Sending a novice solo.

[Old n' bold]

When it comes to sending a novice on a first solo off the buddy lead, I have always followed the BMFA ' Guidance to Instructors ' where it states :

" It is sufficient to stand 6-10 feet behind the novice and remain silent, without narration or verbal encouragement "

But I , and another Club Instructor, both of us with some years experience of r/c training were recently berated by our Safety Officer for sending a flyer on about his 20th solo with neither of us on his elbow. We were about 25 feet away from him watching. The SO insisted that this is how it is always to be done before they have achieved the 'A' Certificate, ie we must be right next to him, elbow to elbow. It has not been done this way at the club in my previous years of experience, there has never really been a fixed policy laid down by anyone.

I have never seen the Safety Officer do any training, and I feel he does not understand the concept of what ' solo ' is all about.

Comments from other club instructors please.

[simon barr]

We don't insist on obtaining an "A" to be solo, so we make sure that the pupil is absolutely competent in completing a fully controlled flight. Personally, when I feel a pupil is ready, my pre-solo flight with him will consist of general flying, dead-stick simulations, and ten good touch and go's, of which at least eight should be pretty much spot on.

When I send them solo, I will have a quick pre-flight chat, and then walk back to the pits where I can watch them without intimidating them. I am always within ear-shot should they need help.

Once they have successfully completed this first solo, they are able to fly by themselves.

We do, however, encourage new flyers to take their "A" as soon as they can, but, remember, it is a volantary scheme...

[Codename-John]

In my club its as your safety officer says, until youve passed your A test there has to be a competant (as in the poll description) flier at your side

[Allan Bennett]

My club is not BMFA affiliated, so we don't have A certificates. For the most part we instruct without a buddy lead and, once the student has done a few of his own take-offs and landings it's a case of gradually withdrawing support until he and the instructors feel confident enough for him to fly alone. Depending on the student, there may be many, or few, flights where the instructor stands nearby (6-10ft) and gives the occasional advice, but eventually the time comes when it is mutually agreed that the instructor's hands-on help will not be required.

At that point the student may not yet be good enough to pass the BMFA A certificate, but the instructor will not feel the need to be on his shoulder all the time. He may be at the pilot line, out of interest, but he may just as likely be 50' or so away watching from the pits area. Either way, the instructor or other experienced pilots will be able to respond to a shout for help.

So, I don't believe it's necessary (or good) for the instructor to be on the student's shoulder all the time until he passes his A certificate, if that's what the SO was suggesting.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

For us, once they are off the buddy box, we continue to stand alongside the learner in the same position. If a learner is under instruction then they are not solo - by definition. When first off the buddy they still need quite a lot of verbal advice about positioning, AoA on approaches, coping with wind etc.

We would try to gradually reduce the amount of advice and comment we make as the student progress. Once they can complete flights on a regular basis without the instructor having to intervene - even by means of advise - then they would be considered ready to take their A. Only after passing the A can they fly truely solo. Then, for their first few solo flights, we would do as you describe - keep a discreet eye on them from a distance just to make sure their OK and be ready to jog over and help if they get themselves into any sort of trouble. With the vast majority of newly qualified A's this phase soon passses. A few actually ask for a "spotter" in the early days just to give them a bit of moral support!

Its one of the instructor's most important skills I think though - knowing when to shut up and let them fly the model. It might not be just how you would fly it - but as long as its safe and fully under control then the instructor should (at the late learning stage) accept that. Later, if someone asks for help with say aerobatics etc then that's different.

BEB

[Peter Beeney]

Old n’ bold, - I’m afraid that I would be thinking that this might appear to be just another little jobs-worthy case of ‘I really really want to be charge’ perhaps? From reading occasional other threads and posts in a similar vein it would seem as though there is a bit of it about.

Having been involved with a bit of instruction for the last bibble-de-babble hundred years the way I’ve invariably sent a novice solo is at some point asked him to land in the middle of a flight, simply just pulled the buddy-lead plug, and then ask him to take off again and carry on flying. On his own. If I didn’t feel 100% sure that he wasn’t fully capable of coping I wouldn’t be letting him do it. We also would certainly not be insisting on an A for solo flying, we just tell a member that he can fly solo, it’s all about ability and confidence, not certificates. I’m also not really sure how standing next to someone that is undoubtably a little bit conscious that he’s doing something that requires his full concentration is going to inspire full confidence. Of course, long before this we’ve reached the stage, right from the start, in fact, where if he wants any assistance at all he only has to ask, and this often happens anyway. Sometimes people have to be cajoled into going into the deep end.

When I send someone solo I don’t have any qualms at all, but when a full size instructor sends his pupil for his solo flight I’d say there might bit a bit of trepidation on both sides; and I guess it’s not quite so easy for the full-size guy to yell some instructions, either…….

So I think we would be either instructing or not instructing, not half and half, eventually the pilot has to be on his own, and it might as well be as soon as possible. But I also have to say that in my experience at least, all students are different; and some beginners, particularly the more senior variety, can on occasions get quite emotional, at least in terms of apprehension and anxiety.

PB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Peter, I think it is very dangerous to undermine a club safety officer. A club appoints a safety officer and his comments should be taken seriously and not just dismissed. If, in the view of the majority of the club, his advice is too often flawed then appoint a new safety officer. But don't accuse the one in place of being a "jobs worth" just because you don't like what he says - in my view that's irresponsible and a bad example to novice flyers.

Often safety officers have a very difficult, and not always popular, job. In my view they do not need experienced fliers showing public contempt for their efforts.

Some may disagree with this SO's idea, but I don't feel its helpful for such people to express their disagreement in such a way. This SO is probably just trying to do his job and advising instructors to act in a way that would be standard in many other clubs. The best way forward would be for the instructors to have a private meeting with the SO and listen to his views as to why he feels they should change. Then the club could make a decision. But simply dismissing any comment from a safety officer as just "jobs worth" is, I think, most unwise.

BEB

[Old n' bold]

May I say ' Thankyou ' for all your replies so far ,all are most appreciated.

I take the point from the Moderator regarding the Safety Officer, but I am afraid I find our SO a very irksome individual, not because of his job but his manner. He does not invite discussion but just dictates. Our ' Training Co-ordinator ' has never co-ordinated anything, and in a well run club there would be discussion amongst the Trainers, and the SO, but this has never happened. If I took the initiative it would only end up in a row with the personalities involved.

I come from a background as a one time CFI of a full size flying club, and have sent many a pilot off on their first soloes, day, and night, single and twin, so I think I have a reasonable appreciation of what is safe.

I have also observed quite a few disasters where the late handing over of the transmitter after someone has lost control has achieved nothing but a lot of fumbling before the crash.To me solo is just that, you are on your own, and I would not be sending you off if I did not have full confidence in your ability to cope.

Thanks for you comments.....Old n' Bold

[bouncebounce crunch]

Im not a club instructor but when a pilot in full size has his first solo the instructor has left the trainees elbow and is watching (maybe having a cup of tea and reading the news) more than 25 feet away.

what about drivers too?

Not to tarnish the club safety officer, may be a proper get together and ask why the instructor still needs to be that close if the flyer is believed to be competent enough to go solo.

bbc.

[Max50]

I'm building up to taking my 'A', and i fly solo with someone standing at the side of me as per our club rules. It doesn't bother me doing this, and i just appreciate that he is giving up his flying time to be there, as even if he was 25ft away he would still have to be watching.

I'm with BEB on the SO. I think you would have to have strong SO or people could push you around and not care what you say. At least he is giving his time up as well to carry out his duties. If you find something is wrong then it should be discussed.

[Prop Nut]

It's difficult to discuss anything with people who aren't up for discussion, in any area of life or human endeavour, and we've all come across such people. There is a huge difference between being assertive and being dictatorial and any committee member, SO included, needs to be selected on their diplomacy as well as ability to perform their function. In the workplace we have to put up with all sorts of people because our employer appoints them, not us, but a club is very different. When being taught by my club training officer, who has a gift for instruction, he took the first opportunity to move back from my elbow and let me correct my own errors, whilst still being there to advise if I asked. I found this much more constructive than him standing close by - but I accept that, as has already been said, everyone is different.

[Mark Powell 2]

Safety officers are not essential, instructors are. As you say, he may not have any instruction experience. The instructors should make the judgements, all anyone else can do is disturb their judgement, which does not help at all. His interference is not helpful now.

I am a full size flying instructor. The decisions are MUCH harder, as his life or death, and potentially that of others, is involved in the direct personal decision I, and no one else, has to make every time I send a pupil on his first solo. I am a thousand feet or more below, and a mile or more away and can do nothing.

On his non-fatal return to earth he later goes on to do further exercises, sometimes with me or another instructor, increasingly more often alone. Very different from learning to drive a carr, where you are not allowed to go solo at all until you are 'qualified' and can, even with the instructor, stop if you are confused. Can't do that with a plane, real or model.

As you can see, the instruction process allows the pupil do do more and more difficult things, alone, totally by himself. Only then can he built confidence. I was a difficult pupil. My (RAF) instructor said to a fellw pupil  and my close friend 'Mark is a difficult pupil, he is lazy and relies on my presence. It is only because I am sure he does it much better by himself that I let him solo at all'.

We do not have a 'safety officer'.

Edited By Mark Powell 2 on 24/08/2012 09:00:30

[bouncebounce crunch]

I am with you MP2 as my earlier post points out. If your instructor believes you are competent and won't cause damage to others or yourself then it is time to go it alone. If a crash occurs then I am sure that there are those that will know what went wrong.

Log book training is that the solution?

crashed before and probably will crash again one day.

bbc.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Mark Powell 2 on 24/08/2012 08:52:09:

Safety officers are not essential, instructors are. As you say, he may not have any instruction experience. The instructors should make the judgements,

Its really difficult to know where to begin with a statement like that - but I'll have a go

1. In my view, and I suspect the view of most safety aware flyers, a safety officer is essential in any club. With the best will in the world standards slip - it is imperative to have someone whose job it is - in a friendly, discrete and approachable way - to keep safety at the forefront of people's minds and ensure that bad habits don't creep in.

2. What is "best practice" safety wise is an ever moving target - especially as new technologies and new types of model and flying come in. I would cite as examples the recent growth in larger electric powered models in clubs - they are no longer all "harmless little foamies" - some are big, heavy and very powerful. This requires new practices for electric flyers. I would also cite the change over to 2.4 and the differences that brings to frequency control proceedures. These are just two examples. In such cases a club needs someone who is prepared to do the research - what are other clubs doing about this? What does the BMFA say? What's on fora such as this? I know some will say "I don't need someone to else to tell me I can work these things out for myself" - are you really so confident that you think there is no possibility that someone else might have a good idea you could benefit from? Safety officers are the conduit through which such new proceedures can flow.

3. A safety officer obviously needs to be an experienced flier - including having instructed - and having flown a wide cross section of models. Our own flies everything from small fun fighters to gas turbines, is a excellent pilot and an active instructor. He commands the respect of his club mates - and that's how it should be.

4. If your safety officer is not satisfactory - replace him/her. The safety officer in this case may not be upto the job. Certainly its not a good way to go about this job by simply issuing dictats - you need discretion, tact and diplomacy. And yes of course safety officers need to listen as well. If this one doesn't do those things then that is a reason to replace him, but it is not, in my view, an argument for not having a safety officer at all.

5. Instructors should not make the judgements where safety proceedures are concerned. Why? Because they are involved in the process, they have a stake. Safety works best in my experience where someone who is knowledgable, but outside the process, can take an objective, dispassionate, view, when they can stand back and reflect "is that as safe as we can reasonably make it?" "are there any unnecessary risks we are running here? People closely involved in a process are in most cases the worst people to review that process - they are too close, too involved, too accustomed to doing it one particular way. They find it difficult to be objective.

Being a safety officer is a really difficult job. It needs deep knowledge, a lot of effort to stay up to date, diplomatic skills on the level of Solomon and a lot of common sense. Such individuals are rare! (And no I'm not, nor have I ever been, a safety officer!). They need our support, particularly from the more experienced, they are certainly not an "optional extra"!

BEB

PS I'm off to the Nats now - so you'll have to enjoy the rest of this one without me!

[bouncebounce crunch]

BEB I was thinking that the instructor is a safety officer to some degree, training and watching a pupil learn to assemble his model at the field, check his control system, fuel,prime and start his engine and so on and so on. if safety was a concern then there would not be any flight I am sure of that.

bbc.

[Mark Powell 2]

BEB,

I am not in a club, I fly on a public but in theory 'reserved for us' site. But we do not have the power to eject anyone else. Correctly, as it is paid for by all council tax players, not just us, and is 'pretty'.

We don't have a 'safety officer' but we do have a 'marshall'. Safety is one of his responsibilities, and he can be a bit dictatorial on that. Such as having the LA paint a 'pilot box' to replace the 'pilots line' where we used to raggedly stand along this line wherever we liked. All without consulting the hundred or more of the rest of us. He is not a frequent flyer. Doesn't appear when it is busy. Too much hassle. Not from me, I would add.;

Some got furious about that. I pointed out that they should not complain too much as he does other things, such as negotiate with the LA, that none of the rest of us would want to be bothered to do.

I firmly believe that nothing should be allowed to disturb the instructors judgement. That is the absolute basis of full size instruction. It is the basis of many other 'critical' things too such as surgery. Doesn't mean you can't meet with others and discuss. Particularly, but not limited to, the 'chief flying instructor'. But in terms of safety, which in full size is the ONLY priority, the CFI's word goes at all times.

Good enough for full size is good enough for models. We don't generally have safety officers. If we do he is concerned only with fire engines, road traffic, and stuff. NEVER with instruction.

Other than my 'disturb' point, any maybe about safety officers being 'essential' (they are never bad to have) I agree with everything you say. We are all on the same page, I think., (Unlike the other thread, where it  was only 'compulsion' that got people's backs up.)

Enjoy. wish I was going.

Edited By Mark Powell 2 on 24/08/2012 10:38:30

Edited By Mark Powell 2 on 24/08/2012 10:40:33

[Mark Powell 2]

I have been flying at Beaulieu for 54years. It is a popular site. Other than the occasional cutting of your hand by the prop, much reduced since electric starters, we have never had an injury to a flyer or any of the (many) spectators.

Safety officer essential? No. Useful? Yes.

[Old n' bold]

Thanks everybody.

What is clear from your posts is that there are many different ways to approach the issue of safely sending a person solo. To insist that there is only one way , " My way " , as is the case of our Safety Officer, is a very blinkered approach. He is backed up by our committee who seem to consider that whatever our SO utters must be safer simply because he is the SO. No discussion is therefore needed.

I don't think my fellow instructor and I who were crticised by him will not bother to instruct in such a stifling atmosphere. What will he come up with next ?

Cheers to all.....Old n' Bold

[Peter Beeney]

BEB, - I wouldn’t really want to undermine a club safety officer, just making an observation as why an instructor might question a statement made by a safety officer without any apparent justification. Also any safety officer that ‘berates’ the instructor for doing the job correctly as he see it is also questionable, in my view. If a club has some problems with an outside influence, a noise issue say, that’s one thing, but when there are murmuring within the membership regarding internal differences that should at least start to gently chime an alarm bell. I too have been in this face to face position, a long time ago, and, as I’ve said before, when it comes down to the Old Boy’s Network I didn’t stand a chance. Not exactly the same situation, by any means, but totally ‘jobs-worthy’, and in my case the only option was to walk away. This might also be quite far reaching, too, as a result of this I decided to take one of the BMFA Achievement Scheme tests, which I duly did, at our club field with the other members present. Not with out some difficulty, indeed, I was told by the BMFA to arrange it myself and at the first appointment the Examiner forgot. At the second try he gave me a pass certificate, which he said I should send to the BMFA, which I duly did. When eventually I heard nothing I started to enquire but I drew a blank all round. A friend, on the Council, made some discreet enquires and said it looks as though the paperwork has been lost. A fire in a postbox was given as a possible reason. When I eventually found someone able to really dig in it transpired the official ruling was that this never took place, and that included a direct question to the Examiner. Although he would be quite happy to come and do the test, if I wanted. So this is one reason why I’m not one of the BMFA’s greatest fans. It may well been coincidence, I’m sure it was, but a colleague, also involved in the original tete a tete, always insisted it was the influence that the Original Gentleman managed to bring to bear. When you know the right people all things are possible.

Safety is all about Safety, you have to view it from all angles. I might consider, for instance, that it’s also very dangerous to create a situation of possible bad feeling within the club for no good reason, someone can then do something in the heat of the moment which they may later regret; and it might involve an innocent third party. It also seems fairly obvious to me, even from Old n’ bold’s OP, that the ruling was pretty non-negotiable. It happens, I’m afraid, people get elected into various posts and then become instant overnight experts.
One of the little ongoing details that I personally find rather more dangerous, is the certificate that is handed out to pilots as proof of their flying ability and then they suddenly find they can’t fly properly after all, and have to be rescued. I’ve seen a few examples of this, one of the more serious cases some years ago was the B handed to a young man so that he was able to fly on the next weekend at the club’s Public Show, and then when he flew he got into trouble and his father had to take over and land the model.

I do have some previous form on this, the first club I joined had a noise problem, so straight away I was co-opted onto the committee as the PRO (Public Relations Officer), we bought a noise level meter, and I was handed the job of operating it, to the club’s self imposed noise level of 78 dB at 7 metres. This was before the BMFA scheme really came into going. This was truly a Baptism of Fire, interesting times, and I leant a lot, from individual club member’s attitudes to the overall noise vibrations in general. But I have to say, the camaraderie within the club was really excellent, mostly I reckon because everyone was in the same boat, and on the same learning curve. Then a little later, at another club, when the incumbent Safety Officer had to resign because he couldn’t really cope, I was specifically asked to take over for a short while and thus it was that I subsequently carried on for probably 20 years. This was a flying time limited club, so consequently always busy and because it was a good site very popular. We also flew in the same circuit as an ATC glider training school, so there had to be an element of discipline. Just one incident would have been one too many. I think the one aspect of being the SO here was if there was any sort of altercation the SO could make a ruling on the spot which would be backed if necessary by the committee and more importantly, the whole club. The only concession the ATC ever asked was that occasionally we stayed grounded for a few minutes whilst a brand new pilot did his solo flight. We always had beginners, too, so I found that I was also the virtual full time instructor. So then within this mayhem there were always learners getting in the way, but with suitable low key compromises all round we always had a harmonious band of merry aviators. Because of this situation, the club had it’s own flying test, before the BMFA scheme, and also more demanding, it involved being able to take evasive action when the odd errant glider passed low over the strip, not an entirely unknown event. Plus any guest flyers, whoever they were, had have a little punt around in the company of one of the nominated members before they could go solo.

[Peter Beeney]

PART TWO

And now, quite a few more years down the road, I’m still a Safety Officer, and I still keep the old hand in with regular instructing. As always, we have a nice ratio of youngsters always keen to get into it. I’ve always enjoyed flying models, so I consider it just as putting something back, and also a very gratifying additional aspect I find is teaching a young person from scratch how to start, run and manage an engine safely and confidently.

You mentioned the electric models, one aspect of electric power I’ve always been keen on is the separate receiver pack, at least for other than the smaller sizes of models. This is primarily for safety reasons, if the main power supply is lost for whatever reason there is at least some chance of being able to land under control. I’ve mentioned this before, more than once. Also for years I’ve assigned a switch to my throttle control, I called it Throttle Lock, no mixing necessary, that can be a preset position, or off, depending on the model, so that the throttle control is inoperable until required. No accidental starts possible. Now suddenly this seems to be a brand new Good Idea…… Plus I specifically bought this tx with Channel Check, which means it’s impossible to shoot anyone down, on 35, that is. All of these things, and others, I’ve always keenly advocated, but I certainly would not insist on anyone being coerced into anything on a mandatory basis.
From talking to many people at many sites over many years I’ve concluded that safety is not a priority, in general it’s very low key anyway.

So, rightly or wrongly, this would be my justification for saying that I thought this Safety Officer’s attitude was indeed questionable. Certainly I have always said that if anyone questions any suggestions I have made that have been taken up by the club I’m prepared to fully justify them, in terms of what I think is safety, anyway.

I’ve often thought that one of my lifetimes most regrettable moments was the fact that I didn’t do a photo copy of that certificate, so that I would been able to wave it about when it was stated that I’d never passed that little test. That might have been a very satisfying moment indeed……

PB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Quite a thought provoking question - not something that I've actually given a great deal of thought to until now.

Our club rules (along with many other clubs, I suspect) state that pilots must be accompanied (by an A certificate holder) until they have their A. In practice, a learner will fly with a recognised instructor on the buddy lead until the instructor takes the decision to let him fly without it. It's seen as a major milestone in the learning process and although he will continue to fly with an instructor regularly until the A test, at this stage he may fly in the company of an A holder to practice his flying skills.

I fully accept that this is different to the full size world where first solo really is just that but although many similar skills and principles are involved, the learning process may not necessarily need to exactly parallel full size practice. A typical model flying in the circuit is a matter of 5 seconds or less from the ground, trees, people etc. rather than full size where things tend to go wrong slower (no orientation problems for example) and at several hundred feet from the ground for the majority of the circuit. Very obviously the consequences of getting it badly wrong are very much more serious though.

I certainly encourage a student to make more and more decisions as they progress, confining instruction to honing skills and developing "airmanship" so although I don't physically remove myself from his presence, I aim to become far less of a "crutch" and hopefully progressively less noticeable. However, if something is going badly awry, I'm a fraction of a second away and I would hesitate to describe myself as accompanying a pilot if I was 25 feet away.

I think that if I was confident enough in a pilot's ability to remove myself to a considerable distance he would be at A standard and I would have put him forward to one of our examiners by that stage. I don't feel that my responsibility ends once a member has his A and I (and other instructors) do tend to keep a distant watch on their progress and often give friendly words of advice or (very) occasionally make myself quickly available if they appear to be in difficulty.

As for your Safety Officer, I suppose it all depends on your definition of "berated". If he felt that your close presence would have been beneficial in the particular circumstances then it's his duty as a SO to raise his concerns. How he went about it is the crux of the matter - reasoned discussion in private would be acceptable to me, belittling you in front of other members and your pupil in particular would be totally unacceptable.

I don't think there's neccessarily a right or wrong answer to the question of how far away to stand - this is more down to personal instructional style, possible confidence boosting in some cases, local club rule adherence etc. My normal procedure is to let the pupil prepare as normal but remove the buddy lead as we move out of the pits so that he doesn't have time to dwell on what can be quite a daunting step to some people. We then fly a relatively short session which gives him the buzz of controlling the flight knowing that he has full responsibility for keeping the model under control with the security of rapid advice/assistance should he need it.

 

 

Edited By Martin Harris on 24/08/2012 23:09:02

[Mark Powell 2]

Old n' Bold,

It's easy really. Don't have a safety officer. Not him, anyway. Doing that is easy too. Stop instructing now. Instantly. So the guys coming this morning expecting instruction don't get. any. Soon be such an uproar that a vote will be called and the result will be no safety officer. That is not undermining him at all.

No one is compelling you to instruct. No one is compelling you instructors, or anyone else, to 'obey' him. So tell him to 'go away',. That is undermining him. Your club, your choice.

Simple.

Actually my posts about full size, and other posts telling us how 'nanny like' their club is and how they like having a nice nanny so you should have one too is all irrelevent waffle, really.

Edited By Mark Powell 2 on 25/08/2012 07:28:42

Edited By Mark Powell 2 on 25/08/2012 07:58:53

[Greybeard]

I think the student needs to be weaned off instructor support gradually but with the instructor providing close support as new manoeuvres are attempted or difficult flying conditions tackled. I never used the cold turkey approach advocated here by some. The increasing isolation of the instructor from the student will help the latter prepare for a similar situation when taking the test although by then they should have taken (and passed) several mock tests.

The club safety officer fulfils an essential role, and I agree that their authority should not be undermined, but that doesn’t stop the matter being discussed in private with the committee and a less officious approach agreed, where appropriate.

[Mark Powell 2]

Geybeard,

I agree that everything you say, and many others have said is good and sensible, and I have no criticism of it at all. It is how it is usually done, our non-club site as well. It's how I do it.

But I strongly disagree with yor statement that 'The club safety officer fills an essentail role' That is simply not logically true, as many clubs or our 'non-club' does not have one. They work, we work, in our case for 54 years, maybe more. So he isn't essential. As I previously pointed out, that does not mean he is 'bad'.

Wheels on a car are essential. A pilot in an aircraft (not a drone) is essential. A safety officer isn't. Thinking he is is just a part of the nanny society. Come to think of it, logically, 'safety' isn't 'essential' either. But good to have. But don't confuse essental with good. That way lies all sorts of rules and restrictions.

Edited By Mark Powell 2 on 25/08/2012 08:25:01

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Although we have a nominated safety officer, we try to promote the maxim that every member is a safety officer - something that is probably natually adopted by most clubs or informal groups to some extent.