved (& we still have more to do), you
might be slower to criticise & I might listen closer. While I'll gladly
accept advice & criticism from those in my own crew, & my work
colleagues, I'm unlikely to take it from bystanders.
Why do some who do not fight feel entitled, even so, to complain from
the sidelines about the style of those who fight & win? Sometimes
winning is not pretty. Why? Because those obstructing success have no
intention of doing the decent thing, they are determined not to be
helped, told or advised, & are determined to ignore all polite and
rational representations.
What, do you suggest, those of us who really care should have done?
Should we have walked away saying, "Well we tried, but they didn't
listen, so more rowers will just have to die". Then we could have
shrugged our shoulders & got on with our knitting. Like hell! That's
when the fight really had to start. And that's when we had to start
exposing the sort of people & tactics we were confronting. That we did
so may even save your own life one day. Certainly it will save some
lives somewhere.
Christopher Francis Shea
> Would you be supported by the Regatta Control and Regional Umpires comittee
> if you banned a boat from racing once it had been repaired, though? I can't
> see that happening in many places.
>
> Rob.
Rob
You may be right, but I hope your wrong. People have to decide
whether safety is a good thing to be encouraged or an inconvenient
technicality. If a crew were found to be going afloat with two many
points for their event, I would expect them to be disqualified. The
same standard should be applied to unsafe equipment. Is cheating
worse than endangering safety?
Chris
Christopher Francis Shea
> Christopher Francis Shea <chri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
> >You would prefer a scheme of effective self regulation. So would I.
> >I would also prefer people not to drink and drive, world peace and
> >Carl Douglas to express his views, (many of which I agree with,)
> >without being personally offensive. Both of us should be patient
> >because none of these are going to happen.
>
> In a thread concerning the first stage of success of the Leo Blockley
> Memorial Campaign, one wonders what motivated that interesting remark.
>
its officers.
> Some of us, Chris, gave huge time & effort, at great expense, to the
> success of this campaign. I didn't see you leaping in to help us. I
> don't even see your signature on the Campaign website. Had you worked
> for what this Campaign has achieved (& we still have more to do), you
> might be slower to criticise & I might listen closer. While I'll gladly
> accept advice & criticism from those in my own crew, & my work
> colleagues, I'm unlikely to take it from bystanders.
I am grateful for the time and effort put in by you and others in
winning this campaign. Thank you. I was remiss in not signing the
petition. Sorry.
>
> Why do some who do not fight feel entitled, even so, to complain from
> the sidelines about the style of those who fight & win? Sometimes
> winning is not pretty. Why? Because those obstructing success have no
> intention of doing the decent thing, they are determined not to be
> helped, told or advised, & are determined to ignore all polite and
> rational representations.
>
If you post your views on a public discussion forum it seems odd to
then complain that others less worthy than you have had the cheek to
use the same facility.
> What, do you suggest, those of us who really care should have done?
> Should we have walked away saying, "Well we tried, but they didn't
> listen, so more rowers will just have to die". Then we could have
> shrugged our shoulders & got on with our knitting. Like hell! That's
> when the fight really had to start. And that's when we had to start
> exposing the sort of people & tactics we were confronting. That we did
> so may even save your own life one day. Certainly it will save some
> lives somewhere.
>
I've no doubt a robust campaign was required and that dealing with an
organization like the ARA tests the patience of saints. I just prefer
to see the arguments put forward with less personal bile. I suspect
we are never going to agree on this, but I shan't hold it against you,
even if you hold it against me.
If I've not upset you to much I'd be interested to know if it will be
possible for a bowloading coxed four to comply with the new
regulations.
Chris
Carl Douglas
>>
>> >You would prefer a scheme of effective self regulation. So would I.
>> >I would also prefer people not to drink and drive, world peace and
>> >Carl Douglas to express his views, (many of which I agree with,)
>> >without being personally offensive. Both of us should be patient
>> >because none of these are going to happen.
>>
>> In a thread concerning the first stage of success of the Leo Blockley
>> Memorial Campaign, one wonders what motivated that interesting remark.
>>
>The personal nature of the abuse you use in criticizing the ARA and
>its officers.
If calling incompetents 'incompetent', & negligents 'negligent', amounts
to abuse, then I'm guilty as charged. If complaining that those who
attempt to 'negate by delay' are deliberately obstructive is abuse, fine
also. But please remember that, while certain ARA officials swanned
around for 16 months pretending there was no problem - until it hit the
national press and the gaff was truly blown - a lot of boats were built
which have the potential to be swamped with fatal consequences & those
boats will remain unaltered for a long time to come.
Had these people acted according to duty, there would have been no
problems. Had they the courtesy & conscience to respond to the many
seriously & politely-expressed concerns, again there would have been no
problems. But they did neither. They stuck their heads in the sand,
denied there was any problem. Then they suppressed members' comments.
Then they issued the frankly asinine letter which said that making boats
safer would make them more dangerous. The new excuse proffered for
suppressing responses to the Blockley's Regatta article is 'shortage of
space' - would you believe. So there is no shame.
As Jane Blockley so properly stated here on RSR, such conduct is prima
facie grounds for sacking. Yet the same crew sail on secure, ignorant,
unperturbed & still shunning contact with the real world. There will be
an ARA Council meeting on 18 June to ratify what was decided & promised
to the Blockleys on 27 April. Then one may expect a further 6 months
period of grace before whatever the Council decides comes into force.
That means it will not be until 23 months after Leo died, and 8 months
after the ARA, its back forced against the wall, promised prompt action
to Jane & Stephen, that whatever version is approved of what was
actually promised comes into effect.
All that institutional delay by those proclaiming government of the
members, by the members, for the members may yet kill. How else was one
to lay bare the whole grisly business than by, reluctantly, dropping
politeness for plain & factual terminology.
>
<snip>
>
>I am grateful for the time and effort put in by you and others in
>winning this campaign. Thank you. I was remiss in not signing the
>petition. Sorry.
And I apologise to you for my poke in your eye. I know & greatly
appreciate your genuine safety concerns, Chris.
>>
>> Why do some who do not fight feel entitled, even so, to complain from
>> the sidelines about the style of those who fight & win? Sometimes
>> winning is not pretty. Why? Because those obstructing success have no
>> intention of doing the decent thing, they are determined not to be
>> helped, told or advised, & are determined to ignore all polite and
>> rational representations.
>>
>If you post your views on a public discussion forum it seems odd to
>then complain that others less worthy than you have had the cheek to
>use the same facility.
No, I will defend your right to say what you want to say. And please
ditch that 'not worthy' bit. Sometimes it's only by having a bit of a
spat like this that we get beneath those rather thin skins we each wear
& see the real living & breathing humanity inside us all.
<snipped>
>I've no doubt a robust campaign was required and that dealing with an
>organization like the ARA tests the patience of saints. I just prefer
>to see the arguments put forward with less personal bile. I suspect
>we are never going to agree on this, but I shan't hold it against you,
>even if you hold it against me.
No problem at all. I think it all boils down to a matter of perspective
& personal experience - both of the death of someone you know & how
appallingly smug & inert officialdom can be.
I've known of some drownings following swampings & sinkings, & swore I
wouldn't let this one pass with still nothing done. And I've had some
experience of dealing with bureaucracies, & how to shift them into
action. So now I do get bilious when young athletes die unnecessary &
old farts sit on their butts, only expending effort to defend their
indefensible negligence, & doing sweet nothing & asking you to go away
when the cure is self-evident.
>
>If I've not upset you to much I'd be interested to know if it will be
>possible for a bowloading coxed four to comply with the new
>regulations.
>
Takes more than a small difference of opinion on style to upset me!
Unlike the pompous asses supposedly charged with members' safety, all of
whom will by now have crossed me off their Xmas card lists (I hope!).
The answer to your question, as far as I can give it, is that bowloaders
are a bit marginal for safety due to the cox taking up so much of the
bow volume. However, if their under-seat volumes are enclosed -
preferably using sloped bulkheads to increase the enclosed volumes, &
there is a well-sealed volume from cox's feet forwards, & the space
between cox's back-rest & bow's slides is also enclosed (which makes
sense, maybe including it in with bow's underseat volume - then you
could get close. But like so many others on RSR I really don't like the
beasts at all.
Chris, thanks!