Race Marshal Manning Levels

[Power Bulge]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

This is already happens at the GP.

One meeting, once a year. And the biggest motorsport event in the country. Is this really a convincing argument?

Originally Posted by Les Green

The problem of overmanning may not be a problem afterall.

Originally Posted by welche2

why dont we do what the bsb do. racesafe does the bsb only, have one group , get everyone who wants to do the btcc to join, racesafe is £20 for life.

Because you are still penalising the less well off, that's why not, especially where there are a family of 4 or more involved in the sport

[Les Green]

Originally Posted by Steven Humphrey

I can't ever seeing that being an issue. Some of the meetings I've attended this year have run with so few marshals, even losing half of the maximum 'safe' number would still leave enough to go round. Plus those not turning up should be banned from a similar meeting again (unless there's a valid reason for not showing) which will help keep numbers at a reasonable level.

I agree entirely. If people dont turn up without warning they should be banned for more than just a specific meeting but any meeting. After all how much does a phone call or email cost, isn't it just good manners.

[welche2]

Originally Posted by welche2

why dont we do what the bsb do. racesafe does the bsb only, have one group , get everyone who wants to do the btcc to join, racesafe is £20 for life. only those who be in the group does it, training day must be attended before you can marshal the btcc.
there rule is dont turn up 3 times without notice your banned,
must have 12 signutures before being accreditded for the bsb(btcc).
wonder how you may feel about that suggestion.

the £20 is a one off payment, for the bsb in return you get free overalls and waterproofs with the sponsor of the back of them. hen the sponsor changes the sponsor pays for new overalls. not a bad idea in my book.

[Les Green]

Originally Posted by welche2

the £20 is a one off payment, for the bsb in return you get free overalls and waterproofs with the sponsor of the back of them. hen the sponsor changes the sponsor pays for new overalls. not a bad idea in my book.

Hey for £20 you do seem to be getting good value for money. Small price to pay that you get to display the sponsors logo. Better than having to buy them yourself.

[Les Green]

Having spoken to a number of guys and girls on the bank the bike marshalls do seem to get better "looked after" than us doing car marshalling. Do they have the same problems with overmanning (i.e at BSB or WSB meets) as the original points mentioned at the start and subsequent comments on this thread?

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by welche2

why dont we do what the bsb do. racesafe does the bsb only, have one group , get everyone who wants to do the btcc to join, racesafe is £20 for life. only those who be in the group does it, training day must be attended before you can marshal the btcc.
there rule is dont turn up 3 times without notice your banned,
must have 12 signutures before being accreditded for the bsb(btcc).
wonder how you may feel about that suggestion.

NO! Why duplicate an existing infrastructure which works, force people into doing two different training days, create divisions among marshals, etc., when it wouldn't solve the problem of too many marshals?

Don't forget that it's not just BTCC which "suffers" from excessive marshal numbers - at the Oulton F3/GT meeting this year I had more incident than I was comfortable with. Should we have a separate marshalling organisation, grading system, clique, for every over-manned package.

[Les Green]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

NO! Why duplicate an existing infrastructure which works, force people into doing two different training days, create divisions among marshals, etc., when it wouldn't solve the problem of too many marshals?

Don't forget that it's not just BTCC which "suffers" from excessive marshal numbers - at the Oulton F3/GT meeting this year I had more incident than I was comfortable with. Should we have a separate marshalling organisation, grading system, clique, for every over-manned package.

I can not belive that we are complaining about too many volunteers, and " suffering"too many marshalls. Why have marshal recruiting days when we have too many? I agree at some meets we do need to limit numbers of marshalls, but how you can get a "fair" selection process is somewhat more complicated.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Les Green

Why have marshal recruiting days when we have too many?

Over the last few years a lot of effort has been put into recruiting to address the problem of dwindling marshal numbers; I believe it's essential to maintain that impetus to avoid a return to the famine years. If we assume that recent high levels of new marshals were, in part at least, the result of a pent-up demand, then a levelling-off in recruitment is to be expected; that, plus the normal retention rate, could be expected to lead to a stabilisation over the next few years. Of course, I could be completely wrong here - that's pure conjecture.

I agree at some meets we do need to limit numbers of marshalls, but how you can get a "fair" selection process is somewhat more complicated.

I don't envy anyone faced with the problem of selecting marshals for over-subscribed meetings - there no way you can discriminate fairly, so maybe a totally random process is the "fairest" way.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, overall, marshal numbers, especially of experienced marshals, are still too low; however, forcing people to do meetings they have no interest in before they can do the meetings they really want to do is, I believe, a dangerous path to go down. Having said that, I have suggestions to offer as to how it should be done. . .

[Greem]

Having just re-read the entire thread, it looks to me like everyone here is shooting the various messengers who are proposing different ideas to resolve a problem which has only been hinted at (albeit directly) by a comment from the MSA.

How about we all take a deep breath, step back, and get involved in the inevitable group which will form around whoever is asked by the MSA to propose a solution to the problem? All the opinions offered here are valid, even if in opposition.

Having spent a bit of time looking back to the early days of the 10/10 Marshals Forum I note with no amusement at all that there were frequent "There aren't enough people to go around" threads only 5 or 6 years ago. Oddly enough, the same sorts of reactions happened back then too.

Bringing this post back to the topic: in the last year and a bit I've marshalled at circuits all over England (haven't made it to the republics of Pembrey, Anglesey or Knockhill - yet!) because my local circuit was shut and has only recently reopened, and my family are spread all over the place. I've been welcomed everywhere - *especially* at BTCC meetings, which make up almost 20% of my days so far altogether. And an even bigger *especially* at Oulton Park, where this subject came up for discussion first.

I haven't focussed on a single series or circuit, preferring instead to get as much experience as possible of a number of circuits and meetings with as large a number of people as possible. Reading some of the comments here I could be painted as the worst of the worst - no regular circuit (although that's changing now), no regular racing club or series. I'm lucky that I'm an hour or so away from several circuits. I've learned from a lot of you, in a lot of places, and I feel quite privileged to have done so.

If things have changed now to a point where there are too many marshals to operate in a way which feels safe, then there are two solutions:

1. Limit the numbers at the meetings
2. Change the working practices at the meetings

Neither is mutually exclusive, and like DJ said earlier this could be a brilliant training opportunity.

So - instead of jumping up and down and pointing fingers at the groups of people who some might feel cause the perceived problem, why don't we concentrate on finding out whether it *is* a problem, and then find an answer to it? Criticise the proposed ideas by all means, but for everyone's sake let's be constructive about it. Anything else can only lead to bitterness and nobody wants that. Do we?

[Sparky-steve]

just an idea..

I presume that something would be worked out by the powers that be to limit the numbers of marshals at events, and maybe it is coming.
so is there any point in discussing the how to's until they are known? or we are asked for idea's?

i think we could all understand the need to limit some events,

so how about the regular marshals that are turned away, get free tickets any way, as some form of compensation?
something like.....
"sorry we have to many marshals for this event, but please come along to watch, here's two tickets for yourself and guest."

of course some limits to earn the tickets should be in place too, or the place would fill with marshals on free tickets.

[Stuart Hill]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

Let's not lose sight of the fact that, overall, marshal numbers, especially of experienced marshals, are still too low;

this i think is more key than the issue of actual numbers. what I have noticed recently, albeit only on tv, is a distinct lack of leadership being shown trackside. when i started, over 25yrs ago, I was left in no doubt as to when i should/should not be trackside, what to do when there but most importantly, NOT to stay there any longer than required. Too many times i am now witnessing loads of marshals attending something that could have been dealt with by just one marshal. Unless you as a team are actually going to try and move a car then no-one else needs to be in danger by going on-track.

I personally don't think that you can have too many marshals at a meeting, but you can have too many in one place. this comes down to the Post Chief liasing with the I/O as to where exactly to post their troops. If you find that you've got too many to safely place them, then why not let some stand-down for a session, thus allowing everyone the chance of a toilet break or even, the chance to spend time with the flaggies or PC to learn their jobs.

as Greem said, we don't want to go back to the days of not enough marshals so maybe it's just that the powers-that-be have a new and unexpected challenge,....... just how do they deal with so many of us? not easy but surely a better problem to have.

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Stuart Hill

this i think is more key than the issue of actual numbers. what I have noticed recently, albeit only on tv, is a distinct lack of leadership being shown trackside. when i started, over 25yrs ago, I was left in no doubt as to when i should/should not be trackside, what to do when there but most importantly, NOT to stay there any longer than required. Too many times i am now witnessing loads of marshals attending something that could have been dealt with by just one marshal. Unless you as a team are actually going to try and move a car then no-one else needs to be in danger by going on-track.

A different issue, I think, & one which we can all do something about. While I haven't been marshalling anything like as long as you have, I had the good fortune as a trainee to work with a number of very experienced incident marshals & equally experienced IOs who taught, by word & by example, the safe way to handle incidents. Unfortunately we are now in a situation where such old hands are a rarity which means that the knowledge, wisdom & experience which previous generations of marshals had passed on them are in danger of disappearing. It's up to those of us who've been around for a while to encourage our newer colleagues to work in a safe, efficient, professional manner - just ensuring, really, that what is learnt at training days is put into practice in the real world.

. . . and to anybody who's worked with me, if I come across as a moaning old sod, that's why!

[welche2]

the manning levels for the bsb is not oversubscribed like the btcc they are after new marshals to join as the oldest ones are retiring from old age, yep old age one bloke was 75yrs doing incident.lol, normal bike meetings are like car club meetings, was on redgate at donington park two weeks again for thundersport gb. no. on post 3, one flaggy , a i.o and me and we had 1 f1 sidecars and 15 bikes on the sat.
festival of sidecars at mallory last weekend was the same again 3 of us. i was the youngest, the flaggy had just had a hip replacement a. the i.o was going in the following in to hospital for his.
as gream said we are all volunteers and should not pick on people who put ideas up on this thread, dont take it out on the trainees as they are the one who are going to need your advice and knowledge to replace you when you retire and they can give the same advice to the ones who follow in your footsteps as well.
moto gp at silverstone this year over 150 marshals had letters sent to them saying not needed after originally being selected. they was given 2 passes for the sunday, many of those who got them say they will never ever volunteer for moto gp again and quit marshaling, do we want the same reaction. i hope we don't as it then becomes dangerous for us being undermanned and also for th reason we do it, to help the drivers/ riders out when they crash and keep the racing going. no marshals no racing.

[MacGWC]

The aspect of this debate that strikes me as strange is that the MSA (or is it the BTCC?) are so concerned about over-manning at some meetings (relatively few, I suggest) but apparently not so concerned that many other meetings are undermanned (echoing the comment made by JSW).

Another aspect is what level of "normal" manning are we looking at - the level we were at when there were 50,000 race marshalling days per annum or the level of recent years that has been as low as half that number and still running at around 60/70% of that number, even with all the new recruits that have come in via the Team Wilson/BMMC initiative over recent years. (The number of race days has remained virtually the same during the period that marshalling numbers have decreased.)

Many of these new recruits would have joined at BTCC rounds, where most of the recruitment activity was based - thanks to support from the BTCC organisers and the circuit owners. It is only natural, perhaps, than many of these will see attendance at a BTCC round as their natural starting place.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, it seems to me that we should "suffer" a few meetings that are over-manned before "threatening" to trim numbers. This gives out all the wrong messages. Far better, surely, to still encourage attendance at any meeting and try, by persuasion, to get marshals to go to the less well-attended meetings.

It depends, too, what Club new marshals join; those that join the Marshals' Club (BMMC) will quickly learn that there are around three hundred race days a year they can attend, under the national volunteering system the BMMC provides.

[Stuart H]

The flip side of the coin people is:

How would you define a safe number of people on post?

[Steven Humphrey]

On a more serious note - numbers really need to be addressed at Silverstone. I only just managed to get breakfast before getting to post due to the huge queue in the diner today.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Steven Humphrey

On a more serious note - numbers really need to be addressed at Silverstone. I only just managed to get breakfast before getting to post due to the huge queue in the diner today.

I didn't even bother queueing today :\

[Startline Ed]

Originally Posted by Stuart H

The flip side of the coin people is:

How would you define a safe number of people on post?

With great difficulty as surely it depends on the post and possibly the meeting as well.

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by MacGWC

The aspect of this debate that strikes me as strange is that the MSA (or is it the BTCC?) are so concerned about over-manning at some meetings (relatively few, I suggest) but apparently not so concerned that many other meetings are undermanned (echoing the comment made by JSW).

MSA is run by the bloke who runs BTCC which encourages driving standards that requires extra marshals since it's the meeting where they're most likely to get something to do. 'nuff said, really.

Originally Posted by Steven Humphrey

On a more serious note - numbers really need to be addressed at Silverstone. I only just managed to get breakfast before getting to post due to the huge queue in the diner today.

LOL. I thought it was the queue for the toilet it started so far back. I only just got to post on time.

[Sparky-steve]

Originally Posted by Dave Brand

. . . and to anybody who's worked with me, if I come across as a moaning old sod, that's why!

so that's why i did wonder
i'll be on post with you any time

[MacGWC]

Originally Posted by Stuart H

The flip side of the coin people is:

How would you define a safe number of people on post?

This is what I was getting at with my 50,000 -v- 30,000 marshalling days per season. My memory tells me that everyone used to be happy with an Observer plus Assistant/Trainee Observer per post, plus two flags and a "spare" or trainee flag at each post. For GP's there was almost always two observers and three/four flags per post, to allow relief time.

The most important aspect of all this was that this is how I got my training as a flag marshal and then Observer. How many times in the past ten years or so have we had the luxury of on-post training?

ES would similarly take a few trainees on post, for training purposes.

This was considered safe then, what is considered safe now? Is it one Observer, one flag - if you are lucky!!

The ES Team at Silverstone, at the height of its fame, would occasionally trim numbers, to save too many on post and, yes, the more popular meetings, like the GP, FF festival, etc would be "rationed". It was always disappointing for those not chosen, as it would be again, if we have to revert to rationing for these more popular meetings. (Important to note that in quite a few of the recent years, the GP only just got enough Observers and Flags!)

However, before we get to the stage of simply limiting numbers, could we not all work together to make sure a few trainee marshals could be allocated to the "over-manned" meetings, for some proper on-post training? All it would take would be a little better communication between all concerned.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by MacGWC

However, before we get to the stage of simply limiting numbers, could we not...

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.

[Power Bulge]

Originally Posted by Guinness2702

28 Marshals per post is wrong!

I disagree entirely. On some posts, less than half that number could be considered too many, but try doing Post 3 at Anglesey and then tell me 28 is too many - it would only mean we had the post anywhere near properly manned for the first time in its history.

If an incident team consists of 1 to go to the car first, the second to back him up and watch his back for traffic, a 3rd on the powder and the 4th on the foam, that gives you a total of 4 marshals. 2 of the team may be trainees, or even 3 if one of them is an "experienced trainee". For an "average" corner, you have 1 team on the way in, another at the centre of the corner and 2 more on the exit points (where most cars come off) and a team on the inside of the corner - that's 20 incident marshals. Add on 1 IO, a trainee IO, 3 flaggies per flag post - usually 2 flag points per corner - an observer and a trainee observer, you have a total of 30.

For posts that only need 2 incident teams and a flag point, the total comes down to 14 or 15. Some posts with a lot of ground to cover may even require more than 30, but there are some posts where 6 would be too many. The point is, it is the post that should dictate the number of marshals that should be present, in [relative] safety, not some random statement like "28 is too many". But, then again, I would like to get my breakfast served quicker next time

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

If an incident team consists of 1 to go to the car first, the second to back him up and watch his back for traffic, a 3rd on the powder and the 4th on the foam, that gives you a total of 4 marshals.

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; the initial response to an incident is a pair of marshals, one for the car, one for the driver. The first takes a powder bottle & gets the electrics off, the second checks that the driver's OK &, if he is OK, gets him out of the car. If any more marshals are needed at the incident it's the IO's responsibility to call in people as required - it it's obviously a biggie, more marshals will, almost instinctively, rush to the scene. It's all about dealing with incidents with the minimum number of marshals trackside for the minimum length of time - if you're on a live track just standing around doing nothing, you're in the wrong place!

Groups of more than two marshals do create a safety problem. More than two & there's a risk that escape routes will be blocked - indeed, BRSCCNW final instructions categorically state that marshals must not stand in groups of more than two.

[Guinness2702]

Originally Posted by Power Bulge

I disagree entirely. On some posts, less than half that number could be considered too many, but try doing Post 3 at Anglesey and then tell me 28 is too many

Yes yes, and I'm sure that at Revett, you could have 3 teams of 4 on either side + 3 flaggies and a PC in the boxes, making 32.

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

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