Title | Report of Activities of Chris George (RWSA) November 2004 to October 2006 |
Author | Chris George |
Date prepared | October 2006 |
The report in the 2005 AGM was written by my Deputy, Neil Jackson, in my absence abroad in October 2005 and I have taken the liberty of including some data from 2004/5 to provide some background for this year’s report.
The role of the Regional Safety Adviser [RWSA] is defined by the ARA as follows:
· Be fully conversant with the Water Safety Code and Guidance Notes
· Assist with risk management where requested
· Receive and act upon the Annual Club Safety Audit return
· Give feedback on Safety Plans for events
· Promote safety training within the Region
· Facilitate contacts with local river users groups or similar bodies to assist understanding and resolve areas of conflict between users
· Facilitate contact between clubs and local navigation or other relevant water authority relating to local water or weather conditions
· Advise Club Officers where unsafe practices are seen to be taking place
· Exercise authority, in conjunction with the Regional & Club Officers, to suspend boating activities where seen to be unsafe.
· Report to Regional Council meetings
· Produce an Annual Safety Report for the Region
· Disseminate good practice
· Develop contacts with Club Water Safety Advisers
· Establish and maintain contact with the National Water Safety Adviser
I report, initially, under these above heads with subsequent supplementary data:
· “Receive and act upon the Annual Club Safety Audit return”
In February 2005, 204 clubs were listed on the ARA records as being in existence. The audit was paper based and contained some 30 odd questions and was sent to the ARA who determined from what region it came and posted it on to the RWSA. This was not an efficient process as some other region’s audits came to me and there were plenty of cases of “alleged” sending, never substantiated, and proven actual sending which did not reach me. 108 (53%) genuinely failed to submit an audit not only in 2004 but also for the previous year in 2003/4. Just over 30 of the clubs were found to be dormant, link or subsidiary clubs with little or no actual rowing activity. Some clubs were special cases, for example the service clubs and the skiff clubs, and not suitable to be assessed solely with the standard audit form. Other commonsense assessment criteria were used for such clubs.
By July 2005, following extensive correspondence and communication, 189 clubs had submitted audits. Four clubs either had ceased to exist or had moved from the Region making our total a round 200.
Until such time as the job becomes a paid part or full-time office, a RWSA is not in a position personally to inspect 200 clubs and so, in accordance with the manifesto provided at the AGM last November, it was decided to appoint others on a divisional basis to carry out a system of personal inspections and to delegate to those persons the job an individual inspection of the Club. As Council is aware this was taken on by Council in July 2005 but did not happen. Accordingly, Club audits were only signed in cases of personal knowledge and inspection and the approval in other cases was qualified as being solely based on an assessment of the paperwork. This can still be very illuminating. If paperwork was seriously wanting, I reacted accordingly.
In 2006 a brave attempt was made by the ARA to computerise the audit process and it was expected that this would be operating by November 2005 with the on-line ARA. I redrafted and proposed to the Water Safety Sub-Committee a new, extended audit form, which was accepted and improved by the National WSC. This increased the number of questions from about 30 to about 60 and, inter alia, provided a new requirement for a club to have a Deputy WSA with telephone and email. This was because I had had experience of clubs having no WSA when he or she was on holiday! In November 2005, I developed links with an IT specialist, ‘Thoughtspace’, with a view to the region organising its own audit structure but held off pending the promised ARA on-line system. Following a series of failed deadlines from November 2005 to February 2006, the ARA decided, in late March 2006, to revert to an individual system of electronic audits on an excel spread sheet. The prospect of cutting and pasting 200 audits with 60 sets of data (which would have taken me over two weeks working 50 hours a week) did not appeal and so, with Council’s consent, the region set up its own on-line audit system in early April 2006. This whole process was completed in six days which reflects well on the region and Thoughtspace. Those audits that had not been done already on the excel system were now to be done on the regional one with the huge advantage that all data were automatically collated. Thanks are due to the immense skills of the Hon. Secretary Andrew Russell for his collating the previously-submitted data on the spread sheets to enable a combined sheet for all club submissions.
By the end of April 2006, only just over 25% of the 200 clubs had sent me the audit in accordance with the ARA instructions.
By mid June 2006, about 50 clubs still remained to be audited, some quite prestigious ones (that should have been better organised!) including lots of schools and universities. A list was posted on the safety website and the ‘url’ published in the Rachel Quarrel and Slug websites. Those remaining at the end of June - some 30 odd - were written to by the Chairman. This had a suitably dramatic effect so that by mid July all but two clubs were audited and the final two were finished in August 2006.
It is clear that auditing is a process that is best done on line and I have fought, with some success, against the proposal by the ARA office to allow a reversion to paper submissions. The present system collates all the data into one CSV file saving hundreds of hours of work. It is easier for the clubs to do and there can be no argument that it got lost in the post! For this reason I have agreed with the NWSA, Stuart Ward, the option for my successor to benefit from this and have commissioned our IT specialist to upgrade and improve our system following the feedback from this year so that the 2007 audit will all be done on line and the results collated.
At my suggestion, the 2007 audit has yet again been modified by the NWSC and has three more questions on boat buoyancy. This is designed to concentrate the minds of club officers on this issue and to provide quantitative data for the region ahead of any enquiries under the auspices of ROSPA.
· “Give feedback on Safety Plans for events”
In excess of some 85 events submitted safety plans in 2005. Considerable help was provided by Margaret Adams with her umpiring knowledge and, with this advice, it was possible to provide feedback on event safety plans submitted.
The main difference that was observed between good and badly submitted event safety plans was in the provision (or not as the case may be) of the Rule 2.2.3 diagram requirement. Accordingly, a website was set up to inform Event WSAs exactly what was required of them. Even today in late 2006 a few event WSAs are failing to read this. The next most common difference in approach was in the risk assessment, whereby some regattas covered everything under the sun and others only some water risks. Numerical or quantitative assessments varied with some events choosing not to cover risk assessments quantitatively.
There was a problem peculiar to the (lower) Tideway events, which had 3-lane racing in that was not compatible with the then Navigation Rules (NTMU6 2002) and to the requirement for fair racing. These problems were to be resolved the next year (see later).
Feedback on safety plans supplied by events was provided with advice aimed to achieve a common system but allowing events the freedom to accept or reject any advice, other than if it was a Rule of Racing. This was on the basis that events were responsible for running themselves and should know the local conditions better than an external adviser.
In September 2005, a seminar covered the issue of events organisation, which resulted in a most helpful guidance on the Rule 223 diagram.
Under the aegis (chairman) of Stan Collingwood the sub-committee responsible for looking at Tideway Regattas came up with a draft code which was accepted by Council and for which I thank the committee most gratefully as it, independently, came to exactly the same conclusions that I had been endeavouring to advise these regattas for the previous year and which advice had not then been taken favourably! As a result, three-lane racing has been suspended for a period of assessment. With goodwill and common sense this can be reviewed in 2008 with a view to establishing a lookout and radio link system that will enable three-lane racing to take place where and when necessary for the event.
Throughout 2006, events were easier to ‘confirm dates for’ because the previous year’s paper work was generally right and simply modified. Some events were still in need of attention and the Council imposed sub-committees to investigate and advise such events, often with changes of personnel on the committee. It became clear that events were not adhering to the requirement of Ccouncil to submit paperwork within a month and so Council required me to revert to them (or the Chairman) if they were late in applying for the date to be confirmed so as to leave out of the remit of the RWSA any decisions to proceed. This has had a hugely beneficial effect in reducing the last minute hassle that these inefficient events imposed on the time and goodwill of the RWSA and his Deputy.
Including private events, there are now nearly 100 events. Private events with four or more clubs attending (note the Wingfield Sculls next year!) should know that they need national consent for the dates and need to submit safety plans to the RWSA. More recently, this month, it has been agreed that safety plans must be submitted to the region for any event even if it is less than four clubs.
· “Promote safety training within the Region and Develop contacts with Club Water Safety Advisers”
In 2005, a website was commissioned, together with a separate safety section, for communication with club safety advisers and event advisers. Council was asked and agreed that every event and club water safety adviser must have an email that is regularly and frequently available to him or her in order to facilitate a group communication system.
Additionally, the Regional CDO organised seminars, some of which have elements of safety, and one of which was devoted entirely to safe steering on the Tideway.
The club and event auditing system does, in itself, provide a considerable element of training.
In 2006, with the new audit, deputy CWSAs were required of clubs and this gave a second string of contacts within the clubs.
The Tideway navigational education day the day of the Head of the River was a Council-inspired promotion of navigational safety. It would be good to extend this to the other major heads particularly the Schools Head and to have the peak times on days before covered.
· “Facilitate contacts with local river users groups or similar bodies to assist understanding and resolve areas of conflict between users”
There has been extensive consultation, mainly under the auspices of the PLA, with other river users groups. In 2005, meetings were held at the Corinthian Sailing Club, Bakers Hall and elsewhere and in 2006 there were the usual River Users’ Consultative Forum, public meetings with the PLA and monthly meetings of the Rowing Risk Assessment Implementation Group [RRAIG] which has all the major river user groups represented.
With the consummate drafting skills of Neil Jackson and David Foster, I have agreed with the PLA a simple “Framework for Investigating Rowing Incidents” for how incidents are to be dealt with between TRRC and PLA.
· “Advise Club Officers where unsafe practices are seen to be taking place”
This has been achieved by communication with the club safety advisers who, in turn, communicate with their own club officers. In 2005, there was a welcome change of attitude on reporting behaviour inconsistent with good safety standards, particularly on the Tideway.
In February 2006, at the request of the PLA who had had a series of complaints of crews navigating on the ebb on the port side of the Fairway, I travelled up the starboard station at a weekend of normal traffic and took photographs of the many rowing vessels which were in the fairway on the wrong station. This promoted some ‘discussion’ in various fora but the point was made and it drew to the attention of many more crews the need to keep to starboard.
Advice has been given and in most cases accepted in good grace with a noticeable improvement in the performance of the clubs concerned.
With the advent of the new Tideway Code and Disciplinary Code in October 2006 it is hoped and expected that further improvements will occur this as the message begins to percolate to the clubs and thence to some of the more “resistant” veterans therein!
· “Exercise authority, in conjunction with the Regional & Club Officers, to suspend boating activities where seen to be unsafe”
5 Clubs in 2005 and two clubs in 2006 were suspended from rowing for failure to submit audits. Disaffiliation proceedings have been avoided.
· “Report to Regional Council meetings”
These reports may be found as a matter of record on the new TRRC main website.
· “Establish and maintain contact with the National Water Safety Adviser”
Contact was made prior to my election in 2004 and I have attended, not only the regular meetings of the NWSC, but also am involved in the working group of the safety sub-committee which meets about monthly in between the quarterly NWSC meetings. Regular telephone and email contact takes place on matters of national interest relating to the region.
In addition to the above heads other work was done and reported as follows:
o RRAIG
I served on the RRAIG which, after over a year of effort, produced two publications. The first is the rowing chart, which was funded by the TRRC at not inconsiderable cost and which is an A0 guide designed to be simply understood, put on the boat house door or crew room wall. The second is the Tideway Code itself which is a 60- page booklet funded entirely by the PLA and freely distributed to the clubs. Both were launched on the 6th October 2006 at an excellent function hosted by the PLA. I wish to note here on the record my personal admiration of and thanks for the work and approach of the PLA which is much misunderstood in the rowing world.
From within this group I assisted on the wording of various Notices to Mariners and in particular that of the NTMU15 2006. As a result of our negotiations we have reached a position which is an improvement in the wording of the 2002 NTMU6 with respect to the requirement not to proceed abreast in the Fairway and when we are and are not allowed in the fairway. It is still not widely understood that rowing boats should not be in the Fairway by default and have to be in a position to justify using it.
o The Water Safety Working Group
This meets once a month and I have attended most of the meetings in 2005 / 2006. The areas of work were such as hypothermia, capsize and immersion, looking at ways of republishing the Water Safety Code and safety development generally. The findings are published by the NWSC. One development of this working group has had a direct beneficial impact on the TRRC and that is the proposal for a funded incident reporting system on line. Funding is yet to be forthcoming from the ARA but is expected and the project has been commissioned and is in progress as I write.
On-line reporting - pilot project of the NWSC for the Thames Region
The purpose of this project is to establish ‑ as agreed with the Water Safety Committee of the ARA ‑ a pilot for the Thames region of an on line incident reporting system that can be done easily with the use of drop down boxes and ‘auto-fill’ to make the process as simple and quick as possible.
The idea is to produce a one‑location catch‑all facility to report all incidents and to have all these data collected and collated automatically by the computer software and sent to all the relevant authorities or, if not sent, an email sent informing them of where they can find these data.
Ideally, each of the 5 or so categories of incident report will be collated. For the time being the region is mainly interested in reporting of ‘navigation and bad behaviour etc.’, incidents and on this I have for the time-being concentrated.
The phasing of this is likely to be in three stages
Phase 1) the setting up of the system with the written word (i.e. no maps or charts) to report only bad navigation etc with emails, reports and data collation to the Region.
Phase 2) the provision of an on-line chart for every part of the river Thames both tidal and EA together with all other water on which Thames regional boats row ‑ e.g. Dorney, Reading, Caversham, etc. to allow for the reports an integrated chart showing the position of boats in the incident.
Phase 3) the incorporation of all ARA and PLA reporting systems both recordable and reportable into the ARA system with the ability to print out hard copy and a suitable back-up facility.
I envisage the system to work as follows
• Go to the ARA TRRC and all club sites to find an url for incident reporting
• This directs to the Thoughtspace server website (or its software on the ARA website)
• Click on the opening button to go through the various decision trees laid out in the attached Word file “incident reporting 061002 .doc”
• At all stages you can save the report and come back to it
• or navigate up and down it
• at all stages you can go backwards and forwards
• there are plenty of text boxes for other comments
• there is a map of the system on the side so people can go straight to what they want
• only certain parts are ‘essential’ data that must be filled to be able to proceed (to be agreed)
• the whole is printable by the users at front or back end
• The print-out is condensed (and in phase 2 includes electronic diagrams)
and in phase 2
• Diagrams and charts are simple and as small as possible in term of bytes of size but as large as possible in terms of vision and marking
• They need to be scalable where practicable i.e. you can zoom in to a bit of river say 200 m long and get some detail
and in phase 3
• Integration with the ARA and PLA.
Incident reporting and analysis of data.
Total number of incidents on the Non-Tidal Thames Region by year and club ‘type’
Total number of incidents on the Tidal Thames Region by year and club type
Total number of incidents on the Thames Region by year and club type
2006 - Incident reporting and analysis of data.
Co | Collision – most common incident – boat to boat |
Cp | Capsize |
Sw | Swamping |
Tr | Trailer |
He | Health related |
Cr | Collision with fixed object, crash, (Bank, bridge, moored boat, pier etc.) |
Cb | Collision with private craft – cruisers, pleasure launches, narrow boats, umpires & coaches launches. |
Eq | Equipment failure |
Nav | Navigation infringement |
Oa | Outside agency – vandalism – loutish behaviour |
Ob | Falling out of boat, injury occurring within boat; e.g. catch a crab, damage to self |
Lb | Land based incident |
2005 - Incident reporting and analysis of data.
Commentary
I bow to superior analysis and correction by statisticians and damned liars but it “seems” to me that in the early years the alleged lack of incidents had less to do with safe rowing and more to do with failing to report accidents in the first place. It is noticeable that schools report He (Health based accidents) and Lb (land based) and one school in particular. I find it unbelievable that other schools, junior based clubs do not have the same experience. It is far from certain, in my opinion, that all significant accidents are reported. It is difficult to estimate but I suspect that currently as much as 10% of significant accidents and many, many more near-miss incidents are not reported. These statistics do, however, indicate certain trends. It is noticeable that capsizes are reported more often by younger groups such as schools, that the Tideway – despite being much larger has lots more collisions boat to boat but the non-Tideway has many more collisions boat to other than rowing boats.
There is an encouraging reduction in reports for 2006 over 2005. The data for the previous years from 1994 to 2004 shows an increasing trend of accidents but as I happen to know of several in 1997 not on the list I suspect the increase reflects more the quality of actually reporting it rather than an increase in accidents themselves!
o Regional data collection
I have set in process with Thoughtspace the start of a regional data collection process initially to collect and collate the ID of launches all clubs, from whatever region, who wish to use the tidal Thames. This system will be used to maintain an up-to-date register of all such launches available to all authorised users. This was a requirement of the Tideway Code that the region has agreed to do to carry out with PLA.
It is envisaged that the system can be expanded in due course to obtain other data.
o Incident reporting and meeting the Harbour Master Upper
The liaison between the PLA and the TRRC RWSA has been productive with each starting to understand each other’s problems much better and it has been noticeable that the number of incidents that we have discussed has of late reduced considerably.
I have been immersed in safety for the Region for some two years and have formed an impression of the areas of risk about which we need to be aware. In no particular order I think clubs need to address how they deal with:
- Foreign and UK training camps preparation
- Processing and training novices and juniors
- Record keeping with respect to safety
- Coach training at an initial level prior to formal levels such as UK level 2
As a region we need to consider:
- Handling and disciplining non-regional crews (both ARA and other nationals) on the Thames
- Boat lists of IDs available updated on line for all regional (Tideway) clubs
- Regional data collection
The future
It takes no less than 20 and often 30 hours a week for the RWSA to do this job. I have received and sent well over 4000 emails to date this year. Even if each one took as little as 2 minutes to write (and some took nearly two days!) that is 130 hours of work just sending. Some of the RWSA’s work is mindless, repetitive work that could be done by a secretarial or other service, much is work caused by the attitude of rowers who do little to help themselves by not first reading the TRRC website before coming to me with problems or work to be done, much could be delegated if there were persons willing to accept a small part of the work load but they are few and far between. It is clear to me that the way forward is to go along the high technology route with on-line audits and accident reporting and automatic data collation and also to devolve responsibilities down to sub-divisional units and have some system of peer auditing of safety club to club. The alternative is to employ someone full time and that would be a complete waste of money. Such money is better spent on systems and, where necessary, secretarial-type services.
For the future, ideas for development that will be undertaken in the near future in Council’s new Development Adviser role inter alia are to;
1) Map all the hazards of the Thames and put on the website so any person going to any club can download the map and circulation pattern and all known hazards when assessing risks
2) Establish and develop an electronic reporting "system"
3) Develop an on-line interactive navigation knowledge test of tideway steering
and others tests as appropriate with a print out proving certification
4) Research a water temperature measurement system that transmits wirelessly to the clubhouse an electronic read out of the ambient water temperature to enable risk assessments easily to be done.
Finale
The last two years have been eventful with the Salvage Association Risk Assessment and the drafting of a new Code for the Tideway on top of the normal burden of administering such a large region. We have come a considerable way since 2004;
o with practically every boat identified and listed
o all clubs with CWSAs and deputies – with emails
o an audit for 2007 that will require buoyancy data, (which will be of considerable help when we have to answer questions of the Parliamentary Safety review)
o a proper system for Tideway launches and their lighting
o and, perhaps the idea with which I am most satisfied, the installation of a line of buoys to mark the Surrey side of the fairway which, eventually, will have lighting on each end buoy.
Chris George
RWSA 2004/5 ; 2005/6