Grading, confused? I am!

[275 GTB-4]

Originally Posted by MPA

I'm very confused with CAMS efforts to improve the Aussie grading system.

There is a need to market the license? I'm not sure about this because most Circuit Promoters are demanding that all officials hold a license in order to sign on to work.

There is a need to insert a license level for club level events for marshals that don’t need the same grading as marshals that work at larger national and international events, however we now find ourselves colour coded in a more confusing scheme.

I like the plea from CAMS for us to take our time while filling in the eight page application form for a new license and that most of it does not need to be filled out if we can follow the instruction properly. Geeeeze there’s less work buying a mortgage.

Yeah..thats the point, its a knee-jerk reaction to a big increase in events in Australia (and probably the world) and the highlighting that (like hey ) there are only a relatively small number of people dedicated (or stupid) enough to want to Marshal.

As for "I think I've found the fatal flaw in the plan. The new scheme seems focused on getting people upgraded sooner,"....go to the top of the class Sherlock

[Shelagh]

In Bahrain we discovered that most of the marshals are there for the first time ever and they don't tend to go back. This applies to all events, including the F1 GP. That is why they have "Sector Chiefs" who really do rule the roost and they make sure that things get done.

In Dubai it is very similar in terms of experience. The British guy we were working with has marshalled for 3 years but the meeting was only his third event. Of the other two on post (we had offered to do some "training") one was on second event and the girl was on her first and wearing lovely bejewelled open-toe footwear with kitten heels. No sector chiefs, though, because the circuit is essentially run on British rules (via BARC).

Things observed: in Bahrain, having an "experienced" chief directing his marshals meant that things were done more or less "correctly". In Dubai we witnessed the worst sort of marshalling going. Examples: Green flags waved lap after lap because nobody seemed to know when to bring them in, oil dressed on run off area but not where it was lying on the racing line, bodywork left on track because marshals hadn't been instructed to pick it up (this between sessions). And when we had a car pull off in a head on position across the track from us, the driver only shifted when I blew my whistle and gesticulated that he get the heck away - no-one from the other side of the track was going to do anything.

So what does that tell us? Training etc is obviously the best way forward so that everyone knows what to do when they need to do it, but if your "staff" is so new then you basically need an "Officer Commanding" to at least make sure things get done. And I'm still a great believer in getting everyone involved in flagging from day one - it is not the black art that so many people think it is and is a great way of understanding how the race traffic is behaving.

Our grading system worked when we had the numbers, but these days I do think that we have to have a radical re-think about it all. At the end of the day it is experience rather than your badge colour that counts. I'd rather work with a "white" who has got 70 days under his belt than a "Black" who has managed to get through the system in 5 years flat (it does happen).

[Stack]

I've just received the latest BMMC Midland region newsletter that outlines a new MSA grading system and although it says it will simplify the process, it has only confused me.

It now appears to upgrade from the new Track marshal (old Course marshal) to Experienced marshal (old Incident) it is required to do, and I quote "15 days combined Flag and Incident duties (min 5 days on one 10 on the other) + 2 training (Flag , Incident,Fire, basic first aid)"

How can incident duties be done if the definition does not exist? I assume they mean Track marshal duties.

Does that mean that because it states that "signatures on all cards will be for ATTENDANCE" (their caps) that an upgrade can be attained by not actually doing anything?

What does 2 training mean? Is it two days encompassing all 4 or any 2 of the 4?

Further to the training days, "an assessment session by an Examining Post Chief, Trainer or Buddy will complete the requirement"
When/where is this session to be held? During the training day,at a race meeting or in your back garden!

I do think this is a step in the right direction in particular doing away with the course/incident confusion and making the step format Track and Experienced, I can't help feeling that the wording is not all it should be...




....or is it just me!

[Mark Mitchell]

This is being discussed at http://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91369

But, I agree it's as confusing as hell!

[Stack]

So it is - my bad. Feel free to delete, lock or just plainly flush down the pan this thread!

[Stack]

Originally Posted by Stack

So it is - my bad. Feel free to delete, lock or just plainly flush down the pan this thread!

........or just plain merge!

[Stephen Green]

your wish etc etc etc

[Dean Watson]

Am I being a bit dumb here or does the diagram show the road to ex post chief can start at 11 years old, I had to look twice but the flow chart for "TRACK" marshals starts with 11 - 16 year olds. Is this the case or is there a genuine mistake with the chart??

[chezza]

I'd imagine if your starting at 11 you have to stay at track/experienced track until your 16 and then move up...but I don't know...and I wouldn't put it past the people at the MSA to enable the climb to start at 11 and to get to ex post chief very quickly.

[Cynic]

It seems to me that they are proposing to take a simple (but admittedly out-dated) system, and make it twice as complicated without actually achieving anything useful. The thing that worries me most is this (the following is based on the assumption that I have read the thing properly!): Signatures will now be given purely for attendance, and to upgrade will require x signatures + x days training + "an assessment". So with some clever structuring of the training days, I reckon you could conceivably upgrade people whether they want to be upgraded or not. I know it says this doesn't meant that people will be forced to do duties they don't want to do, but then surely a CM who doesn't know you is most likely going to allocate your duties depending on your grade? I could be wrong, but I can't see this increasing the number of marshals, but I can see it putting some off.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Cynic

So with some clever structuring of the training days, I reckon you could conceivably upgrade people whether they want to be upgraded or not.

I don't think that's going to happen. Just as with the existing system the new system will require people to present their cards for signature; if they don't do that, they won't be upgraded. I would assume that the individual has to request an assessment - I don't think it will be a covert operation!

[Asp]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

I don't think that's going to happen. Just as with the existing system the new system will require people to present their cards for signature; if they don't do that, they won't be upgraded. I would assume that the individual has to request an assessment - I don't think it will be a covert operation!

Completely agree.
One of the potential problems with signatures only being awarded for attendance is that you get your set of signatures without actually doing anything particular. I imagine this is where the assessment day comes in, it'll probably be similar to presenting your current card to an XO and you'll get a signature if you perform your duties to an appropriate standard.
If you've got your attendance signatures and don't feel your ready to upgrade yet, you don't submit your Record Card for an assessment!

[scorch]

I have read the proposal with interest, nobody has discussed about the oblisition of the flag grade.

I know about the short numbers etc... but flagging is a specialist activity that some people like and are good at it, so why are they proposing to eliminate the flag grade altogether, and force everybody to do it?

[Mark Mitchell]

Originally Posted by scorch

oblisition

What a great word!





What does it mean?

[scorch]

It means i can't type...

it was supposed to be abolition

[Asp]

Originally Posted by scorch

I know about the short numbers etc... but flagging is a specialist activity that some people like and are good at it, so why are they proposing to eliminate the flag grade altogether, and force everybody to do it?

I don't feel that they are forcing everyone to do it. Any marshals who want to concentrate on flagging will still be able to - this is made clear in the document introducing things. I imagine on volunteering forms, you will still be able to volunteer your duty as Flag/Incident/Whatever, it's just your grade may well be "Experienced Marshal".

The reason it's going to be a part of the training process is simple, more and more of us are turning up on post as an incident marshal, when the observer asks "Who would mind flagging please?" (or even vice-versa). Frequently when this is the case, you'll be able to share the duty around so that everyone gets the chance to do the duty they signed up for. However, if you are "thrown into" needing to flag, if you've done training for it in advance (under supervision of an experienced flaggie and/or obs), you'll know what to do. Being "thrown into" the duty without any prior knowledge will not only make it more awkward for the marshal, but also the quality of flagging with necessarily not be as good as otherwise making it worse for the drivers.

[chezza]

But what about all those who have a red grade at the mo who would be re branded as "experienced marshal" but have no flagging experience at the moment?!

I have very little flag experience and I find that it doesn't come naturally to me, yet under the new system it could be assumed that I have experience that I don't.

[Circuitmarshal]

Originally Posted by chezza

I have very little flag experience and I find that it doesn't come naturally to me, yet under the new system it could be assumed that I have experience that I don't.

They say you will not have to do anything that you don't want to, so if someone can't or won't then no problem.

[chezza]

Originally Posted by Circuitmarshal

They say you will not have to do anything that you don't want to, so if someone can't or won't then no problem.

That works in theory...

Say there are three of you on the post who have a similar amount of experience, none of you have any training in the art of flagging. No-one wants to do it, but somebody is going to have to as there isn't anyone else...leaves people doing stuff they don't want to.

I know this is unlikely to happen, but it could. We actually had a similar situation at one meeting I was at but fortunately one of the guys was willing to flag, but that might not always be the case.

[Peter Harding]

I think:
Cadet marshal grade is to allow recognition for younger enthusiasts. I think the next grade (trainee marshal) will have a minimum age of 16.

There is no intention of forcing people to flag (or indeed do any duty they don't want to). It is merely to encourage multiskilling at a time when we often have less marshals than we would like.

Availability forms generally have a space for "grade" and another for "usual Duty". Some even ask about your willingness to "undertake other duties.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Peter Harding

There is no intention of forcing people to flag (or indeed do any duty they don't want to). It is merely to encourage multiskilling at a time when we often have less marshals than we would like.

But we do that anyway. The whole point of the red/blue grade is that it says you can do either and have trained for, and shown shown sufficient competence at it. Being multi-skilled because you've done a bit is not the same thing, yet this scheme seems to suggest it is. My personal poinion is that a grading scheme that is not based on measuring competence is not worth the paper it's written on. At any task you can be massively experienced but still talentless and useless. Anyone who's seen me dance will know what I mean!

Someone seems to have lost the plot here. It may be me, but I don't think so.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Asp

The reason it's going to be a part of the training process is simple, more and more of us are turning up on post as an incident marshal, when the observer asks "Who would mind flagging please?"

Or the (acting) observer just says 'one of us is going to have to flag, & it ain't me!'. Sorry, Rob!

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Peter Harding

There is no intention of forcing people to flag (or indeed do any duty they don't want to). It is merely to encourage multiskilling at a time when we often have less marshals than we would like.

Will things change significantly from current practice? I think not. Most of us will have done things other than our usual or preferred duty if requested; unless manning levels take an unexpected upturn I can't see that situation changing. What does slightly concern me, however, as someone who is neither competent at nor enjoys flagging is that under the new system such competence will be assumed.

Availability forms generally have a space for "grade" and another for "usual Duty". Some even ask about your willingness to "undertake other duties.

Maybe they need a space for 'duties you are not willing to undertake'!

[scorch]

Originally Posted by Peter Harding

There is no intention of forcing people to flag (or indeed do any duty they don't want to). It is merely to encourage multiskilling at a time when we often have less marshals than we would like.

But it certainly seems like it does because before gradeing to track marshall or experenced marshall you HAVE to do 15 (or 10) days combined Flag and Incident Duties.

[DarrellB]

Originally Posted by scorch

But it certainly seems like it does because before gradeing to track marshall or experenced marshall you HAVE to do 15 (or 10) days combined Flag and Incident Duties.

True but this is only for the time during upgrading and it is only five days min on one or the other. Bit like having to do a turn in the road for your driving test and then never doing it again! (properly!!)

I think that the grading system did need something of an overhaul since it has been unchanged for many years and the nature of modern marshalling needed to be recognised. There are perhaps not as many x obs as in the past and therefore gaining sigs at some circuits was proving difficult.

This is in some ways similar to the rescue system where trainees obtain attendance signatures but have to gain training sigs as they progress and then have an assessment at the end.

The one area that interests me is the need to attend a min of 4 meetings and a biannual training day to maintain the grade. There may be many marshals that for whatever reason don't do any meetings in one year do they then downgrade?

I have done loads of meetings the last few years but not as an incident marshal (which is my grade) does this system now mean that I should be a trainee again??