 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
PJSki, + 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I also work in construction, writing method statements and risk assessments for a company employing 400 men.
I don't visit site before writing a risk assessment as they are task related.
Let me put this into skiing parlance...
Tobogganing - causes lots of accidents, causes spine injuries, don't do it.
Asthma attack - Does child have inhaler? where is local medical centre in resort? What is emergency services phone number?
Hotel is next to main road - have children any experience of road traffic and do they understand how to cross a road?
Hotel has stairs - Do children have experience of using stairs (like the ones at school)?
There is no legal requirement for a risk assessment in any activity, work, play or otherwise. It can be good practice but if the person writing it needs to visit the location to consider the risks, they are the wrong person to be writing it.
I have no doubt, as I said in my opening post, that TO trips for risk assessments are pure inducements.
The rantings of Samburger Sue only reinforce that opinion. No one has added anything to what was at best the flimsiest of defences, for these trips, other than them being a jolly. The wording of the SE article actually alludes to this by even offering heli skiing, if the organiser can round up enough kids!!
All of the operations and activities of a ski trip risk assessment can be discovered by calling the hotel and the TO, or by using the web to research things such as contact numbers and hotel locations.
Risk assessments are all about identifying hazards and discussing how these may be minimised. There is no significant hazard that could be identified in a European resort that would not be anticipated from a desk in the staff room. EU residents are bound by the same public safety laws as the rest of us and the skiing resorts have millions of visitors through them every year... all who do have their holiday without a personal risk assessment. They all rely on common sense and EU law.
If we ever got to the stage of needing risk assessments by law (it will never happen because of the burden shift in liability), this could easily be covered by risk assessments being filed on line. A school wishing to go to Val d'Isere, for example, could look on a DofE database and see what someone else had done and use that. Upon arrival, any slight changes could be dealt with by a 10 minute modification to the RA. A risk assessment is only ever that. It shows you have thought about the risks and assessed how they can be reduced, if reduction is possible. Sometimes the hazards and the risks they create cannot be reduced, but they can still be assessed. The risk of injury caused by falling whilst skiing is one such hazard that cannot be reduced by a resort visit and is probably one of the biggest ones facing an organiser.
I realise the database idea may not be popular with teachers that enjoy the freebies, but it would mean that all of their work really could be seen as altruistic and not carrying the chance of being accused of accepting inducement.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Mon 23-05-11 22:17; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
bar shaker, Spot on, thread closed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
| ...........There is no legal requirement for a risk assessment in any activity, work, play or otherwise.... |
The HSE says otherwise
| The HSE wrote: |
| As an employer, the law requires you to assess and manage health and safety risks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
bar shaker,
| Quote: |
I also work in construction, writing method statements and risk assessments for a company employing 400 men.
I don't visit site before writing a risk assessment as they are task related.
|
FWIW I work in the oil and gas industry on the drilling side of things, so am more than au fait' with risk assesments. I can spot a office written risk assesment at 100 yards and IMHO they are not worth the paper or Ink costs.
The drilling industry moved away from that type of paperwork excercise aout 15 years ago, about the same time as a number of high profile multiple deaths on school trips was forcing LEA's across the country to re-evaluate the freedom they gave to teachers to simply bundle kids on a bus and head to the hills/sea/quarry etc.
The atttitude to risk assesment that says you can do it all from a comfy office may go a small way to explaining why for every person killed in the offshore drilling industry the construction industry kills 200 when the offshore drilling environment is arguably a more hazardous one.
I have also had the misfortune to have been a school governor at 2 scools as well as a Schools trust Governor for the last 7 years so I am also au fait with the falibility of school systems.
What a lot of posters seem to assume in the kids is something that sadly for many of them no longer exists......namely common sense ...an example? you may think oh look there is a broken electrical socket i will stay clear of that and assume that others will.......not true of teenage boys....."the i wonder what would happen if"?? takes over.
Society has mollycoddled our kids to the point that a lot of them no longer percieve risks in the things around them, Schools are part of this but they are just complying with policies made as knee jerk reactions to media hyped events. sadly the risk assesment process has to now fill the gap in basic hazard awaremens that maybe did not exist in previous generations of school children.
By all means taunt staff who take weeks holiday with the family as a freebe, I think they are deserving of the same type of response as MPs fiddling expenses and bankers taking huge bonuses, but the 1-2day trip performed prior to a visit to a new destination before taking 40+ kids of their first ever overseas trip is complying with the LEA requirements and as far as trip leaders are concerned that is the law.
| Quote: |
There is no legal requirement for a risk assessment in any activity,
|
So why are the risk assesments the first thing the HSE ask to see when they come to investigate an accident? Why do they then ask if the people involved in the task were involved in the risk assesment and if the risk assesment was undertaken on site and reviewed prior to the job, at the site. Why do they then issue improvement notices and prosecutions based on inadequate risk assesment? Very little of the regulatory framework is prescriptive these days, most is based on risk assesment and poor risk assesment is negligent....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I see the trolls are all out in force - must be fun having a party together 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samerberg Sue, don\'t you feel any sense of shame when you see what some of these young man achieve post injury compared to yourself?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Samerberg Sue, This is a post by you on the subject and is your outline of what you did on your resort visits 20 years ago, and all that you gathered and gleened then seems to be readily available now through published documents, contacts and electronic correspondence via the internet. What would you be doing as part of a inspection trip today that could not be done based upon real data that is available remotely, via the internet, rather than actually visiting a ski resort like, say, Interlaken. Also, if you did decide to do an inspection trip because of some real concerns, what would you do as part of an inspection trip to the same resort a year later.
edit - what is the difference with the report you gave your group leaders who had not seen the resort/hotel/pistes etc and would be relying upon ... and a report I might do and rely upon with out having likewise seen the resort ?
| Samerberg Sue wrote: |
bar shaker, it is also important for staff to know where all the safe pistes are as well as the main facilities. Things like evaluating the risks around the hotel that would normally not be seen as such, for example is the hotel on a road where the younger pupils could be at risk. I always used to talk to the owners about the licensing laws and the need to ask a member of staff before serving a student with an alcoholic drink (we took a very wide age range on our trips and sixth formers do not always look that old while Year 8 & 9s can pass for a lot older if they want to).
It does not matter how good the reps are, if there is an accident the party leader is in loco parentis and needs to get to the medical facilities quickly in order to authorise treatment. Not easy if you do not know your way around the resort and you are elsewhere when the call comes in.
I always went back with a folder of information and photographs for my group leaders each time we went to a new resort. After a while I decided that it was better to stick to a resort we knew that had loads to offer. I travelled there under my own steam for my holidays and built up an excellent rapport with the hotelier, ski school and equipment supplier as well as the various entertainment venues we took the students to each year. Funnily enough it is the same resort that Team Evolution chose for their base so it can't be that bad, can it?  |
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 24-05-11 7:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
kevindonkleywood, i would agree that risk assessments that have simply been pulled from the word processor can be flawed, but that is not what I, or others are advocating. Where site specific knowledge is required it should be used, but if this information is already available by way of videos, photos, webcames, data, previous inspection trips etc., is it really a necessity to fly half way across Europe for a week to go and look at it ... for a common place holiday such as a ski trip ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saurkraut Sue, I see you have found time to join us again, what was the delay, Stannah not working or where you too busy down the post office picking up the pension.!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
For what its worth I think that both the rayscoops, andkevindonkleywood views are persuasive.
Maybe there is no right or wrong way to do this sort of risk assesment. Perhaps a significant factor here should be transparency. If there has been any sort of on-site pre-visit then that should be openly declared to the parents, including details of cost to parents and/or benefit to risk assesor and family if applicable.
Applied to SE would this have made interesting reading for parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
It is the law that is the ass. If we contarct a company to carry out work for us e.g. fixing a roof, then I think it should be the responsibility of the contractor to have a safe working method and to carry out any required RA. It should not be our responsibilty to check all their systems. Bloody barmy.
Again, these RAs should be allowed to be carried out by the specialist school tour companies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops, please read  i have repeatedly said that 1-2 days are sufficent
If you genuinely believe you can risk assess a school outdoor activity trip from photos then fair enough fill your boots, I have also said on several occasions that a lot of schools repeatedly visit the same resorts because of that very reason...ie they do not have to repeat the visit if and they can update what they had last year.
Trust me as soon as you become liable in law (which as a School governor/head/staff you are) for the safety of other peoples children then you feel different. Maybe you would be beter under the Scandanavian system where teachers are not legally liable for the safety of the kids, that liability remains with the parents. If a kids does something stupid in the playground and hurts themselves then that is their problem. The teachers/school will not get layers4u knocking on the door the next day.
Why not put your name forward as a school governor? you can then drive the policy of you local schools risk assesment, as a keen acomplished skiier you may even want to help out go with the kids to the slopes..........you will have great fun and find out just what a great holiday and fantastic freebie a group of 40+ teenagers on an activity trip can be. TBH if you survive the coach trip to the airport you are made of sterner stuff than me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
edit - and whilst Leeds Utd may not have put the case forward with crystal clarity, if such trips are deemed necessary then maybe they should be transparent, paid for by the school/LEA and carried out by some one experienced in this activity rather than a school teacher
|
rayscoops, Thanks and crystal clarity was there in my own mind just that it was drowned out by the red mist of the blatantly obvious 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| .....I am not sure what being there in person will really add to the risk assessment apart from maybe getting me off the hook if something goes wrong. |
Unfortunately, I think that has to be thought about these days.
| Quote: |
| ........ carried out by some one experienced in this activity rather than a school teacher |
You may have a point, there. Though no doubt some school teachers do have the qualifications/experience, and have the benefit of knowing the children that will be going on the trip, and what particular risks they pose (for example, ADHD might be something to consider).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
This thread has got me thinking. I was qualified to lead any British military party anywhere below the permanent snow line (rock climbing excluded) - and very specifically, I did not have to be familiar with the terrain. In practice what I did was brief myself thoroughly on the areas I would be walking, including reading guide books, especially where scrambling was involved. I also let the party in on what it could expect. But I was dealing with military folk - accustomed to do conforming with instruction. I was also leading in a less litigatious age (though even then the H&S@W act was in force, I was aware that I was accountable for what I did). School children are more of a handful than any one of my parties was, and there is a track record of taking teachers to court if something goes wrong. So if I were a teacher today, I think I would want to be familiar with where I was taking the children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
achilles,
| Quote: |
I would want to be familiar with where I was taking the children.
|
Simple solution is to go with a reputable experienced company reccomended by the LEA 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
achilles, I have been lambasted for suggesting that a ski guide needs to have skied a route (especially Le Grave couloirs) before taking paying guests down the route, and an example whereby a guide took a snowhead down a route that had never actually even been skied (only became accessible due to large snow fall) or the guide had even seen was not sufficient for the majority to agree that an 'inspection' was required. Putting this up against those tha advocate an inspection trip to ski resort is necessary makes for an interesting comparison.
I may check to see if any of those that said the guide need not have skied the route are also those that say an inspection trip for a school ski holiday is a necessity 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Boredsurfing, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roy Hockley,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
rayscoops, mountain leadership presents interesting problems. I think the decision on whether to go on a route unfamiliar with the guide depends on a number of factors - including the reported route complexity, conditions, the weather forecast, the fitness and experience of the party, and the degree of risk acceptable to all. Leading a children's party must be much more limiting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
I have been lambasted for suggesting that a ski guide needs to have skied a route (especially Le Grave couloirs) before taking paying guests down the route, and an example whereby a guide took a snowhead down a route that had never actually even been skied (only became accessible due to large snow fall) or the guide had even seen was not sufficient for the majority to agree that an 'inspection' was required. Putting this up against those tha advocate an inspection trip to ski resort is necessary makes for an interesting comparison
|
The teaching staff are often the ski leaders for the groups.
The ASL and ASCL are essentially on snow risk assesment courses, chosing lines for your group etc
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
kevindonkleywood,
| Quote: |
May I disagree by agreeing? Toofy Grin I agree with your comment that SE has used the lure of innapropriatly generous (bribery) trips and that not only has this lead to such polerisation of views such as seen in this thread but probably comprimised the ability of staff to genuinely do their job properly, afterall you would not wish to bit the hand that has so generously fed you. I do feel that anyone who took a weeks vacation on SE's account has displayed a lack of judgement, and even more so if the entire family were included.
|
At last i feel we are in agreemant on one thing and that is all i have been trying to say from day 1.
I have asked previously how many people have taken a freebie with SE and then come home and booked with another T/O, i have unsurprisingly not had many answers, now that maybe that the people who have done so are not prepared to admit it or those that did go actually went on to book with SE.
You sound a very sensible chap and will know that there is no such thing as a "free lunch" and that if you have sat at the table to eat said lunch you are ethically compromised in your buying process.
Anybody who is of the though that these inducements trips are really free is kidding themselves, in the bigger picture of the operating business somebody somewhere will have factored the cost into the overall business be it in the marketing budget or cost of sale.
Now do some sums, if for example 2 people are wined and dined at SE's expense for 7 days all inclusive you must be talking thick end of a couple of grand, times that by the number of freebies offered in a season, not sure how many they gave away but i would hazard a guess that it is going to be more than 50, now we are talking in the region of £100K to come from somewhere. Remember his business is not a charity, unless you count himself in that word and they have to be paid for by somebody, my conclusion is the cost of his or anybody elses holidays could be cheaper if it did not have these inducements factored in.
EDIT: Now having spent some time looking at dedicated school trip TO's websites i have yet to find one that offers free trips under the term "inspection trip" so maybe it was only SE that flew this particular kite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| kevindonkleywood wrote: |
| Quote: |
There is no legal requirement for a risk assessment in any activity,
|
So why are the risk assesments the first thing the HSE ask to see when they come to investigate an accident? Why do they then ask if the people involved in the task were involved in the risk assesment and if the risk assesment was undertaken on site and reviewed prior to the job, at the site. Why do they then issue improvement notices and prosecutions based on inadequate risk assesment? Very little of the regulatory framework is prescriptive these days, most is based on risk assesment and poor risk assesment is negligent.... |
An employer must consider the hazards his employees may encounter and must take steps to minimise them, where possible. That is his legal obligation.
I do not agree that a risk assessment must be written only after a site visit. If my men are laying bricks on a scaffold (erected correctly and checked by our client, before being released to us) it does not matter if that scaffold is in Romford or Reading.
Accidents on site are almost always caused by people ignoring the prescribed working procedures. Improvement notices and the like will almost always be to bring these practices up to scratch. The most common activities to be affected are demolition and scaffolding with falls from height the biggest killer in construction.
The construction industry has made itself about as safe as it has ever been* and is almost 4 times as safe as farming and less than twice as dangerous as working in a factory. If we could get people to work in the manner they are briefed to work in, we could make it even safer. Site visits to write the task risk assessments would not help.
*HSE figures are at http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
With regards to the importance of a school trip location being assessed before being visited, the only things that can be assessed are the things unlikely to present hazards. The hazards that cause accidents will be those that did not exist at the time of the inspection or will be ones that arose because the party did not follow the guidance given on how to behave safely.
The publication of school RAs for future use by other schools would, IME, eliminate the need for every school to send someone to every resort, every time a school skiing trip was planned. It would also raise questions that may not have been asked before. As Kevin and I know, our RAs must be reviewed before they are accepted. If they are lacking, they must be re-written before they can be used. How do schools achieve this important stop-check, unless they send a second teacher for yet another visit?!
And lets face it, the kids are going to a holiday resort, not carrying out welding 50m under the North Sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
And what's the point of visiting a resort to write a risk assessment, when your tour operator switches resort on you at the last minute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Bode Swiller,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Bode Swiller, Good point well made, shame you didn't make it 3 pages ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rayscoops, more like making sure that sticking to the approved resort is of the essence of the contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Bode Swiller, Very good point and the right answer is that the trip should be cancelled 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back on track please, are teachers trips to resorts inducements
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Boredsurfing, Ah because when the TO provides notification of change of resort he also provides one of his own perfectly acceptable risk assesments to get you out of a hole
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leedsunited,
| Quote: |
to get you out of a hole
|
I think that is covered in the Mountain Leaders course
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I agree with your comment that SE has used the lure of innapropriatly generous (bribery) trips and that not only has this lead to such polerisation of views such as seen in this thread but probably comprimised the ability of staff to genuinely do their job properly, afterall you would not wish to bit the hand that has so generously fed you. I do feel that anyone who took a weeks vacation on SE's account has displayed a lack of judgement, and even more so if the entire family were included.
)
