Race Marshal Manning Levels

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

It's a big "if"! Four is, in my opinion, too many. The way I've been trained is that incident marshals work in pairs;

Every practical fire training session I've been to says you have four: two pairs of power/foam, and that doesn't even include driver/lookout duties.

[deadsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

My point is, that there exists an upper limit on what is safe/reasonable on each post, and therefore on each circuit.

But no-one seemingly is listening. (I'm agreeing with you )

I know that every BTCC round is no-go for me now - much as I'd like to support my local tracks' events, I'm not willing to work on such densely packed posts.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by deadsquirrel

But no-one seemingly is listening. (I'm agreeing with you )

The good news is that, if you go all the way back to post #1 on this epic, it would appear that overmanning has not escaped the attention of the MSA.

[MacGWC]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

28 Marshals per post is wrong!

I don't think anybody is suggesting we keep numbers to a bare minimum, but we do have to set a maximum safe/reasonable number. No doubt, that number will include trainees who get to take advantage of on post experience.

Quoting only part of the sentence is unfair!! The rest of my reply noted that even in the halcyon days, Silverstone ES would limit numbers and that the more popular meetings were always rationed - and that I expect this to happen now, where appropriate. All I ask is for better communication between all concerned so that we use such meetings to provide some much needed on-post training for trainees - the key word being communication.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by MacGWC

Quoting only part of the sentence is unfair!!

It seemed to me, that that particular part of what you were saying was advocating not limiting numbers yet. It's that particular point that I was contesting. Since your whole comment was available immediately above what I said, and in any event by clicking the quote link plus the fact that anybody who clicks the 'go to first unseen post' link would see your whole post before mine, I don't believe that it was unfair to do so.

It's a case of, never mind "before we get to limiting numbers." We are there now. It is necessary. Frankly I'm quite surprised that it doesn't actually already happen.

[Power Bulge]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

I really thought that to state that every post has a different maximum number would have been to state the chuffin obvious.

But you didn't state the chuffin obvious, you stated a specific number, which may be misinterpreted by those scanning the thread

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

It's a case of, never mind "before we get to limiting numbers." We are there now. It is necessary. Frankly I'm quite surprised that it doesn't actually already happen.

But only in your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion, and I will defend your right to have it, but it is not the only opinion.

The original article from the MSA seems to suggest that limiting numbers will encourage those who miss out to go and marshal somewhere else, but is this really the case? From my point of view, it would be a difficult choice. I have made a large number of friends that I only meet up with at the BTCC, and that is a large part of why I travel the distances that I do, so the most logical thing would be to spectate at those events as their "+1".

The end result is that some of those affected by any selection system will take the hump and give up altogether, some will go and marshal at other events, and some will just take the weekend off. Manning levels may be reduced for all events, which means those that are struggling now will have even less.

What would you do, if you were rejected for an event for which you had volunteered?

[HairyDJ]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

What would you do, if you were rejected for an event for which you had volunteered?

Been there, done that already. Teddy stayed in the pram and I helped elaewhere that weekend. Maybe I realised that the event was bigger than I was .....

[PabloTeK]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

What would you do, if you were rejected for an event for which you had volunteered?

Silverstone BTCC this year. Not overly bothered, in fact I did something useful whilst watching the 4-wheels-off occuring!

[MacGWC]

[QUOTE=Guinness2702;2787279]It seemed to me, that that particular part of what you were saying was advocating not limiting numbers yet. It's that particular point that I was contesting. QUOTE]


Yes, I agree that part could perhaps have been a little more clearly stated!

The early part of my submission did make clear that numbers have and will always be trimmed where appropriate. It is just that we have not seen the need to do so too often in the last ten years or so when marshalling numbers were very much reduced. Thanks mainly to the efforts of Team Wilson/BMMC, numbers are increasing but newer members may not remember times when the GP was several times over-subscribed and it was almost impossible to marshal the FF Festival (when it was at its best!) unless you were a BRSCC regular at Brands Hatch. We all learned to live with the disappointment of not being chosen. Just as we are free to choose which meetings we want to attend, the clubs have the right - and the duty perhaps - to limit numbers where necessary.

As a past Chief Marshal, I do not envy the Chief Marshals their task in selecting who should and who should not be invited!

All I ask is that we should not miss this opportunity to provide valuable on-post training for some of our trainee marshals, something that has been sadly lacking in recent years - and that we spend as much time trying to encourage better attendance at some of the less well-supported meetings.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

But you didn't state the chuffin obvious, you stated a specific number, which may be misinterpreted by those scanning the thread

I'll give you that one I was referring to the average number per post at BTCC @ Brands, but come to think of it, that was in a different thread. My bad.

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

but it is not the only opinion

Really? You don't think that it's a matter of fact? There may be some expert judgement required to determine the actual number (and I am by no means that expert), but surely there is some natural correct maximum number.

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

The end result is that some of those affected by any selection system will take the hump and give up altogether

As opposed to those people who will get the hump because they're at an overmanned meeting?

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

What would you do, if you were rejected for an event for which you had volunteered?

As for dropping out of Brands, I sent my tickets back (as requested) and went up to Croft, instead - 3 of us on the post. Also, chose to not even volunteer for another BTCC meet, as otherwise I would have missed both 750 meetings at Brands...so BTCC won one, and 750 won the other. Bottom line (as I have always done on the several occasions I've been surplus to requirements in the past): Do a different meeting.

[Sparky-steve]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

As for dropping out of Brands, I sent my tickets back (as requested) and went up to Croft, instead - 3 of us on the post. Also, chose to not even volunteer for another BTCC meet, as otherwise I would have missed both 750 meetings at Brands...so BTCC won one, and 750 won the other. Bottom line (as I have always done on the several occasions I've been surplus to requirements in the past): Do a different meeting.

with the choice of BTCC or 750 meetings for me it would have to be the 750, far better racing, and more to do.

the only problem with that for me is if the BTCC was at Oulton (my home circuit) as it's where i joined the orange army and more to the point it's where met the love of my life, and therefore special for that reason.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by MacGWC

All I ask is that we should not miss this opportunity to provide valuable on-post training for some of our trainee marshals, something that has been sadly lacking in recent years - and that we spend as much time trying to encourage better attendance at some of the less well-supported meetings.

Agree with both. As for the former, we can limit numbers to a safe level, and still include trainees. As for the latter, well the system I suggested (as a hypothetical more than anything else) back in post #60 would cover that too

Have to say, your tone suggests that you think on-post training isn't currently going on at busy meetings. I've not really experienced anything myself that would lead me to believe that that is the case. I started 3 years ago, and most of my training took place on-post. In fact, aside from one practical fire session, I didn't do *any* other kind of training in the whole of my first season (started in April).

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by HairyDJ

Been there, done that already. Teddy stayed in the pram and I helped elaewhere that weekend. Maybe I realised that the event was bigger than I was .....

Me too. I've also got in for an event where I fully expected to get a no - first DTM @ Brands. I made sure I said thank you.

[sandman]

Yes i agree overmaning getting a problam but how do we solve this without stoping pople comeimg i live 180 miles round trip from croft and 350 miles round trip from oulton so tell me i dont get croft its to far for the day to go oulton so i stay at home

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Every practical fire training session I've been to says you have four: two pairs of power/foam, and that doesn't even include driver/lookout duties.

Now let's extrapolate that simplistic statement into a real life scenario.

Bottles are normally placed around the post in pairs. So, in the event of a fire, the nearest pair of marshals starts to tackle it. The one with the powder bottle attacks the fire while the one with the foam looks after the driver. Meanwhile, the next nearest pair moves down to the incident with backup bottles, while the IO keeps an overall watch on the incident. Of course, every incident is different, so what I've postulated here can only be regarded as typical.

[Mark Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

...... extrapolate....... postulated

That's easy for you to say!

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Mark Mitchell

That's easy for you to say!

Who woke you up?

[Mark Mitchell]

Don't worry, I'm not staying!

[MacGWC]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Agree with both. As for the former, we can limit numbers to a safe level, and still include trainees. As for the latter, well the system I suggested (as a hypothetical more than anything else) back in post #60 would cover that too

Have to say, your tone suggests that you think on-post training isn't currently going on at busy meetings. I've not really experienced anything myself that would lead me to believe that that is the case. I started 3 years ago, and most of my training took place on-post. In fact, aside from one practical fire session, I didn't do *any* other kind of training in the whole of my first season (started in April).

(a) The last three years have seen the benefits of the Team Wilson/BMMC recruiting campaign and (b) which club(s) did you work with in this time?

The facts are that when we had to run whole circuits with one flag marshal per post, with repeater points unmanned, and the single flag marsal was often expected to observe as well, there was most certainly no on-post training taking place on these occasions! This was not uncommon, even at some of the prominent circuits - and some quite recently, too. Yet, amidst all this, there would be a full turnout of marshals for clubs like 750MC, HSCC and others who put on good programmes and looked after their marshals well but even they suffered a shorfall in marshalling numbers at certain circuits.

I am glad you have enjoyed your three years and I hope you continue to enjoy your marshalling but ask around among some of the longer-serving marshals and you will find that what I am saying is correct.

What we need to avoid now is sending out the wrong message by simply curtailing numbers, without adequate explanation to those not invited, and to encourage better attendance at less popular meetings, plus more on-post training.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by MacGWC

(a) The last three years have seen the benefits of the Team Wilson/BMMC recruiting campaign and (b) which club(s) did you work with in this time?

The facts are that when we had to run whole circuits with one flag marshal per post, with repeater points unmanned, and the single flag marsal was often expected to observe as well, there was most certainly no on-post training taking place on these occasions! This was not uncommon, even at some of the prominent circuits - and some quite recently, too. Yet, amidst all this, there would be a full turnout of marshals for clubs like 750MC, HSCC and others who put on good programmes and looked after their marshals well but even they suffered a shorfall in marshalling numbers at certain circuits.

I am glad you have enjoyed your three years and I hope you continue to enjoy your marshalling but ask around among some of the longer-serving marshals and you will find that what I am saying is correct.

What we need to avoid now is sending out the wrong message by simply curtailing numbers, without adequate explanation to those not invited, and to encourage better attendance at less popular meetings, plus more on-post training.

I've worked for loads of clubs; AMOC, BARC, BRSCC, CSCC, HSCC, MGOC, MSVR, 750 (probably missed some), and I'm well aware that numbers are on the up, but still too low at some meetings (In the past 2 weeks alone, I've been an outright post chief (above my grade), and a flag/observer - which I have done at least half a dozen times this season).

"Adequate explanation?" You don't think that "we have the maximum safe number of marshals, and to have any more would be dangerous" is adequate? For about my 4th meeting, I volunteered to do BTCC @ Thruxton, and was told we already have too many trainees for this meeting, yet here I am, 150+ days down the line still at it.

And again, while I'm not suggesting that it is a complete answer, the points based system I suggested, which gives a better chance of getting in to a meeting where numbers *are* limited to people who do more and smaller meetings, would encourage people to do smaller meetings, and more of them and, more to the point, reward those people who do.

[Mark Mitchell]

"Dear Marshal,
Thankyou for requesting your assessment to be considered for an upgrade to xxxxxxxxxx Marshal.

I am pleased to confirm that your assessment will take place on Sunday 13th March 2011 at Donington Park Circuit.

You have provisionally been allocated Post 9 (Old Hairpin) and once on post should report to xxxxxxx xxxxxxx, your Examining Observer for the day.

If you are unable to make this day, please let me know as soon as possible however, your assessment date may have to be delayed until a suitable date becomes available"

Not meant to be taken *too* seriously and is aimed at those meetings where marshal numbers are usually fairly low.

[warweezil]

Had a chuckle at the mention of 30 to a post earlier in this thread. All too often in my 3 short years on the bank we have been hard pushed to raise 30 for the whole place - including assembly and start line!

[Power Bulge]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

Really? You don't think that it's a matter of fact? There may be some expert judgement required to determine the actual number (and I am by no means that expert), but surely there is some natural correct maximum number.

As opposed to those people who will get the hump because they're at an overmanned meeting?

I think we finally agreed that the safe number of marshals for a post is n, where n is between 1 and a finite number, so yes - there is a finite number and no, I haven't been around long enough to work out what it is. Seems an interesting topic for a winter thread, though.

As for the second point, yes - that is exactly what I think will happen. The crucial difference is freedom of choice. Preventing someone from attending a meeting removes that choice. Those that do not like meetings with large numbers of marshals will choose to go elsewhere where there are fewer numbers, but are less likely to leave the sport altogether.

Take a look back at the thread for the Abu Dhabi GP selection. Some of the posts showed a deep resentment at the selection process and were quite bitter, hence the reason why I think we should try to avoid restrictions if at all possible. The majority of people not selected went to other events in the UK that weekend. I was perfectly happy with it all - I didn't volunteer, so couldn't be rejected, but that was my own choice based on personal circumstances.

The 750MC are smart - they seem to deliberately target the BTCC dates so that they can attract marshals who are (erm, cough) "indisposed" towards the BTCC, for whatever reason. Add on a well-earned reputation for treating marshals well, a bit of thinking about location so that they are not too close to the circuit hosting the big meetings, and you have a club that fares much better for numbers than some others. The comments about the recent 1000km meeting would support the theory that making other events more attractive is the way to attract more support. If this reduces the manning levels at the bigger meetings, everyone wins. By choice.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

As for the second point, yes - that is exactly what I think will happen. The crucial difference is freedom of choice. Preventing someone from attending a meeting removes that choice. Those that do not like meetings with large numbers of marshals will choose to go elsewhere where there are fewer numbers, but are less likely to leave the sport altogether.

I principle, I very much agree with you. But some marshals would choose to lean on the Armco with their back to the race, trying the laces on their trainers with one hand with a fag in another (no mean feat), occasionally sticking out their red flag when their scanner tells them to.
My point is, that some people choose to take unreasonable risks, and if we went down this road, BTCC could well end up full of people who are prepared to compromise their own safety, and by implication that of other people around them. Now I know that that is a bit of a stretch, but we should really let the experts - chief marshals, clerks, and the like - decide the safe number, not people who may be prepared to put safety at risk, just to get in.

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

Some of the posts showed a deep resentment at the selection process and were quite bitter

I think that the real issue there was that there was rumour, innuendo, and suggestion that favouritism was taking place. Whether it's true or not, I don't care, and don't want to drag up again. That's the past. Going forwards, what I have been advocating is, I hope, a fair (and transparent as somebody else mentioned) selection criteria, which is based on contribution to motorsport as a whole.

[deadsquirrel]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

As for the second point, yes - that is exactly what I think will happen. The crucial difference is freedom of choice. Preventing someone from attending a meeting removes that choice. Those that do not like meetings with large numbers of marshals will choose to go elsewhere where there are fewer numbers, but are less likely to leave the sport altogether.

I take exception to that - so because I'm not prepared to attend 'over marshalled' events, I always have to take the 'alternative' event?
I haven't marshalled any BTCC this year - and if no action is taken to reduce numbers, I won't be doing any next season either.

The 750MC are smart - they seem to deliberately target the BTCC dates so that they can attract marshals who are (erm, cough) "indisposed" towards the BTCC, for whatever reason. Add on a well-earned reputation for treating marshals well, a bit of thinking about location so that they are not too close to the circuit hosting the big meetings, and you have a club that fares much better for numbers than some others. The comments about the recent 1000km meeting would support the theory that making other events more attractive is the way to attract more support. If this reduces the manning levels at the bigger meetings, everyone wins. By choice.

I enjoy 750MC events and their varied and mixed choice of formulae at event is often a deciding factor in where to marshal - however, I don't want to necessarily concentrate on doing all/most of their events.

I've done more days at Cadwell this year, will do some next year too, it won't be my regular circuit, but I'll support where I can.

This politically correct society we live in where people are afraid to say 'no' in case someone is offended or mildly upset frustrates me.

Put me in charge and the changes will be simple
- each circuit is allocated a maximum number of each marshal type, flag, incident etc. This maximum is quite a bit below the current level of BTCC
- registration (hint as to my source ) opens 4 weeks before an event. Works on a first come first served basis, closes when full. Post or email gets you registered. The numbers registered are available to view online.


If you don't make the list for an event, you'll know in advance and can maybe find another event you can work.