safety courses for shooters on club ranges

hermes2011

I do understand the scale of the situation, I also understand the time and effort required as it would probably take a much time as the discourse on firearms legislation is taking at present. We already have said experts providing ad hoc training recognized by no one, why not get reps from all associations to go on a centralized training course, i.e NRA UK or NRA USA, as they are well established. I don't feel that this would waste any shooting hours and it would be a cash injection back into our sport through shooters wishing to take the course run by association members and keeping a percentage of the fee for the sport.

Sparks

why not get reps from all associations to go on a centralized training course, i.e NRA UK or NRA USA, as they are well established.

For a start, what would a pony club instructor need an NRA course for? What would an ISSF RO need an NRA accreditation for? What would an MPAI RO get out of an IPSC training course?
You're thinking that these courses have anything in common with other sports' courses, but beyond a subset so small as to be trivial - a subset already covered perfectly well - there just isn't anything worth the effort to isolate.

And as for taking money off people and feeding it back into the sport, welcome to the road to hell. On your left, money-grabbing gougers who would love nothing more than a state-mandated monopoly on training courses and who will happily use you as a judas goat to get that; on your right, a Ministerial Office - an entity which in the history of mankind has never turned down the opportunity to gather more controls to itself. And right in front of you, a situation where to start off in any of our sports, you wind up going - mandatorially - to a training course ultimately run by one or two people in a small cabal, where you pay way more than the course is worth but who can complain because it's "for safety" and won't someone think of the children, and wasn't this your idea anyway, and when you're done with this course, why not do these other courses because once that camel has its nose in the tent...

Me, I don't see the point to this. It will not make you safer. It will not make you better trained. And I'd want to see any project this large, with this many risks, undertaken with a lot more circumspection than "erra, it's simple, it'll be grand" and at least a good reason to do it in the first place.

hexosan

@ Hermes
A saying I once heard comes to mind.
"Arguing with you is like arguing with a woman, where your confined to the realm of logic and she's not"

All your threads are like a merry-go-round

.243

hermes2011 wrote: »

your own club should offer Range safety officer courses, as far as I remember the NASRPC are meant to be offering such course to bring RO's up to national level just ask in your club. these should be provided free of charge as they of benefit to the club and the NASRPC

It was,to the chosen few at a cost to the club to send a handful to do it and even at that it was never circulated it was been done,
Its got to a point it'd be easier asking a politician for a straight answer,
So myself and a friend were looking to do it at are own expense,(this club is a private club and not a nasprc affiliated one)
Hence why I was asking

Wadi14

Guys correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you will lol, but can your own club chief safety officer not run RO courses free of charge for his own club members ?

IRLConor

Wadi14 wrote: »

Guys correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you will lol, but can your own club chief safety officer not run RO courses free of charge for his own club members ?

That's the normal way of doing things in the club I've been most heavily involved in.

Also, it's less of a "course" and more of a traineeship that takes a few months of weekly work by the trainee. They start off merely shadowing the range officers and are slowly moved to active ROing under the supervision of experienced ROs. Once the CRO decides that the trainees are ready, she runs a test where the trainees demonstrate their ability to run the range on their own with experienced range officers simulating regular members. If they pass that (and most don't on their first go) then they get added to the roster as full ROs. Even then, they're typically paired with more experienced ROs so that they have someone to ask questions of, even when they're not under active supervision.

Deaf git

Wadi14 wrote: »

Guys correct me if I'm wrong, which I'm sure you will lol, but can your own club chief safety officer not run RO courses free of charge for his own club members ?

He probably could but is he qualified to do so? When I say 'Qualified' I mean would a judge of the High Court accept the qualification as adequate if there was a subsequent lawsuit as a result of an incident. And what way would the club's insurers view this?
If you are discussing this in relation to a commercially run shooting range, is the chief safety officer an employee?
Does the H&S legislation kick in in this situation? Is it even appropriate to have a club member act in a role that should probably be filled by an employee?

This being completely aside from whether the PTB recognise such qualifications.
And sorry for answering one question with a raft of others.

IRLConor

Deaf git wrote: »

And sorry for answering one question with a raft of others.

One more question for your list of questions.

"For the range you shoot in and for the type of shooting done there, is there a formal qualification anywhere in the world that is sufficient to qualify someone as a range safety officer?"

I suspect the answer is yes in some cases and no in others! I can certainly think of at least one range where the answer is no.

Wadi14

IRLConor thanks for explaining the process that's the way training has been conducted for me to,

Deaf git I'll give a couple of experiences I've had doing RO courses in 2 clubs, First one was run by the club RSO and was free of charge, a well conducted course with test etc.
the 2nd club brought in an Instructor to run the course I had to pay him €50 for the privilege, again a well run course, but one thing I clicked onto during the course was that your club Range safety officer can run club RO training. This was nice to hear after forking out €50.
You asked are they qualified or do they have any legal standing, my only way of looking at that would be if a range was set up or operating without a Range safety officer, I don't think the powers at be would leave that range open for too long, or if an incident happened at the range and it was discovered that the range was operation without a RSO than they are in bother. Am I right in thinking that a range must have a nominated RSO prior to the granting of a licence ?

Sparks

Wadi14 wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that a range must have a nominated RSO prior to the granting of a licence ?

No, that's not a requirement.
The relevant SI permits the operator of the range to appoint ROs (though the SI doesn't call them that, it calls them shooting area officers) and an RCO; but it does not require it.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

He probably could but is he qualified to do so? When I say 'Qualified' I mean would a judge of the High Court accept the qualification as adequate if there was a subsequent lawsuit as a result of an incident. And what way would the club's insurers view this?

In both cases, you'd have to ask them to determine that (though I suspect the insurers might have thought about it already, that's their kind of thing) for the individual case. We don't have any framework in place to answer the question generically.

If you are discussing this in relation to a commercially run shooting range, is the chief safety officer an employee?

Depends on the contract the range has with them. And that's not just limited to commercially run ranges either.

Does the H&S legislation kick in in this situation?

You would assume so, but I wouldn't even hazard a guess.

Is it even appropriate to have a club member act in a role that should probably be filled by an employee?

Why should it probably be filled by an employee? (Other than for the "people's time is worth something" reason, that is).

And sorry for answering one question with a raft of others.

Pffft. Irish firearms legislation's thrown up more questions than that on quiet tuesdays before lunchtime. The more questions the better, it means we know more about exactly how and how badly it's broken...

Deaf git

Why should it probably be filled by an employee? (Other than for the "people's time is worth something" reason, that is).

If a range is run as a business and offering a service to customer I as a customer expect the range operator to provide all the facilities required for safe shooting- and that includes safety officers (presumably an employee, or possibly another shooter compensated by waiving of fees, cash, ammunition by the bucket load or whatever for his time).
I have to say I like the commercial approach- the loos always flush and committee politics doesn't happen.

FWIW I ran this past our suitably qualified H&S person today. He reckoned the best analogy is a gym where you pay a fee and get to enjoy the facilities on offer and the gym owner ensures equipment is properly used and fit for purpose etc. If a newbie to the gym jumps on a fitness machine and de nuts himself, putting forward a defence of instruction by a helpful & experienced co- member would probably be inadequate unless the owner could show evidence of a formal arrangement with said co-member and was satisfied the co-member was adequately trained & qualified.
The H&S guy also pointed out the importance of using independant externally sourced trainers with professional indemnity cover. He said the most important qualification would be the PI cover. In the absence of a legislated standard of qualification the insurers make a judgement call and charge accordingly.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

If a range is run as a business and offering a service to customer I as a customer expect the range operator to provide all the facilities required for safe shooting- and that includes safety officers (presumably an employee, or possibly another shooter compensated by waiving of fees, cash, ammunition by the bucket load or whatever for his time).

"The facilities required for safe shooting" and "paid employees" (doesn't matter if they're being paid in barter or in cash, they're employees nonetheless) are not linked. At all. Not even close.
(And I agree with you about commercial ranges, I have no problem with them, we ought to have more of them - I just don't think we need to tip the scales so far over that noncommercial ranges have to accommodate them).

FWIW I ran this past our suitably qualified H&S person today. He reckoned the best analogy is a gym where you pay a fee and get to enjoy the facilities on offer and the gym owner ensures equipment is properly used and fit for purpose etc. If a newbie to the gym jumps on a fitness machine and de nuts himself, putting forward a defence of instruction by a helpful & experienced co- member would probably be inadequate unless the owner could show evidence of a formal arrangement with said co-member and was satisfied the co-member was adequately trained & qualified.

It's a nice analogy, but I wonder how well it holds up when you remember that the legislation that governs ranges and the legislation that governs gyms are so wildly different, not to mention, holy carp are the stats for gym injuries horrifying. The number of people getting chronic and traumatic injuries in gyms every week from equipment misuse or poor training plans or bad personal kit or just plain idiocy is insane. If target shooting was as safe as the gym, we'd have weekly fatality reports in the double digits for the fortnight it would take to shut the sport down and ban it forever.

The H&S guy also pointed out the importance of using independant externally sourced trainers with professional indemnity cover. He said the most important qualification would be the PI cover. In the absence of a legislated standard of qualification the insurers make a judgement call and charge accordingly.

And just like that, you'd kill off target shooting in Ireland for all but the rather affluent. We'd probably lose the college clubs (thereby ensuring a slow death for the sport), we'd definitely lose the smaller places operating as non-profit operations (thereby ensuring a pretty sharp decline in our current numbers), and even after that, you wouldn't have impacted on safety in the slightest (insurance, by definition, being what you have for when safety hasn't been perfect).

Because you know, and we know the safety record for target shooting in Ireland, but the insurers just know GUNS! GUNS EVERYWHERE! AND THEY ALL HAVE GUNS! AND GUNS KILL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME I'VE SEEN IT IN HOLLYWOOD SO IT MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE GUNS!!!. And then your insurance premium is measured in the kind of units normally reserved for describing how bad the economic crash of the last few years has been.

hermes2011

read back in the threads I have been motioning that there should be an ISQ certified safety/range officers course but from what has been said by sparks your just wasting your money going on these course were you have to pay for as in theory none of them are recognized. That such qualifications would drive shooters from shooting were I p;ointed out that the NRA training and HCAP hasn't driven anyone away

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

read back in the threads I have been motioning that there should be an ISQ certified safety/range officers course

ISO, not ISQ, and you hadn't known that was a good thing, and ISO wouldn't certify the course anyway, they just set the standard by which the course would be certified by FETAC.

but from what has been said by sparks your just wasting your money going on these course were you have to pay for as in theory none of them are recognized. That such qualifications would drive shooters from shooting were I p;ointed out that the NRA training and HCAP hasn't driven anyone away

No, but neither of those involve mandatory insurance premiums that would be insanely high given our safety record.

hermes2011

I said how it could be done in past threads
I think we just have to agree to disagree

hexosan

hermes2011 wrote: »

I said how it could be done in past threads
I think we just have to agree to disagree

Merry go round

Deaf git

Sparks,
I was stating what I expect of a commercial range. Good facilities and people to run the place, like I would expect from any commercial run for profit business.
I'm also a member of a traditional type club where the members are the owners of our few scant assets. In this scenario I'll fix things, cut grass, do a year as club secretary, use my car to go fetch bits etc. Thats part and parcel of the traditional club arrangement.

My insurance costs about €60 a year for shooting and I reckon its a great deal, so I don't agree that insurers scream GUNS HOLY CARP when dealing with shooters or clubs.
I didn't like my H&S colleague's opinion, but he reflects the way the whole Western World is heading- Risk assessed, underwritten, regulated, litigated, sanitised, suck the fun out of it way. And that is the biggest threat to traditional clubs whether it be shooting sports or nearly any other sport.

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

I said how it could be done in past threads
I think we just have to agree to disagree

Except that you haven't said how it could be done in past threads; I've actually done the legwork on this and you haven't; and you're saying it's simple while ignoring me pointing out the obstacles we actually encountered and had to deal with.

Sparks

Deaf git wrote: »

Sparks,
I was stating what I expect of a commercial range. Good facilities and people to run the place, like I would expect from any commercial run for profit business.

Yup, and I'm not disagreeing with you about most of it, I'm just saying that the training and safety aspects, both legally and practically, are independent of the employee/volunteer status of anyone in the club.

I'm also a member of a traditional type club where the members are the owners of our few scant assets. In this scenario I'll fix things, cut grass, do a year as club secretary, use my car to go fetch bits etc. Thats part and parcel of the traditional club arrangement.

Yes, but that is not legally the same as being an employee in the smaller clubs for a bunch of reasons - whereas if you were ROing for a commercial entity, it might not be so clear-cut even if you were only getting access to the facilities in return for services rendered. (And it *could* be done on a volunteer basis -- I'm just saying it's not an automatic thing, you'd have to do some work on the setup).

My insurance costs about €60 a year for shooting and I reckon its a great deal, so I don't agree that insurers scream GUNS HOLY CARP when dealing with shooters or clubs.

But your insurance is probably not professional liability insurance designed to cover your court costs if sued by someone else because they screwed up and want to say that was your fault for not training the stupid out of them.

Us having insurance in case we screw up and damage something or hurt someone is just good manners and ethical behaviour ("oops, there was an accident, you're now crippled for life and I can't pay compensation for that even if I sold everything I own" not being a polite thing to say); but needing insurance for our ROs in case they can't train the stupid out of someone who's not bothering to listen? That's going to be more expensive, probably by quite a lot given the higher risk, and that is the thing that could cripple us quite badly if not totally finish us off.

And that's before we ever get to the problems we've mentioned above about courses being run by opportunistic chancers and the problems they pose, and the bigger problems a first order solution to that problem could cause.

That's why the whole thing about safety, competence, proficiency, courses and standards gets up my nose - it's this unnoticed underrated thing that nobody seems to have noticed is a goddamned landmine we're all tapdancing on.

hexosan

Train the stupid out of them. I love it.

BattleCorp

hermes2011 wrote: »

r That such qualifications would drive shooters from shooting were I p;ointed out that the NRA training and HCAP hasn't driven anyone away

I'm very open to correction on this but I don't think that the NRA certify any RO courses in Ireland. They used to certify them, but I think they stopped due to problems with ITAR. Like I said, I'm not 100% but maybe someone else knows for sure.

long range shooter

12 Golden Rules
Gun Safety Rules
You never fool around or play with guns. Guns are dangerous when they are not handled or used properly and can easily injure or kill you, and those around you. There are no second chances with a gun and the rules for safe gun handling must always be followed to avoid accidents.

The 12 Golden rules for Safe Gun Handling
Always treat the gun as loaded.
Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
Always keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to shoot.
Always keep the gun unloaded until you are ready to use it.
Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Learn the mechanical and handling characteristics of the gun you are using.
Always use proper Ammunition.
Be sure the barrel is clear of obstructions before loading and shooting.
If your gun fails to fire when the trigger is pulled, hold your shooting position for several seconds; then with the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, carefully unload the gun.
Don't rely on the gun's safety to keep it from firing.
Be aware of your surroundings when handling guns so you don't trip or lose your balance and accidentally point and/or fire the gun at anyone or anything.

Range Safety
Follow the 12 golden rules.
Know and follow all the rules of the Shooting Range.
Listen and do what the Range Master tells you to do.
Uncase and case your gun at the shooting bench, never behind the safety line.
Always keep the barrel pointed down range.
Always keep the gun on safe until you intend to shoot.
Always wear eye and ear protection when shooting.
Never shoot at water or hard surfaces.

Hunting Safety
Follow the 12 golden rules.
When hunting in a group, always pick one person to act as a Safety Officer for the Day or Trip.
Establish and share everyone's zone of fire with each other and know where everyone is at all times.
Always keep the gun on safe until you intend to shoot.
Never climb over anything with a loaded gun in your hand or on your person.
Never use a scope on a gun as Binoculars.
If you fall or trip, control your muzzle. Afterward, check the gun for damage and/or obstructions in the barrel.
When in Doubt; Don't shoot.

Sparks

Or, the list I used to prefer using on new shooters on their first time on the range:

1) Bullets are lethal.
2) Trust your RO completely, do everything the RO tells you to.

Someone's first time on the range, they're overwhelmed with a million new things, so you have to keep stuff simple. The "Pay attention to what you're doing and Do what I say" approach for the first time or two works, and after the first time or two things are familiar enough that you can start explaining the why as well as the what, and build up the number of rules to ten or twelve or a full book of them. It helps when it's at most a 1:2 ratio between RO and shooters (and 1:1 for new shooters whenever possible) and the rifles are single-shot ones with no magazine and the RO holds the ammunition and doles it out one shot at a time...

(There was a (3) on that list, but it was the exact sequence of what was going to happen with loading and firing the rifle and the instruction that if that sequence did not happen easily, something was wrong and you needed to call the RO over - it's a small point, but the number of times someone figures they just need to just use a bit more force or turn the rifle through 90 degrees to get a better look at what they're doing or whatever is damn scary in the first few trips to the range).

hermes2011

hermes2011 wrote: »

A minister can make an order at the end of that order it doesn't matter what associations think they have to comply within a reasonable time frame, it was done in the security industry i.e. PSA and the construction industry with not much hassle. FETAC is already in place with regard safety handling training so they could be easily adapted, I am sure there are plenty of 'experts' out there that could deliver them and the CDU could put together the Accreditation. The Firearms Act would not need to be changed as it is already covered in very indirect non English i.e. competency.

I have been involved in giving safety courses over the years and designing them for groups. just because you blind people with science does not make you right. and as i said were there is no regulation things are more open to abuse than when there is. I gave you an example of the HCAP which works really well in this country and has not put off any shooters for hunting.

hermes2011

hexosan wrote: »

Merry go round

watch out you don't get dizzy

hermes2011

Sparks wrote: »

but needing insurance for our ROs in case they can't train the stupid out of someone who's not bothering to listen?

No person is stupid, its normally down to whom ever is facilitating the course, the obviously overlooked different abilities of the individual. There is an old saying 'a bad tradesman blames his tools'.

hexosan

hermes2011 wrote: »

No person is stupid, its normally down to whom ever is facilitating the course, the obviously overlooked different abilities of the individual. There is an old saying 'a bad tradesman blames his tools'.

I can assure you of one thing, there is no creature on this planet as stupid as a human. It's a miracle we haven't made ourselves extinct already.

Sparks

hermes2011 wrote: »

No person is stupid

I've trained somewhere between several hundred and a thousand people in target shooting who never had a firearm in their hands before. There's a reason I phrased that sentence the way I did, and you need to read what I wrote, not what you would like me to have written.
Also, I've been involved in preparing courses for accreditation by FETAC for target shooting. It is not simple. I don't know how much more simply I can phrase that for you. I've tried it, it's not simple.
And the real risk here is someone going to the new Minister and saying "There's a real problem with firearms courses, but here, I have this readymade professional solution, you'll look great pushing for safety, why not use my idea? I just so happen to have this company that can provide this on a turnkey service so it costs you nothing!"
Next thing you know, we're stuffed. No proper regulation, no standardisation, no increase in safety, and someone's got a nice little earner tucked away. It's the Irish way...

hermes2011

"I've tried it, it's not simple"

without sounding arrogant what some people find not so simple others may find easy,

I've been involved in preparing courses for accreditation by FETAC for target shooting

so you yourself have been trying to get accreditation for target shooting course? From what you have said you have been against all this.