It opened in Chrome, perhaps I have a duff setting somewhere because my Edge account is used on phone and browser?
Yep, that was it, I was on âmobile viewâ apparently. The setting is hidden away bottom right.
Just what an oppo said fell out of the RA course they attended yesterday. And the notes promulgated by our Wgs HSO last month.
Interesting that the IBN doesnât say said dates. I shall therefore go with the published policy document!!
2 Likes
A post was merged into an existing topic: You know what really grinds my gears? The Gears Strike Back
New response from CESO via RCN on VoV.
Acronym-tastic.
3 Likes
So - question for those here - what do we think about this. A risk assessment for an activity that isnât self contained - i.e. it has a line at the top which references policy document which contains the GRA and just states which serials from the GRA.
Then further controls have been added.
So theyâve not taken the GRA in itâs entirety and amended it - but referenced it within the RA itself.
Personally it makes me uncomfortable as all of the hazards & controls are not listed in one place.
5 Likes
Agreed
If an activity commander only has access to the primary activity RA and not immediate access to the GRAs how are they mitigating the GRA risks.
I donât like that either. Using the GRA is good practice, but only by adopting the GRA completely or by incorporating the whole GRA and then adapting as required for your activity. The published RA for the activity should be a stand alone document.
I donât think thatâs intrinsically wrong. You might reference a manual handling risk assessment rather than listing (again) all the manual handling controls you put in. Same with transporting people in vehicles.
I personally prefer to keep separate the different activities so that when updating it is cleaner and doesnât mean you need to update the same thing 3 times.
1 Like
Thatâs fair when youâre adopting the whole manually handling RA, but if the new RA only references bits of it, that could get confusing Iâd suggest.
Thereâs referencing an RA though as @grounded says (i.e. in the top right hand box of the old form) which implies you are complying with it in its entirety.
This appears at least to just be a shortcut bacuase the author didnât want to copy & paste or amend the GRA.
It means that any reviewer or staff on the activity does not have access to the majority of controls for the activity unless they go and dig out the GRA from the policy document on Sharepoint - which Iâd hazard most would be unwilling / not bothered to do.
So, would you fail this in an audit? What policy would you point to?
1 Like
I would say if they have referenced the GRA and not included it in their application, then yes I would fail the audit on the basis they havenât submitted the correct paperwork for that activity. ACP5? Or ACTO10? One of the two surely mentions this.
Youâd think so wouldnât you. Thereâs nothing I can see that says the activity RA should be self-contained. The only possible thing I could link it to is the stipulation that the contents of the RA must be communicated to those involved in the activity - which you canât possibly do if all you have is the RA on SMS which includes the first line which says âsuch and such GRA serials 1,5,9.12.15,24â or similar.
I was sure there was something that listed what was required to be submitted for an activity though? Is it maybe in the relevant ACATIs instead?
It says a risk assessment for the activity⌠which they have provided.
Itâs the risk assessment suitability / sufficiency which is at question and there doesnât seem to be much in our HSEP policy which you can judge it against. There is an implication that you take the GRA and add/remove as you see fit.
I donât agree with it personally - but in an audit itâs not my personal opinion - Iâm looking to point at black and white policy that has not been complied with.
I think youâve hit the nail on the head there.
Our HS&EP policy is so loose with regards to running activities. My TSA was previously insisting that there should be only one RA applied to an event, with every single activity included into the single RA, resulting in a huge document.
Would you be happier with them referencing serials from the GRA if they uploaded the GRA to the sms event, and also had a print out with them on the event?
1 Like
Yes, I would I think. In my mind it would be tidier (and clearer for everyone involved) if the RA for the activity (walking, climbing, shooting, whatever) deals with all the risks for that activity in one document.
I have no particular feeling against multiple RAs for an event (e.g. a DofE event having separate walking, camping, stoves RAs) as I more than understand the administrative benefits this has. However in my experience (from an approval perspective) multiple RAs often result in people duplicating hazards between them and applying different controls in each document. Then it gets a bit dubiousâŚwhich set of controls are you working towards? Is everyone sure what they are following?
As for a printout - thatâs up to the activity commander how (and when) they communicate the contents. Iâm less convinced by the âbrief from your RAâ argument as if you brief everything in that RA you will over-face the participants and they will not remember half of what youâve just told them. There is a reason the industry uses simple briefing models for participants - e.g MYABCDE - becuase people only remember the last couple of things you told them. The risks are managed and controls implemented by the leader as you progress in the activity.
2 Likes
That used to be LaSER policy in general. I once ran a week long camp and they wanted it all in 1 document!
It canât have been a particularly well applied policy⌠Iâve never done that and Iâve always had events authorised with multiple RAs as necessary.