I also find the dynamic risk assessment element odd. I am not completing that on a paper RA form when I’m out on a river/lake/bike trail/mountain and the situation changes. Hold on peeps, let me get my RA form out in this horizontal rain so I can document my dynamic RA…
After, maybe…but what’s the point then?
It could be my ASD, but when I first look at that it feels like I’ve taken off my glasses or something (if I wore glasses)… It might as well be a blur. Too high an information density.
I have to really concentrate to read the text.
I dread to think how anyone with dyslexia would approach it.
If it were me, the first thing I would do is to get that “guidance” off the top of the front page and put it on the back - it’s already duplicating information there as it is. The two could be combined to present the same information, comfortably, on one page.
I understand why they’ve got the guidance… But I suspect that there will be plenty of people (quite likely the people who don’t really understand the process and actually need the guidance) who will look at that and, like me, immediately think “blaaaaarrrghghh!”
I can’t help but think that for those who are trained and don’t need to re-read the guidance it probably does little more than to clutter the page, in a location which would be better used as the main header - to easily and quickly identify which RA one is looking at; and that those who do need the guidance would find it more helpful if presented separately and far more clearly in a dedicated “how to conduct an RA” document.
The rear page could then simply list the likelihood and impact scores, the risk matrix, and the control measures for quick reference.
I have been told (a few years ago and not looked at the new form yet) that if you are are on the mountain and you have to depart from RA in a dynamic manor it has to noted there and then. And yes that means printing them out and carrying them with you.
That sounds like it’s been spoken by someone who’s never actually been on a mountain (or any other activity) in those kind of conditions where a dynamic risk assessment is necessary.
Oh. We’re multiplying numbers again, and the building and surrounds generic RA has it wrong in the first line. 3x2 has never been 5…
I also disagree with some of the impact scores. Surely a fire is more than a 3/5 on severity? Same with COSHH. The likelihood might be low, but someone swallowing chemicals or an actual fire must surely be critical?
The same with electricity. They list the hazard as “potential for electrocution”, which by definition is being killed/severe injury by electric shock. That is a 3, so possible, but only a 3 for impact rather than 5 for critical. Again, looks like people writing what they want to see rather than actually assessing risk. Surely the risk of electric shock is remote, and at the very worst unlikely.
Surely that’s “as soon as practical”. It makes sense to me - when you go back and finish your SMS activity and then go on to reproduce the RA for next time, you have a note of anything extra that you had to do last time.
If it was a one-off event in very specific circumstances then the likelihood of it happening again would dictate if you put it in for next time. But if it’s something that you missed or a permanent change because of unexpected geography/access/quality changes then you don’t want to forget it.
It seems like it’s more “somewhere to put it” as an option if you need it. You might previously have noted your DRA actions in additional controls after the fact or on a blank line. Of course, you could note it on your phone or in a notepad or whatever is more convenient at the time, but putting a space on the RA for it is a good prompt of “hey, you need to do this”.
I don’t see a change in requirement for carrying RAs on an event coming. Whether on unit activities would be different I don’t know. It’s surely about access. When I run FT they are in a commander’s folder which is “publicly” accessible to all staff for reference (i.e. not in my pocket) along with all other exercise docs.
…
A wild RSA appears…
How do I do that when I’m sat in a sea kayak and the sea state / tidal movement changes unexpectedly?
Quickly?
with a waterproof pen
Holding my breath as I’ll probably be doing it upside down.
Any other time I’ve seen these has usually been xls format with conditional formatting that automatically colours your boxes in nice and pretty, doing the maths for you (clearly needed) and drawing your attention to anything that needs further review.
You don’t. Ergo:
anyone willing to do the lords work for us and convert?
I agree entirely - my point was that it sounds like some people have said it must be noted there and then. No ‘when practical’ about it.
I’m all for reviewing the activity afterwards and updating the RA if it needs a review. But I’d just add in a new hazard / change the risk calculation - not fill in a dynamic RA box?
I haven’t looked at the GRA yet but I agree… That’s absolutely bonkers!
A 3? “Possible”? Meaning “fairly likely to occur”!?.. WTF? Have they ANY controls in place? Like, you know, CE marked equipment, the building having been wired to IET standards, electrical safety inspections having been carried out?
Whoever thinks that it’s “fairly likely” that someone will be electrocuted - and that constitutes a “low” risk - either has no idea what English words mean, or is living in world of make-believe; with flowers and bells and leprechauns, and magic frogs with funny little hats…
All of which further raises questions as to how I, a volunteer with no building knowledge, can assess a property for which I’m not the custodian and cannot effect the control measures. I could write in the assessment that the building is wired to IET standards but I don’t a) know that for sure, as the RFCA manage it and b) cannot ensure this will be true in the future as I don’t choose contractors, thereby failing the assessment.
Mind you, that’s the case for the majority of users in any office environment.
Nobody could every risk assess anything if we were required to confirm first hand that every conceivable issue had been properly dealt with.
You can legitimately take a certain amount on trust.
Yes, but in an office environment you would have a facilities team who might be trained or experienced to deal with it. It wouldn’t be down to the CEO to do that if they have a team of people whose job is maintenance of facilities.
Don’t we have something like that . . . 