Rowing/UKCC level 2 course (UK)
Phil
Phil.
carol...@aol.com
On Oct 12, 9:21 am, "Phil" <philip_barton....@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyone have any recent experience/comments on the new coaching courses?
>
> Phil.
I've nearly finished tutoring it for the first time. So far I'm
managing to keep one step ahead of the candidates, but am having to add
quite a lot of my own material to supplement what the ARA provided me
with, though that was the case with the IA award as well.
The new modules - Fitness & Athleticism, Core Stability, Developing
Technique, Risk Management, Dynamic Warm-up - are a good idea, but
they've missed out some modules from the old course - Session Planning,
coxing, rowing (i.e. sweep-oar as opposed to sculling) which I feel
should still be there - and will be in my course.
The candidates are still turning up and smiling - but perhaps they're
just being polite.....
Caroline
Carl
OK, Caroline, you're a caring coach so this is definitely not aimed at
you in any way. But, as an instructor of an ARA course, please tell us:
1. If a club's boats are not fully buoyant, how do you even begin to
assess risk for an outing? You fall at the first hurdle of: "Is my
equipment fit for purpose".
2. How, in with the known deficiencies in the ARA capsize drill, still
being taught, do you assess risk for a sculler who may, this winter in
cold waters, dutifully swim to the bow of their capsized single &,
following official advice, attempt from there to swim & tow to a fixed
point on the bank while continually re-computing their course for a
so-called ferry glide as their strength ebbs away in the cold?
Risk management is a PC buzz-word term. It is much loved by those who
don't generally encounter risk as a cover-your-back exercise. However,
it falls flat when it is practised as a box-ticking exercise with the
tacit acceptance/ignorance of major flaws.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Paul
Even rowing in a fully bouyant FISA compliant boat is not a risk free
excersise. If your boat is not fully buoyant the results of your risk
assesment will simply be different to the result if it was, ie you may
not go out. Its not rocket science.
Paul
Carl
>>>Caroline
>>>
>>
>>OK, Caroline, you're a caring coach so this is definitely not aimed at
>>you in any way. But, as an instructor of an ARA course, please tell us:
>>
>>1. If a club's boats are not fully buoyant, how do you even begin to
>>assess risk for an outing? You fall at the first hurdle of: "Is my
>>equipment fit for purpose".
>>2. How, in with the known deficiencies in the ARA capsize drill, still
>>being taught, do you assess risk for a sculler who may, this winter in
>>cold waters, dutifully swim to the bow of their capsized single &,
>>following official advice, attempt from there to swim & tow to a fixed
>>point on the bank while continually re-computing their course for a
>>so-called ferry glide as their strength ebbs away in the cold?
>>
>>Risk management is a PC buzz-word term. It is much loved by those who
>>don't generally encounter risk as a cover-your-back exercise. However,
>>it falls flat when it is practised as a box-ticking exercise with the
>>tacit acceptance/ignorance of major flaws.
>>
> Carl
>
> Even rowing in a fully bouyant FISA compliant boat is not a risk free
> excersise. If your boat is not fully buoyant the results of your risk
> assesment will simply be different to the result if it was, ie you may
> not go out. Its not rocket science.
>
> Paul
>
Nearly right. But the act of going afloat in a boat that will readily
sink if conditions change for the worse can never be an assessable risk.
Meaningful risk assessment presumes that you have a meaningful fix for
the untoward event, not that you spin the dice & hope it'll be OK.
If buoyancy could not be provided then, & only then, you might, perhaps
with reason, say that the proposed activity carries a known risk which
cannot be mitigated but is worthwhile for other tangible reasons. But
buoyancy is so easliy provided that the inevitable risk of the activity
should be very much lower.
So when making your risk assessment, you must start from the point, with
an under-buoyant boat, that you are already taking an unnecessary risk.
That is not howt risk assessment should work.
Paul
I am afraid I don't agree Carl. In many cases buoyancy has not been
provided (not all our clubs boats are fully buoyant). Sure, an
individual/crew could decide they were not going to row until this had
been sorted, but this would be rather cutting off their nose to......
if they were boating in a situation where swamping was either a virtual
impossibility or if the consequences of a swamping unlikely to be
serious.
carol...@aol.com
On Oct 13, 9:21 am, "Paul" <pgosl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Carl
>
> I am afraid I don't agree Carl. In many cases buoyancy has not been
> provided (not all our clubs boats are fully buoyant). Sure, an
> individual/crew could decide they were not going to row until this had
> been sorted, but this would be rather cutting off their nose to......
> if they were boating in a situation where swamping was either a virtual
> impossibility or if the consequences of a swamping unlikely to be
> serious.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Nearly right. But the act of going afloat in a boat that will readily
> > sink if conditions change for the worse can never be an assessable risk.
> > Meaningful risk assessment presumes that you have a meaningful fix for
> > the untoward event, not that you spin the dice & hope it'll be OK.
>
> > If buoyancy could not be provided then, & only then, you might, perhaps
> > with reason, say that the proposed activity carries a known risk which
> > cannot be mitigated but is worthwhile for other tangible reasons. But
The capsize drill has changed - we now also teach getting onto the
upturned hull and doing a buddy rescue, pointing out that these options
are safer in cold conditions.
I also teach getting back into the boat. All the juniors and quite a
few of the adults at our club manage to do it, though I stress that if
the water is cold they are better off using one of the methods above
rather than wasting energy trying to get back into the boat.
Caroline
> > buoyancy is so easliy provided that the inevitable risk of the activity
> > should be very much lower.
>
> > So when making your risk assessment, you must start from the point, with
> > an under-buoyant boat, that you are already taking an unnecessary risk.
> > That is not howt risk assessment should work.
>
> > Carl
>
> > --
> > Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
> > Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
> > Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
> > Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
> > URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
boatie
that comes with the course.
Rebecca
On Oct 12, 9:21 am, "Phil" <philip_barton....@yahoo.com> wrote:
Liz
What continually hacks me off is that the courses keep changing content
and focus but no information as to such is provided to those folks who
have already qualified.
Liz
simon.da...@virgin.net
carol...@aol.com wrote:
> The capsize drill has changed - we now also teach getting onto the
> upturned hull and doing a buddy rescue, pointing out that these options
> are safer in cold conditions.
>
> I also teach getting back into the boat. All the juniors and quite a
> few of the adults at our club manage to do it, though I stress that if
> the water is cold they are better off using one of the methods above
> rather than wasting energy trying to get back into the boat.
>
> Caroline
>
As I beleive that the heat loss in the water is 30x greater than out
of the water [I stand to be corrected ] any time messing about trying
to get blade handles together and then haul yourself over the boat
increases the dangers.
Alistair Groves
them to turn it over and climb on the hull. But I have to admit that I
myself have gone in, realised it was perfectly warm and I was fine and
just climbed back in the boat and rowed off without worrying about going
to the side. But my opinion is that is a personal choice, not something
I should recommend others do, particularly new people (without my
extensive experience of falling in ;) ).
Alistair
Carl
Caroline -
Today I received a report from a concerned coach, that all of the
nonsense of which I spoke earlier was _still_ being coached this weekend
as ARA-approved technique.
Safety is about staying alive. The only way to ensure this is to follow
the KISS ("keep it simple, stupid") principle, using the very best,
tried & tested method. You don't have time when capsized to experiment
& learn that other methods are worse.
You have limited time to teach survival drill. To teach inferior
techniques reduces the time available to teach the best method, so
everything is learned less well. A capsized sculler should not be
expected to make informed choices on alternative methods but should
always take the most secure option.
The straddle & paddle method of self-rescue - lie over the upturned boat
& doggy paddle to safety - is the best method at all times. It takes
the least effort. It gets the important parts of you out of the water.
It gives you the maximum survival time. In cold water it is the only
safe method. UK water is, in survival terms, at most times _cold_. So
no other method should even be considered.
So to teach swim & tow, even as an option, is folly. To ask inverted
scullers to tap the bottom of their boat is fatuous. And to tell them
to ferry glide can be deadly advice in any kind of a stream.
Carl
>>>--
>>>Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
>>> Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
>>>Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
>>>Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
>>>URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
>
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
carol...@aol.com
On Oct 16, 10:03 am, "Liz" <liz.pla...@amersham.com> wrote:
> boatie wrote:
> > I am doing it right now....and there is a lot of material on the CD
> > that comes with the course.
> > Rebecca
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:21 am, "Phil" <philip_barton....@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone have any recent experience/comments on the new coaching courses?
>
> > > Phil.What continually hacks me off is that the courses keep changing content
> and focus but no information as to such is provided to those folks who
> have already qualified.
>
> Liz
Good point Liz. The ARA said something about IA qualified people being
able to take the extra modules if they wished, but we tutors have not
been given any guidance on how to organise this, what to charge, how to
obtain the student materials etc.
Caroline
Carl
>
>>Nearly right. But the act of going afloat in a boat that will readily
>>sink if conditions change for the worse can never be an assessable risk.
>> Meaningful risk assessment presumes that you have a meaningful fix for
>>the untoward event, not that you spin the dice & hope it'll be OK.
>>
>>If buoyancy could not be provided then, & only then, you might, perhaps
>>with reason, say that the proposed activity carries a known risk which
>>cannot be mitigated but is worthwhile for other tangible reasons. But
>>buoyancy is so easliy provided that the inevitable risk of the activity
>>should be very much lower.
>>
>>So when making your risk assessment, you must start from the point, with
>>an under-buoyant boat, that you are already taking an unnecessary risk.
>> That is not howt risk assessment should work.
>>
>>Carl
>
> I am afraid I don't agree Carl. In many cases buoyancy has not been
> provided (not all our clubs boats are fully buoyant). Sure, an
> individual/crew could decide they were not going to row until this had
> been sorted, but this would be rather cutting off their nose to......
> if they were boating in a situation where swamping was either a virtual
> impossibility or if the consequences of a swamping unlikely to be
> serious.
>
You may not agree, but you could not be more wrong:
A member of my student club was drowned when his 4+ was damaged by a
submerged obstacle & sank on a narrow, shallow river.
Your kind of risk assessment would have said that couldn't happen.
RIP.
Please don't resuscitate the old, dead arguments which say, "We don't
need buoyancy because our water is so benign". In any case:
1. non-buoyant shells have a habit of being pressed into use for events
on other waters.
2. there are some pretty cocky individuals who, wrongly, think buoyancy
is cissy or makes boats slower.
3. it is the oldest, least likely to be buoyant shells which carry your
club's least experienced rowers, who have the least experience of water.
c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk
carol...@aol.com wrote:
> Good point Liz. The ARA said something about IA qualified people being
> able to take the extra modules if they wished, but we tutors have not
> been given any guidance on how to organise this, what to charge, how to
> obtain the student materials etc.
>
But why charge them anything at all? These people were competent,
registered coaches before the change so why are they inferior now?
Umpires don't get charged (except their costs in getting to the venue)
for CPD and I don't get paid for delivering it.
Paul
Unfortunatley we cannot make rowing a risk free activity. Rowing in a
non buoyant boat on a small river is less risky than on a large river,
rowing in a buoyant boat on a river is less risky than a lake, rowing a
non buoyant boat of a lake is probably very risky, but which is more
risky, a non buoyant boat on a small river or a buoyant boat on a lake?
Your original point was than a non buoyant shell can never be safe and
so you can never make a risk assesment on one. My argument is merely
that there are degrees of risk, no outing is risk free and that simply
to say, well you can't make an assesment, you can't use the boat,
doesn't help anyone on a practical basis, the boats will be used.
Carl
And that, I'm afraid, is the other classic, invalid, cop-out excuse.
Deaths are non-recoverable events which irrevocably bugger up the lives
of many times more people than are killed. So, when I tell you of a guy
drowned because his boat was holed on a shallow, narrow river, what
sense does it make for you to respond that wider rivers are more dangerous?
Rowing is a remarkably safe water sport. It is made less safe largely
by such pointless irrationalities as using highly sinkable boats, having
perished bow balls, failing to correctly fit heel restraints, not
educating sensible self-rescue techniques, having no policies on cold
weather rowing, failing to put lights on after dark & failing to record
& publish data on rowing accidents. I do hope you don't advocate saving
money on bow balls & heel restraints - because "we can't make rowing a
risk-free activity"? Similarly, that you don't advocate dispensing with
the compulsory provision & wearing of PFDs in launches?
Compared with the cost of rowing equipment & rowing kit, effective
safety is dirt cheap. If we really do think it OK for someone to be
unnecessarily killed - just because we decide we can't be arsed to spend
less money collectively on making an eight fully buoyant than any one of
us would spend inb a year on rowing kit & the oh-so-essential sunglasses
- then I suggest that our priorities are totally deranged.
Paul
As often the case, you are so keen to get your points across (all of
which are reasonable) you miss the point the other person is making
I was responding to your question to Caroline
"1. If a club's boats are not fully buoyant, how do you even begin to
assess risk for an outing? You fall at the first hurdle of: "Is my
equipment fit for purpose". "
Obviously it would be ideal if all boats were fully buoyant; if the ARA
had acted 5 years ago the whole UK fleet would probably be so by now.
Even if regulatory buoyancy only saves one life every 20 years the
minimal cost of it makes it as you say easily worth while. However, the
ARA has not acted, thousands of people are rowing every week in boats
that will sink if swamped or seriously holed. Is it better for someone
running an ARA coaching course to explain about the importance of
buoyancy and the dangers of using non buoyant boats and how people
should risk asses different buoyancy boats differently, or just tell
them non fully buoyant boats are not fit for purpose and can't be risk
assessed. Which is going to be more useful on Monday night when that
newly qualified coach gets down to his/her club? Being able to properly
asses risk of using different boats or to go tell the captain that half
the boats in the boat house are too dangerous to use and they must stop
at once?
Paul
This does not mean I think you should shut up about buoyancy or safety
more generally. You probably have more authority on this subject than
most if not all people and your 'in your face' style ensures no one
can ignore the subject, which can only be a good thing.
Paul
Carl
Paul - I have no problem with what you say, nor with your way of saying
it. We are allowed to disagree firmly, to get wires crossed, speak our
minds - all without losing the sense of shared humanity or shared sport.
I am still trying to get this daft old sport of ours to wake up to a few
of its responsibilities. Just as the ARA has been & continues to be
despicably negligent, so clubs (which also owe their members significant
duties of care) have sat idly by when the legal writing was long since
engraved on the wall. Everyone has a duty to address this issue, which
some clubs have responsibly taken on board, & which all must do whether
or not the ARA ever gets off the pot. That perhaps a majority of the
combined fleet of shells int eh UK remains under-buoyant is a
consequence not only of ARA bloody-mindedness, but of lack of care or
concern by the clubs themselves. And even if some clubs don't give a
damn about the lives of members, they ought to care a lot about the
prospect of facing litigation from the dependents of a deceased rower.
A good start would be to recognise that, with under-buoyant or untested
boats, you cannot honestly make a sound risk assessment. We both know
they'll still go afloat, because rowing will go on. The danger in risk
assessments, especially those performed by amateurs with vested
interests, is that they fool everyone except fate. Making a risk
assessment, yet repeatedly failing to confront the cardinal, remediable
defects behind that assessment, is blind folly. With all that has been
said, for all to see, especially in the Leo Blockley inquest, it will
play appallingly badly in any court or inquest.
What drives my concern is not just the danger to life, but the danger to
rowing of not doing, & not already having done, these cheap & simple
things for rowing safety. It has always been my expressed wish that
rowing act responsibly - in that way we keep the lawyers from
determining how we conduct our sport. The ARA's sheer irresponsibility
in its refusal to heed advice, its calculated lies & its delibnerate
deceptions, have gravely increased the chance of curbs being placed on
rowing by non-rowers. That is not what any of us wants.
In cost & effort terms, any club whose members will get off their
behinds & do some DIY will find the job of converting older boats to
full buoyancy is neither difficult nor costly. I've even stated my
willingness & ability to assist this process (let's forget that Anton
thinks I'd be too far away!). I suspect that others would also be
willing to help.
It is only the lack of a mandatory buoyancy requirement, together with
lack of an NGB-approved performance standard & test procedure -
essential to keep out the cowboys & protect the honest tradesmen - that
have prevented serious progress.
That's what should be occupying our thoughts. What are we going to do
about it, other than sit on our hands & wait for someone else to tell us
to do what we already know makes sense?
Carl
Stephen Blockley
"Paul" <pgos...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1161087474.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Carl
>
> Unfortunatley we cannot make rowing a risk free activity.
Rowing takes place on an unforgiving and deadly medium. According to risk
assessment algorithms, even though the risk of death is small, huge efforts
must be made to avoid it because it is so catastrophic. Your posting raises
the issue of just how much risk-avoidance effort is deemed 'practical', and
how do you risk-assess an outing in a boat that inherently constitutes a
risk.
Generally speaking, the average human being is poor at making the right
choices about risk, because of the way our brains work. Logic and knowledge
are overshadowed by our past experiences
(I've-never-had-an-accident-so-I-never-will /
It-won't-happen-to-me-it-only-happens-to-other-people is hard wired in the
sub conscious) our emotions (e.g. I just want to get on and do it), and the
example of others (they're all doing it so it must be OK for me to).
Professional risk assessors have had this trained out of them, but most
rowers have not.
This is why the most effective risk control is of the default variety. If
all boats are made buoyant then it removes the risk of making a bad choice
when deciding whether or not to go out in the non-buoyant boat today.
Lack of buoyancy is such an easily avoidable risk. It is really not such a
huge effort for a club to make all their boats buoyant - especially if you
include the temporary fix of using buoyancy bags. If we could we would pay
for all boats to be retrofitted with buoyancy, as that would be absolutely
nothing compared to the "cost" of losing our son because he was rowing in a
non-buoyant boat - and we don't say that lightly.
As regards including a non-buoyant boat in a risk assessment, it just
doesn't work. As Carl says, you fall at the first hurdle. A club could
not possibly present such a risk assessment as being credible, and neither
could they lay the blame on the individual. The club should be driven by
their sense of care and responsibility for their members rather than the
covering-their-backs argument, but they must be aware they bear a legal duty
of care for all who use their facilities, including non-members. The key
factor is that non-buoyant boats can so easily be made fully buoyant, so
there is no excuse to put up in court. Add to this that FISA recommends
full buoyancy (to their standard) for all boats, and it becomes a matter of
urgency for clubs to take remedial action as soon as possible.
Many will already be aware of this recognised technique for getting the
right perspective for decision making:
If you are a club official, just imagine yourself having to explain to the
family of a drowned rower why the club never got around to retrofitting that
boat - what excuse do you think they would accept? It would have cost maybe
£120? No-one got around to making enquiries? You were on holiday the week it
was discussed? We couldn't find the time? We spent the money on a new sign
for the bar? We didn't think it would happen to our club? It has never
happened here before? None of us studied physics at school? We didn't think
anyone would drown in our water (none of us studied human biology
either)?...
Jane and Stephen
Jonny
> > Unfortunatley we cannot make rowing a risk free activity.
> >
> Rowing takes place on an unforgiving and deadly medium. According to risk
> assessment algorithms, even though the risk of death is small, huge efforts
> must be made to avoid it because it is so catastrophic. Your posting raises
> the issue of just how much risk-avoidance effort is deemed 'practical', and
> how do you risk-assess an outing in a boat that inherently constitutes a risk.
While I agree with the campaign for buoyant boats, I have to say that
it is possible to risk manage safe use of non-buoyant craft. I do not
agree with Carl that it is a all or nothing proposition. If it was an
all or nothing scenario and I followed the same logic to its conclusion
then no one would be allowed to row at all. Water sports are inherently
dangerous - let's ban them all! ; )
The main danger on my waterway is not swamping (it is almost unheard
of) but the rowing traffic. Crews bashing into each other is much more
common to the point that most schools and clubs on this river regard
buoyancy as not a pressing concern. They are buying buoyant boats and
limiting use (location of use) of non-buoyant ones - but they are not
retiring the old fleet.
>
> Generally speaking, the average human being is poor at making the right choices about risk, because of the way our brains work.
I agree that this is true. We need to improve the skills of our rowers
and coaches as well as getting them to move fully buoyant boats.
> Logic and knowledge are overshadowed by our past experiences
> (I've-never-had-an-accident-so-I-never-will /
> It-won't-happen-to-me-it-only-happens-to-other-people is hard wired in the
> sub conscious) our emotions (e.g. I just want to get on and do it), and the
> example of others (they're all doing it so it must be OK for me to).
These people will manage to endanger/hurt/drown themselves in a buoyant
boat.
> Professional risk assessors have had this trained out of them, but most rowers have not.
Then we educate them. I don't know about the UK coach education, but
there is a section on risk management in the AUS coach education and I
know that I work on it pretty hard when I conduct a course. I even
highlight the buoyancy debate and let the coaches discuss it.
>
> This is why the most effective risk control is of the default variety.
Not necessarily. I did venture out my door today (I even drove on a
freeway at over 100km per hour!). And heavens forbid, I'm eating out
tonight - Oh the risks! ; )
> If all boats are made buoyant then it removes the risk of making a bad choice when deciding whether or not to go out in the non-buoyant boat today.
It does remove this risk - I agree. However it is still possible to use
non-buoyant boats if the choices made are good.
Lets say that I (as the coach) am driving a launch that will take the
whole crew (as many US catamarans do) and I am carrying enough life
jackets for the rowers (cox is already wearing one). I have a portable
radio to contact the shore. I have read the weather report and I am
familiar with the waters we are on.
Yes - I could be caught out by the weather in some freak storm and the
boat could flounder, however I have managed the risk so that I am fully
capable of ensuring the safety of my rowers and can call for help to
retreive the boat.
Would I use a fully buoyant boat if I had one - a resounding YES.
Until the club has the money to retro-fit the old boats or a few years
have past and the new boats are all buoyant I will have to rely on
improving the risk management skills of myself and those around me.
>
> Lack of buoyancy is such an easily avoidable risk. It is really not such a huge effort for a club to make all their boats buoyant - especially if you include the temporary fix of using buoyancy bags. If we could we would pay for all boats to be retrofitted with buoyancy,
The cost (and time) is a real factor for most clubs. We - as
campaigners for a higher standard - must understand this and work with
it. Better education for the coaches/club officials to ensure they
understand the risks and the dreadful consequences. Just saying that
they fail at the first hurdle is not very helpful, even if it can be
argued as being correct.
I think that many people have 'tuned out' a bit because of the tone of
the debate. I wouldn't be surprised if there are folks in UK rowing who
just shut their ears when they hear Carl or Stephen - no offence
intended - talking (or typing) and think "oh God, here he goes again,
banging on and on". Lets not alienate the coaches and club officials -
even if they are a bit dim - lets bring them along with us rather than
turn them against us. What is the phrase? - Softly, softly, catchee
monkee?
>as that would be absolutely nothing compared to the "cost" of losing our son because he was rowing in a non-buoyant boat - and we don't say that lightly.
A fully buoyant boat would have probably saved Leo, however we forget
the litany of stupidity that got him into the position of needing one.
Lets treat the cause as well as the symptoms.
Clubs will eventually buy new boats, they will retro-fit the older
boats one by one starting with the easiest and cheapest to do. Clubs
will even adapt to regulations only allowing fully buoyant boats at
regattas (as started in some regions). But in the meantime we can be
less blinkered and look for other complimentary actions that will help
improve rowing safety - an increase in knowledge and skills.
Back to my river - a fully buoyant boat won't help me one bit if I get
an oar and rigger jammed in my spine by an off-course crew. But if that
crew had a better trained coach and managed to miss me in the first
place.....
I'm expecting criticism, but I don't want to work against the buoyancy
campaign - just highlight that there are other issues we need to work
with.
Stephen and Jane
>
> While I agree with the campaign for buoyant boats, I have to say that
> it is possible to risk manage safe use of non-buoyant craft. I do not
> agree with Carl that it is a all or nothing proposition. If it was an
> all or nothing scenario and I followed the same logic to its
> conclusion then no one would be allowed to row at all. Water sports
> are inherently dangerous - let's ban them all! ; )
This is not the logical conclusion at all, and no-one has suggested that
rowing or any other water sports should be banned. Here YOU seem to be
saying it is "all or nothing". What we are promoting is the common sense
approach - an end to avoidable risk, with appropriate training and
information to help rowers deal with the unavoidable risks. This is why we
have produced our two safety documents, which give practical advice backed
up with accurate explanatory information for rowers, coaches and clubs.
> The main danger on my waterway is not swamping (it is almost unheard
> of) but the rowing traffic. Crews bashing into each other is much more
> common to the point that most schools and clubs on this river regard
> buoyancy as not a pressing concern. They are buying buoyant boats and
> limiting use (location of use) of non-buoyant ones - but they are not
> retiring the old fleet.
A fully buoyant boat with sealed compartments is far less likely to sink
after collision, depending on how many compartments remain intact.
>> Generally speaking, the average human being is poor at making the
>> right choices about risk, because of the way our brains work.
>
> I agree that this is true. We need to improve the skills of our rowers
> and coaches as well as getting them to move fully buoyant boats.
>
>
>> Logic and knowledge are overshadowed by our past experiences
>> (I've-never-had-an-accident-so-I-never-will /
>> It-won't-happen-to-me-it-only-happens-to-other-people is hard wired
>> in the
>> sub conscious) our emotions (e.g. I just want to get on and do it),
>> and the
>> example of others (they're all doing it so it must be OK for me to).
>
> These people will manage to endanger/hurt/drown themselves in a
> buoyant boat.
'These people' are you and us and all who are reading this. These are
natural human characteristics and any safety strategy has to take this into
account. A safety system which expects people to behave like logical robots
is doomed to fail. Safety has to be approached realistically, and this
means understanding the target group as far as possible, and then by making
appropriate allowances as the strategy is formulated. This is why safety by
default is what works best.
>> Professional risk assessors have had this trained out of them, but
>> most rowers have not.
>
> Then we educate them. I don't know about the UK coach education, but
> there is a section on risk management in the AUS coach education and I
> know that I work on it pretty hard when I conduct a course. I even
> highlight the buoyancy debate and let the coaches discuss it.
>
>> This is why the most effective risk control is of the default
>> variety.
>
> Not necessarily. I did venture out my door today (I even drove on a
> freeway at over 100km per hour!). And heavens forbid, I'm eating out
> tonight - Oh the risks! ; )
You are being a little flippant here! Here is our flippant response: For
your "default" protection: There are a host of road safety systems in place
(road layouts, traffic lights, crash barriers, road lighting etc), safety
features designed into your car (crumple zones, airbags etc), food hygeine
legislation with minimum defined standards enforced by inspection,
statutory food standards etc.
>> If all boats are made buoyant then it removes the risk of making a
>> bad choice when deciding whether or not to go out in the non-buoyant
>> boat today.
>
> It does remove this risk - I agree. However it is still possible to
> use non-buoyant boats if the choices made are good.
>
> Lets say that I (as the coach) am driving a launch that will take the
> whole crew (as many US catamarans do) and I am carrying enough life
> jackets for the rowers (cox is already wearing one). I have a portable
> radio to contact the shore. I have read the weather report and I am
> familiar with the waters we are on.
Good point, but as you said, this requires the positive action of several
good choices to be made. We would comment that the lifejackets for the
rowers are not much use if they are in the launch. Boats can sink very
quickly - in a matter of seconds - certainly not long enough for you to get
close to the boat, throw all the lifejackets to the crew, and for them to
put them on before they are immersed. It is very difficult to put a
lifejacket on correctly (so that it works effectively) once you are
immersed, especially if you are coping with cold shock at the same time.
Who said coaches and club officials are dim?
No-one is forced to read our posts, and remember new people start lurking
all the time. No offence taken.
>> as that would be absolutely nothing compared to the "cost" of losing
>> our son because he was rowing in a non-buoyant boat - and we don't
>> say that lightly.
>
> A fully buoyant boat would have probably saved Leo, however we forget
> the litany of stupidity that got him into the position of needing one.
> Lets treat the cause as well as the symptoms.
The many problems at OULRC and OU have already been addressed. The ARA
still has a lot of work to do.
> Clubs will eventually buy new boats, they will retro-fit the older
> boats one by one starting with the easiest and cheapest to do. Clubs
> will even adapt to regulations only allowing fully buoyant boats at
> regattas (as started in some regions). But in the meantime we can be
> less blinkered and look for other complimentary actions that will help
> improve rowing safety - an increase in knowledge and skills.
Our contribution: safety documents on http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/ We
have also advised other organisations and provided direct input in
developing their own safety documents and training modules. We contributed
to the development of FISA's new safety advice and regulation. Also, we
have persuaded the UK government to set up an independent review/inquiry
into rowing safety.
Jane and Stephen
Liz
Jonny wrote:
>
> I think that many people have 'tuned out' a bit because of the tone of
> the debate. I wouldn't be surprised if there are folks in UK rowing who
> just shut their ears when they hear Carl or Stephen - no offence
> intended - talking (or typing) and think "oh God, here he goes again,
> banging on and on". Lets not alienate the coaches and club officials -
> even if they are a bit dim - lets bring them along with us rather than
> turn them against us. What is the phrase? - Softly, softly, catchee
> monkee?
>
That would be why I know a lot of people who used to post and lurk in
rsr who just don't bother any more. Every thread becomes a boat
buoyancy / bash the ARA thread.
This thread had the potential to be a rational examination of how the
new coaching courses had changed, what was new, what good, what bad....
Even a specifically buoyancy thread get hijacked - the thread on
Northern Region abd regattas could have been an interesting debate on
how umpires might assess buoyancy compliance....
And that's why your messages are not getting through at all to grass
roots in this sport - the participants - because you've alienated so
many of those volunteers in the middle ground.
Edd
> Good point, but as you said, this requires the positive action of several
> good choices to be made. We would comment that the lifejackets for the
> rowers are not much use if they are in the launch. Boats can sink very
> quickly - in a matter of seconds - certainly not long enough for you to get
> close to the boat, throw all the lifejackets to the crew, and for them to
> put them on before they are immersed. It is very difficult to put a
> lifejacket on correctly (so that it works effectively) once you are
> immersed, especially if you are coping with cold shock at the same time.
Bit of a derail, but this suddenly makes me think of something that
hadn't occurred to me before. Have you ever passed a rower a
lifejacket and noticed that they have no idea how to put it on?
Coaches and coxes get rather used to it, but a surprising number of
rowers never figure it out until they find themselves needing to get
on a launch.
Not too sure if it's ever a very big problem though. Maybe those that
have fished more rowers out than me would know.
--
Edd
Liz
So wouldn't it be better to suggest that a coaching launch carries
sufficient liferings or suitable floaty grabbable objects rather than
rowers wearing lifejackets
Carl
Liz -
I understand that you do now agree that full shell buoyancy would be a
good thing. In that respect you would be in good company, together with
FISA and the Coroner who conducted Leo's inquest.
So please tell us: what in fact have you done to help bring it about? I
do, however, recall you attempting to dress me down, in public at
Nottingham in July 2001, for making public the fact that the chairman of
the ARA Water Safety Committee, of which you were then a member, had
decided for you that "his" committee would be doing nothing in response
to the death of Leo Blockley.
What you see here on RSR is a minute fraction of all there is.
Supposing you were unaware of the vast amount of work behind the scenes,
a glance at Jane & Stephen's current posting may fill in a few gaps.
None of this work is being done to make rowing more costly, less fun,
less exciting, slower. It has no negative consequences - except in the
minds of those, like some of your buddies at the ARA, who like to invent
them.
FISA, which has rather more expertise in this area than the ARA, fully
agrees with our objectives. It has had the good sense to advise all of
its member federations to that effect, publishing at the same time a
sound buoyancy performance standard _&_ a test method. It has also
pointed out the potential adverse legal consequences for those which
choose to ignore its advice. So do you, like the ARA, think FISA is
foolish & ignorant &, if so, on what grounds? But I suggest you first
review the professional qualifications of FISA Materials Commission members.
This is boring only because the ARA is still fiddling & lying. If it
would act responsibly, the debate would be over. of course, I do
understand that one way of foiling progress is to block it for so long
that those calling for it get to seem strident. And, of course, it is
so much easier to block progress if people can be relied on to make the
kind of (unfounded) remarks that you make above.
The simple fact, Liz, is that you have your own agenda & ambitions
within rowing. Sadly, it includes whingeing when we remind people that,
_still_, your buddies at the ARA are opposing the simple action that we,
FISA, SARA, one ARA region & an increasing number of clubs & rowers now
think long overdue for implementation.
Do cheer up, & please get used to the fact that threads may follow paths
you'd prefer were avoided. No one "hijacks" a thread; the path taken is
determined entirely by contributors' responses & it seems you've done
nothing here to alter the present path. By all means start "your own"
thread on something quite different, or try to make a constructive
contribution to the debate that Phil & Caroline initiated - it might
take us elsewhere. But for heaven's sake quit trying to tell folk what
to say &, more to the point, what not to say.
As regards your response to Edd's posting:
Have you tried distributing "floaty, grabby" things from a launch in a
gale to people with water maybe breaking over their heads? I think
you'll find it doesn't do much good, because it isn't like being in a
swimming pool, & because survival still then depends on your ability to
hold onto a floating object which, if fully immersed in cold water,
doesn't last for too many minutes - after which you drown.
Which brings us back to the absolute no-brainer of adequate buoyancy.
If your boat was fully buoyant, you wouldn't be needing "floaty, grabby"
things in the first place.
Thanks for making my point so well.
Cheers -
C.J. Luke
snip
Carl, you have made your point with me. I am a capable swimmer and
the lake I row on is less than 1K wide at its widest point. I have
been rowing every day since I started (about 3 months ago) and I don't
use a life jacket of any kind and don't think my scull is inherently
buoyant. This afternoon, I intend to swamp my scull and determine how
long it remains buoyant with the forward section flooded (it is the
largest void).
I shall immediately procure a suitable personal floatation device for
all future outings.
I was one of those stubborn ones that felt flotation was not a
critical need. I am not that any longer.
Thanks
"The lack of reason is overcome by the passion of belief"
< c...@totcon.com >
Carl
CJ - your response, one of very many such responses I've received over
the years, is most welcome. I thank you.
I do suspect that your boat will prove to be inherently buoyant, but I
am delighted that you intend to test it. Seeing is believing, & real
thinkers are always ready to test their beliefs.
It remains your right to scull wherever you wish without PFD, if by your
own choice. To wear a PFD, if you can do so comfortably, where
distances or conditions make self-rescue improbable, might save your
life & thus save others from dealing with the sordid aftermath of an
accidental death.
To die doing what you most enjoy is probably the best way to go.
To die when the simplest of non-intrusive measures makes that wholly
unnecessary is just a pointless waste of a life.
And I think it obscene for those with no personal experience of
pointless, unnecessary rowing death to seek to stifle protest against
administrative inertia which, having caused others to die unnecessarily,
opposes action to rectify this neglect.
Good sculling!
Carl
I ought, then, to point out that, this last weekend at an ARA course,
the deadly ARA capsize drill (which we have rightly criticised on RSR)
was still being actively taught. It included the insane "sit
upside-down & tap the bottom of the boat", the deadly "swim to the bow &
tow", & various other irrational & untested gems that we have previously
discussed.
There is only one capsize drill that maximises your chances of survival
regardless of conditions. That is the "straddle & paddle" method: you
waste no time but haul yourself immediately over your upturned boat &
doggy-paddle to the bank. Dead simple. No messing.
There's no quicker or better method of self-rescue in any conditions
than the "straddle & paddle". It minimises your exposure to chilling,
renders you the most visible, gives you the best vantage point from
which to plan your actions & your course to safety, permits reasonably
fast (faster than swim & tow) movement across the water, & removes your
dependence on swimming to stay alive. Even if you lapse into
unconsciousness (which will happen much later than if you were swimming)
you may still survive for a prolonged period & so be rescuable by others.
You have only limited time to teach survival drill. That time should be
spent on teaching only what works best. If you also cover the
less-viable alternative methods this wastes valuable time; you sow
confusion & dilute the student's message, both then & in their
subsequent discussions with others. Imagine a shocked, flipped sculler
trying, in cold winter, to recall what they were told some years back &
getting it wrong. That may then become another unnecessary death, like
the sad loss of Sikander Farooq in January 2005.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Richard Packer
>So wouldn't it be better to suggest that a coaching launch carries
>sufficient liferings or suitable floaty grabbable objects rather than
>rowers wearing lifejackets
If you made the rowers' boat itself a large, floaty, grabbable (or
preferably sittable-in) object, you wouldn't have to depend on the
presence of a fully equipped rescue boat (crewed by appropriately
skilled people)... ;-)
I'm sure I once heard someone say something along the lines of
prevention being better than cure.
Jonny
On Oct 19, 1:59 am, "Stephen and Jane"
<stephenDOTblock...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> Jonny wrote:
>
> > If it was an
> > all or nothing scenario and I followed the same logic to its
> > conclusion then no one would be allowed to row at all. Water sports
> > are inherently dangerous - let's ban them all! ; )
> This is not the logical conclusion at all, and no-one has suggested that rowing or any other water sports should be banned.
The last remark of mine was a little flippant, hence the smiley.
> Here YOU seem to be saying it is "all or nothing".
No, Carl put forward a position (that you backed up) that answered a
suggestion that it was possible to risk manage to safely use
non-buoyant boats by saying that it was not possible to do. Not buoyant
meant that we 'failed at the first hurdle' of the risk assessment. What
was said pretty much made it an all or nothing scenario that suggests
that it is not possible to safely use a non-buoyant boat at all,
despite any risk management that might be done.
If you have not fully conveyed your meaning in the earlier posts, that
is fine. It seems that we do agree on most things now that you have
answered my message in depth.
You discuss the 'default' protection that buoyancy will offer. I agree,
but didn't buy the 'fail at first hurdle' proposition made. By your own
example the road system relies on many different things - design of
road, signaling, driver training and also vehicle design. Boat design
(ie buoyancy) needs to be looked at with an eye on these other things -
waterway layout, signaling/management conventions and rower training.
In the same way that a 1968 E-type Jag (no airbags, no crumple zones,
questionable brakes etc) can be safely used on the roads, why not a mid
'80s non-buoyant rowing eight?
Getting back to the original topic (we have been accused of letting
every thread go wandering!) of coach training, we need to improve this
by ensuring that the materials are well designed, and if we cannot
alter these (cue ARA bash) then we need to encourage the 'right' sort
of people to train up to be presenters of these courses and thus be
able to highlight the key issues.
Edd
> On 18 Oct 2006 09:43:30 -0700, "Liz" <liz.p...@amersham.com> wrote:
> >So wouldn't it be better to suggest that a coaching launch carries
> >sufficient liferings or suitable floaty grabbable objects rather than
> >rowers wearing lifejackets
> If you made the rowers' boat itself a large, floaty, grabbable (or
> preferably sittable-in) object, you wouldn't have to depend on the
> presence of a fully equipped rescue boat (crewed by appropriately
> skilled people)... ;-)
There have been times I've had to get people off a boat that wasn't
sinking due to the large tree wrapped around it, but they had to get
out of it at some point. Bouyant boats can't quite solve every
problem!
--
Edd
Christopher Anton
"Jonny" <jonny.c...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1161210395.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
, and if we cannot
> alter these (cue ARA bash) then we need to encourage the 'right' sort
> of people to train up to be presenters of these courses and thus be
> able to highlight the key issues.
>
But how do you do that? The tutors and assessors course are not cheap and
the assessors in particular will hardly have any time to do anything else as
they charge round the region assessing people. My region will pay for people
to become tutors and assessors but that doesn't solve the problem of time
constraints.
Jonny
On Oct 19, 10:17 am, "Christopher Anton"
<c.an...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> "Jonny" <jonny.cantw...@bigpond.com> wrote in messagenews:1161210395.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> , and if we cannot
> > alter these (cue ARA bash) then we need to encourage the 'right' sort
> > of people to train up to be presenters of these courses and thus be
> > able to highlight the key issues.But how do you do that? The tutors and assessors course are not cheap and
> the assessors in particular will hardly have any time to do anything else as
> they charge round the region assessing people. My region will pay for people
> to become tutors and assessors but that doesn't solve the problem of time
> constraints.
I would have thought it was a much better plan to make the tutor and
assessor course free. I even got lunch from Rowing Australia when I did
mine! I even get paid to present the courses - not much, but enough to
make it worth my while to give up a Saturday to help some junior
coaches. My local region put the call out and had over a dozen folks
sign up for the course.
Richard Packer
<eddedm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There have been times I've had to get people off a boat that wasn't
>sinking due to the large tree wrapped around it, but they had to get
>out of it at some point. Bouyant boats can't quite solve every
>problem!
Indeed. Safety in any environment requires a layered approach.
Properly equipped coaching / safety boats are important too, but do
not replace the basic requirement to make the rowers' boat
self-buoyant in the first place.
Phil
Carl wrote:
<snip> No one "hijacks" a thread; the path taken is
> determined entirely by contributors' responses <snip>
As there is no Chairman or moderator here, you are entirely correct.
However, in order to facilitate enlightened debate rather than anarchy,
I would hope that contributors would look at the subject line to
determine if they have anything to add to each topic. Create a new
topic if you have something different to say, they are quite cheap.
My initial question about the new coaching courses was important in its
own right, and for quite different reasons to the floating debate. I
see that the latest replies on this topic have come full circle in
acknowledging this.
Regards,
Phil.
Edd
> Carl wrote:
> <snip> No one "hijacks" a thread; the path taken is
> > determined entirely by contributors' responses <snip>
> As there is no Chairman or moderator here, you are entirely correct.
> However, in order to facilitate enlightened debate rather than anarchy,
> I would hope that contributors would look at the subject line to
> determine if they have anything to add to each topic. Create a new
> topic if you have something different to say, they are quite cheap.
The accepted way to do this is usually to change the subject line but
still follow up to the original post. This lets people with proper
newsreaders track the conversation but keeps the subject line
appropriate. Starting a new topic but continuing the conversation from
another isn't quite the best way to do it.
Most people forget to change the subject line though :-)
--
Edd
Liz
Jonny wrote:
> > , and if we cannot
> > > alter these (cue ARA bash) then we need to encourage the 'right' sort
> > > of people to train up to be presenters of these courses and thus be
> > > able to highlight the key issues.But how do you do that? The tutors and assessors course are not cheap and
> > the assessors in particular will hardly have any time to do anything else as
> > they charge round the region assessing people. My region will pay for people
> > to become tutors and assessors but that doesn't solve the problem of time
> > constraints.
>
> I would have thought it was a much better plan to make the tutor and
> assessor course free. I even got lunch from Rowing Australia when I did
> mine! I even get paid to present the courses - not much, but enough to
> make it worth my while to give up a Saturday to help some junior
> coaches. My local region put the call out and had over a dozen folks
> sign up for the course.
A number of regions appear to be subsidising the tutor/assessor courses
and, once qualified, the tutor does get paid (expenses?) out of the
course fee for participants. But, there are very few tutors. I'm not
convinced that the ARA Coaching group don't actually realise that even
if we do do their exorbitantly priced courses, most of us still don't
want to go on to be tutors, we want to coach rowing not teach coaching.
Edd
> Carl wrote:
> <snip> No one "hijacks" a thread; the path taken is
> > determined entirely by contributors' responses <snip>
> As there is no Chairman or moderator here, you are entirely correct.
> However, in order to facilitate enlightened debate rather than anarchy,
> I would hope that contributors would look at the subject line to
> determine if they have anything to add to each topic. Create a new
> topic if you have something different to say, they are quite cheap.
The accepted way to do this is usually to change the subject line but
still follow up to the original post. This lets people with proper
newsreaders track the conversation but keeps the subject line
appropriate. Starting an entirely new thread but continuing the
Liz
Carl wrote:
> >
> > And that's why your messages are not getting through at all to grass
> > roots in this sport - the participants - because you've alienated so
> > many of those volunteers in the middle ground.
> >
>
>
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
You do know this forum is colloquially know as rec.sport.rant?
Carl
In their (off-topic) enthusiasm to make a bogus case, critics have
entirely failed to notice that I did not take this thread off-topic in
the least.
For those with short memories, here is how Caroline responded to Phil's
initial posting:
"I've nearly finished tutoring it for the first time. So far
I'm managing to keep one step ahead of the candidates, but am
having to add quite a lot of my own material to supplement
what the ARA provided me with, though that was the case with
the IA award as well.
"The new modules - Fitness & Athleticism, Core Stability,
Developing Technique, Risk Management, Dynamic Warm-up - are a
good idea, but they've missed out some modules from the old
course - Session Planning, coxing, rowing (i.e. sweep-oar as
opposed to sculling) which I feel should still be there - and
will be in my course."
I responded directly, & directly on topic, to her reference to the "Risk
Management" component of the course. In what possible way was my
response off topic, pray?
Would it be unreasonable to suggest that at the very least, & before
leaping onto any passing critical bandwagon, folk should take the
trouble to re-read the thread to ensure their comments are appropriate?
Carl
Actually, no. But I'm sure that you feel, with your so-selective
editing above, that you have made some stunning point or other.
Instead of such pointless clever-dickery, Liz, why not at the very least
attempt to address the points made in my posting? I'm fairly confident
that the reason you do not do so is because you can't.
Jonny
On Oct 19, 7:06 pm, "Liz" <liz.pla...@amersham.com> wrote:
> You do know this forum is colloquially know as rec.sport.rant?
That's funny!
And a little sad.
Phil
Carl wrote:
<snip>
>
> I responded directly, & directly on topic, to her reference to the "Risk
> Management" component of the course. In what possible way was my
> response off topic, pray?
>
> Would it be unreasonable to suggest that at the very least, & before
> leaping onto any passing critical bandwagon, folk should take the
> trouble to re-read the thread to ensure their comments are appropriate?
>
> Cheers -
> Carl
>
experience of the new UKCC level 2 course. An important debate
flounders in the sea of dross which inevitably accompanies the floating
debate these days. YES - of course the two are linked (and we took
40-odd posts to come to that realisation), but then I reckon that I
could turn any post here into a discussion on floating given the sport
that we all serve.
Cheers,
Phil.
Stephen and Jane
> Carl wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> I responded directly, & directly on topic, to her reference to the
>> "Risk Management" component of the course. In what possible way was
>> my response off topic, pray?
>>
>> Would it be unreasonable to suggest that at the very least, & before
>> leaping onto any passing critical bandwagon, folk should take the
>> trouble to re-read the thread to ensure their comments are
>> appropriate?
>>
>> Cheers -
>> Carl
>>
> Of course it was off topic - my topic as OP - unless you had any
> experience of the new UKCC level 2 course. An important debate
> flounders in the sea of dross which inevitably accompanies the
> floating debate these days.
One man's dross is another's important debate.
Surely there is meant to be room for all opinions on anything rowing
related - even if threads get mixed up and meander a bit. If your thread
fails to get the response you desire, then bring it back on topic by posting
again on the original subject.
We've learned a lot from rsr and don't want to see it limited in any way.
Rants, dross, flounders and the odd declaration of royalty are all welcome
here as far as we are concerned - because in and amongst there are always
gems.
J and S
Carl
Hold it just there, Phil.
I dealt solely with that aspect of the topic which Caroline raised &
upon which I _was_ well informed. As ever, I avoided those areas on
which I was inadequately informed. As a result, there were ~40 posts.
What, precisely, was so wrong with that?
Are those who rose to my own posting were a bunch of sheep, unable to
follow independent trains of thought? Or do you imply that they were
unfairly drawn to the point I made - that there's presently a
longstanding flaw in many rowing risk assessments. Obviously they felt
the need to challenge the points I made, & in the main they did so with
most welcome bluntness. Similarly, I answered them directly, as always.
And what was wrong with that?
Every so often someone resents a thread diverging from their preferred
path. But where does it say that you or anyone else may suppress an
open, if rambling, debate? Why do folk appoint themselves to make rules
for RSR? If they want debate to go a certain way, then let them take
the initiative & take it there, but for heaven's sake don't whinge. The
ways in which debate goes will always be those that most pique
contributors' interests, whereas censorship only stifles debate. We
have neither censor nor moderator here, yet the silly ones play
elsewhere while RSR continues to cover a wealth of topics &, in so
doing, conveys a wealth of good sense.
Liz pretends that RSR is withering. It's doing nothing of the sort, &
she well knows it - sorry Liz! She can't answer the awkward questions I
put to her, so to salvage pride rather than to inform, she sinks to the
selective quoting of past posts to make a bogus case. It's pretty
cheap, but apparently some find that kind of thing clever......
I don't & won't start telling Liz what not to say, but I will certainly
underline the flaws, say what I think & invite her to engage in a proper
debate rather than sling mud. I remain in forlorn hope that she might
yet do so. Similarly, I don't expect to be told how I may or may not
respond to any given thread. It's a simple matter of whether you want
open, messy but rich seams of debate, or you want it all nice & PC, no
awkward question, no sudden enlightenments, no strong feelings, all
anaesthetised & all bland. What a difficult choice!
Phil
Carl wrote:
<snip>> Hold it just there, Phil.
I'm well aware, as I alluded, that anyone is free to do exactly what
they like on here. However - in so doing - I feel that an important
topic has been trampled over. All I was asking for is a little order so
that we may all see the issues clearly.
Cheers,
Phil.
Carl
>
>
> I'm well aware, as I alluded, that anyone is free to do exactly what
> they like on here. However - in so doing - I feel that an important
> topic has been trampled over. All I was asking for is a little order so
> that we may all see the issues clearly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil.
>
I'm with you there. We've aired risk assessment, raised awareness & a
few feathers, & it can rest awhile.
Now I hope, really, to learn more now about the other aspects of the
course. I'll watch with interest & hope to learn.
Henry Law
> The straddle & paddle method of self-rescue - lie over the upturned boat
> & doggy paddle to safety - is the best method at all times.
Actually no; on the Bridgewater canal - maximum depth around four foot
six - the best method is to stand up and wade over to the side. Main
component of the risk assessment is the likelihood of sharp things
buried in the sludge at the bottom.
(Of course, Carl, you know that I agree completely with your general
position on this; but I couldn't resist the opportunity to state the
/only/ advantage of our otherwise very restricted piece of water :-)
> So to teach swim & tow, even as an option, is folly. To ask inverted
> scullers to tap the bottom of their boat is fatuous. And to tell them
> to ferry glide can be deadly advice in any kind of a stream.
I was one of the "subjects" at an ARA course at the weekend where the
would-be instructors were being taught how to coach capsize drill. Yes,
tapping the bottom was being taught, but it was made clear that this was
part of the /drill/ in the swimming pool - to allow the rower to
demonstrate some degree of control over their actions, and not be simply
panicking to get up to the surface. The instructor whom I questioned
did not think one needed to do it in a real capsize. Personally I
still think it's a bit unnecessary, but I can see the point as a
component of a drill.
(I'm pleased to report that I was able to get back into the single too;
I thought that maybe it was just something that the young fit guys, with
high power-weight ratios, could do.)
--
Henry Law <>< Manchester, England
Carl
> Carl wrote:
>
>> The straddle & paddle method of self-rescue - lie over the upturned
>> boat & doggy paddle to safety - is the best method at all times.
>
>
> Actually no; on the Bridgewater canal - maximum depth around four foot
> six - the best method is to stand up and wade over to the side. Main
> component of the risk assessment is the likelihood of sharp things
> buried in the sludge at the bottom.
>
> (Of course, Carl, you know that I agree completely with your general
> position on this; but I couldn't resist the opportunity to state the
> /only/ advantage of our otherwise very restricted piece of water :-)
>
That's OK, Henry! Sadly, the case I mentioned earlier - a rower
drowning when his boat holed on a small river - occurred but a few miles
from the Bridgewater, on the original Agecroft stretch of the R. Irwell
at Prestwich. You ought to've been able to have walked out of that. In
fact, rumour had it that you could on some days you walk _on_ it without
penetrating its peculiar epidermis. But not on that day.
Stephen and Jane
>
> I was one of the "subjects" at an ARA course at the weekend where the
> would-be instructors were being taught how to coach capsize drill. Yes,
> tapping the bottom was being taught, but it was made clear that
> this was part of the /drill/ in the swimming pool - to allow the
> rower to demonstrate some degree of control over their actions, and
> not be simply panicking to get up to the surface. The instructor
> whom I questioned did not think one needed to do it in a real
> capsize. Personally I still think it's a bit unnecessary, but I can
> see the point as a component of a drill.
I have to beg to differ with you here Henry.
The purpose of the capsize drill is to teach and give people experience of
self rescue, so that they can put it into practice when they find themselves
unexpectedly immersed. One important component of the process of self
rescue from a capsize is to get out of the upturned boat and get your head
above water as quickly as possible. If you happen to capsize in cold water,
the cold shock effect will cause an involuntary intake of breath, and if
your face is still under water at that point you will inhale a significant,
life threatening amount of water.
The purpose of practising the techniques is so that you can reproduce it in
an emergency without having to think too much about it - because when it
happens in real life you spend the first few vital seconds just trying to
take in what is happening. The average rower gets very limited opportunity
in which to practice the drill; why waste this by doing it differently to
what is actually needed in the real situation? Why waste the opportunity to
practice the vital technique of getting your head above water as quickly as
possible?
Taking time to do the two taps while submersed in the swimming pool capsize
will not add any sense of control when the real thing happens. The sense of
panic or anxiety felt when someone capsizes in real life is largely not
voluntary. It is a natural physiological reaction, which is only overcome
by frequently repeated practice in real life conditions - an option not open
to many rowers. It is counter-productive to give rowers the impression that
it is somehow their own fault that they feel a sense of panic in a real life
emergency. It would be more helpful to teach rowers to expect it, and
reassure them that it can be useful in giving a little more muscle tone and
strength, getting more oxygen into the tissues etc (in the same way that
athletes use the raised adrenaline levels at the start of a race to give
them an added physical boost).
The instinctive message your brain gives you when you are unexpectedly
submersed is to get your nose and mouth out into the air as soon as
possible. This is a survival message honed by years of evolution- so use
it, don't fight it, whatever the ARA says!
Jane.
Paul
I am afraid I must disagree here. In most situations a single sculler
capsizing doesn't get their head wet at all, because its a slow motion
- oh damn lost my blade, looks like I am going to get wet - event . But
there are occasions when this is not the case. While a pool capsize
drill can never prepare you for the shock of full immersion in cold
water it can be used to reassure you that if you do go fully over then
you have time and don't need to panic. Which is he purpose of the
taping the boat. My wife is a perfect example, not a confident swimmer,
who was terrified of doing the capsize drill and instinctively didn't
go under water. She was made to do it again, properly, and then when
she realised she was not going to drown, tried it a third time just to
make sure. She is now much more confident and is much less likely to
panic in a capsize situation, and I am much happier abut her being out
in a single scull.
Paul
Stephen and Jane
> Jane
>
> I am afraid I must disagree here. In most situations a single sculler
> capsizing doesn't get their head wet at all, because its a slow motion
> - oh damn lost my blade, looks like I am going to get wet - event .
> But there are occasions when this is not the case. While a pool
> capsize drill can never prepare you for the shock of full immersion
> in cold water it can be used to reassure you that if you do go fully
> over then you have time and don't need to panic. Which is he purpose
> of the taping the boat. My wife is a perfect example, not a confident
> swimmer, who was terrified of doing the capsize drill and
> instinctively didn't go under water. She was made to do it again,
> properly, and then when she realised she was not going to drown,
> tried it a third time just to make sure. She is now much more
> confident and is much less likely to panic in a capsize situation,
> and I am much happier abut her being out in a single scull.
>
> Paul
I'm glad your wife feels more confident, which is the benefit of practice.
She has learned how to get her face out of the water, and that in a warm
swimming pool she has enough time to do that, with a little time to spare,
in which she was able to knock on the boat. However, if she is unfortunate
enough to capsize fully in cold water it will feel completely different, and
she may be subject to the cold shock effect. In these circumstances she
will have less time - no time to spare. The confidence she has will be less
useful in these circumstances as it is based on a completely different
experience: the unexpectedness of the event and the coldness of the water
are hugely significant differences from the pool version. Her body will
react automatically to produce a feeling of panic due to sudden reflex
raising of adrenaline levels. This process is the same for us all - though
will be less and less intrusive in those who have been in the same real life
situation several times. She may not decide to panic, but she will feel
panicky nevertheless.
Going through a full capsize in a swimming pool is very useful in order to
learn that it is possible to get your face out of the water and how to do
it. The more practice the better. The two taps are a pointless addition
which acts as a possible point of confusion, and detracts from the real
business.
It is absolutely no use trying to tell people not to panic, and misleading
to suggest that the two taps will reduce the risk of panic in the real
situation. It is better to be honest and admit to people that they WILL
feel panic, but they will be able to cope with it. The last thing you need
when you've capsized for real is to feel that the sense of panic is your own
silly fault (because you were told you shouldn't), that you are letting
yourself down (because you have been told panic will lead to failure), or
that this means you won't manage to self rescue.
Jane
Paul
I don't think the two taps are the important bit, I think the point,
and am happy to be corrected, is to be fully under water for a
(slightly) extended period. To give people the confidence that if they
are fully immersed and their feet are stuck they have time to get them
out, you could tell people to count to two before releasing their feet
instead. Of course you are correct in that a pool drill can never
prepare you fully for the real thing and there will be that initial
panic in a real situation, no matter what. But it is, I think most
people would agree, the least worse option.
Carl
> Jane
>
> I don't think the two taps are the important bit, I think the point,
> and am happy to be corrected, is to be fully under water for a
> (slightly) extended period. To give people the confidence that if they
> are fully immersed and their feet are stuck they have time to get them
> out, you could tell people to count to two before releasing their feet
> instead. Of course you are correct in that a pool drill can never
> prepare you fully for the real thing and there will be that initial
> panic in a real situation, no matter what. But it is, I think most
> people would agree, the least worse option.
>
If you have even to start to think about releasing your feet when
capsized, then either your heel restraints are incorrectly installed, or
you've laced yourself tight into your shoes.
I still vividly recall watching a sculler on the far side of the course
at Mannheim regatta almost drown because he could not release his
tied-in feet & the launch had simply sped past him. The assumption that
you have time to fiddle around while inverted is another of those fatal
armchait notions which ignore reality - in this case the reality that,
when you capsize, you will probably be breathing hard, not expecting it
& may even be injured or winded by a collision or crab. You certainly
won't be playing in a swimming pool.
The event I described happened about 4 years after I'd introduced the
restrained heel release system into rowing. Rowers were still drowning
because, as shoes displaced clogs, no one in authority thought it their
job to mandate heel restraints, & some even thought it effete or unduly
fussy to incorporate simple, passive safety devices into our valiant sport.
Perhaps that delay (it took about 8 years before heel restraints became
madatory, & still it is ineptly administered) provides a useful
illustration of why we are continuing to press so determinedly over the
various cardinal defects & plain muddled thinking which still pervade
the present safety policies?
Cheers -
Ewoud Dronkert
> Taking time to do the two taps while submersed in the swimming pool capsize
> will not add any sense of control when the real thing happens.
I wouldn't be surpised if the original intention of the tapping thing
was to increase the safety of the test, a trigger for the test
supervisors: no immediate tap, then assist!
There signs like that in other immersion tests like for fighter
pilots.
--
E. Dronkert
Paul
I've seen it happen.
Carl
> Or your feet are too big for the shoes and you have to wedge them in,
> I've seen it happen.
>
Yup! Because shoes on stretchers are considered non-interchangeable
(which is not so often true). And clubs won't keep spare sizes.
Again, why don't we address this properly? We invalidate a life-saving
system with ill-fitting kit. Are we just a bunch of dim-wits?
Shoes replaced clogs not because clogs were uncomfortable but because it
seemed fashionable or racy. A few, very few, had problems in clogs due
to ankle inflexibility, which only needed better means of adjusting the
clogs. Clogs were generally comfortable, very adjustable for size &
lighter than shoes. They were non-absorbent, not those stinking havens
of foot infection that shoes so often are. They lasted. And, best of
all, if you fell in your feet fell straight out of 'em.
We've added cost & weight, while reducing safety. Are the claimed
benefits shoes worth a single rower's life?
Henry Law
> You do know this forum is colloquially know as rec.sport.rant?
Full of rants? You haven't seen anything. Try some of the politics
groups, or the religious ones, especially (it seems to me) those with
Christian in their names. Or uk.transport: completely over-run, when
last I looked) with petty personal squabbles and wars between the "cars
are great" and "cars are the ultimate evil" factions.
And, with the regrettable exception of the recent playground outpourings
from Hannah The Magnificent or whatever her name was, we get almost no
insults here.
If you move to a proper newsreader (I'll help if you need it) you can
even filter by thread, and just ignore the ones you think are ranting.
Christopher Anton
news:116129237...@demeter.uk.clara.net...
>
> Actually no; on the Bridgewater canal - maximum depth around four foot
> six - the best method is to stand up and wade over to the side.