A sackable offence (was re Leo Blockley Memorial Campaign FAQ)
Stephen Blockley
Mr Thomson's letter.
Having just returned from an update course on Risk Assessment/Management
these words from Thomson's letter meet my eyes:
1)"A scenario does arrive where an activity can be made so safe that its
participants take greater and greater risks"
Your WATER SAFETY OFFICER wrote these words! Look closely and read the
meaning. "We shouldn't make rowing inherently safer because people want to
take risks". Or to be brutally honest," The odd death or injury here and
there keeps people on their toes."
His letter can be summed up along the lines of "It was Leo's own fault that
he died, but anyway let's not change anything because other rowers would
only find other ways to deliberately put their lives in danger."
Apart from the staggering callousness of what he says, the psychology is
completely wrong (see our earlier contribution on people's perception of
risk "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Thames" - 23 Feb 2002).
If my Safety Officer at work expressed such views (especially to a national
newspaper) I would sack her PDQ.
2)" If it can be shown that our advice to stay with the boat at all times is
wrong then we will change it"
We have never claimed this advice is wrong, just that it is completely
inadequate. This is not an either/or dilemma. Adequate boat buoyancy is a
required ADDITION to proper safety awareness. Once again Leo's last ever
rowing outing with OULRC met all the bullet point standards in Thomson's
letter.
Thomson is a liability to the ARA, and to it's members. His views are
dangerous. He has insulted our son, and all those others who suffered in
the accident, and you, the rowing public, once too often.
We are making our views on this known to Leo's divisional rep.
Please all of you do the same,
Jane and Stephen.
To: Charlie Norton, Daily Telegraph
"From: WC Thomson, ARA Honorary Water Safety Adviser (sic)
"Date: 22 April 2002
"You asked for some comment on the inherent buoyancy of boats used by
the ARA's member clubs. There follows some general comment on the
issues, without seeing your article we cannot comment directly on the
points you may be raising.
"The ARA is constantly in touch with boat and equipment manufacturers to
ensure that the equipment we use is safe for its intended purpose.
"There has been considerable discussion over the in-built buoyancy of
boats, particularly since the swamping of the OULBC (sic) eight whilst
at a training camp in Spain of (sic) the River Ebro in December 2000.
"It is held by some parties that additional bulkheads and flotation bags
would have in themselves avoided the accident and that therefore the ARA
should recommend to its members, our boatbuilders and the International
Federation the immediate introduction of such additional buoyancy. It
is our current belief, that such modifications would not necessarily
have avoided the tragedy.
"Our primary concern in matters such as this are of avoidance. We ask
that proper risk assessments are carried out by coaches and crews before
embarking on any training activity. This means:-
* Looking at and understanding weather conditions and their likely
effect upon water
* Using local weather reports sensibly
* Being well versed in the water conditions of the river or lake
being used, particularly where it is unfamiliar
* Having adequate and competent safety boats and crews in attendance,
particularly when large expanses of water are likely to be
encountered
* Observing strict safety drills before and during the outing
* Ensuring that the crew and coxswain are sufficiently experienced
and competent for the activity contemplated
* Condition and suitability of equipment, 'fit for purpose'. The ARA
definition of 'fit for purpose' is that in the case of the crew
having to evacuate the boat, for whatever purpose, the boat should
have sufficient buoyancy to support the crew holding onto the boat
until they can either swim with the boat to safety or be rescued.
Different manufacturers have different methods of achieving this
aim, depending on construction, materials used etc. The
fundamental rule and advice in all cases is not to leave the boat
"A scenario does arrive where an activity can be made so safe that its
participants take greater and greater risks. Our policy is one of
education and avoidance. If it can be shown that our advice to stay
with the boat at all times is wrong then we will change it.
"The ARA's work on safety is ongoing, with analysis of accident reports,
advice and education, and regular revision of its Water Safety Code,
which is mandatory for all affiliated clubs. It has an excellent safety
record, and will continue to strive to ensure that its members are well
educated and aware of the risks associated with the sport."
- ENDS -
John Mulholland
racing. When I first started watching, about a third of the drivers died or
suffered serious injury every year. Thirty years on, the last fatality in a
race was that of Ayrton Senna almost exactly eight years ago. The cars are
getting safer but that does not detract from my enjoyment of the sport.
Why should rowing be different ?
The safety improvements in motor racing were all introduced by the FIA
because many of them slowed the cars. The teams would not have introduced
these changes without legislation because it would have put them at a
competitive disadvantage. While the changes proposed to boats have almost
no downside, they will be made much more quickly if enforced, or at least
encouraged, by the ARA. Hopefully FISA will also pick up on this campaign.
Keep the pressure up; your tragic loss gives your words far more weight than
anything the rest of us can say. We are right behind you. None of us wants
to lose a friend.
John Mulholland
Hexham Rowing Club
"Stephen Blockley" <Stephen....@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:3cc82df1$0$8513$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> We've taken the liberty of starting a new thread following Carl's posting
of
> Mr Thomson's letter.
>
> Having just returned from an update course on Risk Assessment/Management
> these words from Thomson's letter meet my eyes:
>
> 1)"A scenario does arrive where an activity can be made so safe that its
> participants take greater and greater risks"
>
> Your WATER SAFETY OFFICER wrote these words! Look closely and read the
> meaning. "We shouldn't make rowing inherently safer because people want
to
> take risks". Or to be brutally honest," The odd death or injury here and
> there keeps people on their toes."
>
<snip much good stuff and some worrying complacency>