Responsibilities 0f RCOs, Assessors and such

[IainWR]

The statement below is pinched from the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (PPRuNE), with key words substituted:

Most examiners and instructors I know take their responsibilities very seriously but they cannot cover every single combination of circumstances that might arise in a shooters future range activity. Once a shooter takes on the command of a firearm, it is his or her responsibility and no-one else's.

Anyone care to suggest I am rwong in transferring the standards of aviation (my profession) to shooting (my hobby)?

Views welcome, and ready to be shot down (which I never was in a 33 year career).

Iain

[Alpha1]

Most examiners and instructors I know take their responsibilities very seriously but they cannot cover every single combination of circumstances that might arise in a shooters future range activity. Once a shooter takes on the command of a firearm, it is his or her responsibility and no-one else's.

Anyone care to suggest I am rwong in transferring the standards of aviation (my profession) to shooting (my hobby)?

Views welcome, and ready to be shot down (which I never was in a 33 year career

Well I would get your spelling and grammar right first.

[Robin128]

Aren't the standards already set by the law relating to firearms, basic safety standards set out by club committees, range safety certificates and monitoring by qualified RCOs?

The shooter is responsible for his/her actions. Additional responsibilities are created in those that monitor shooting on a range. They should have the power to stop shooting and if required to, exercise their mandate to eject someone from the range. They should also provide reliable assurance to club committees that range standing orders are being complied with and be able to suggest changes in such orders to ensure ongoing safety. They should also have an input to training new shooters and retraining those that indicate its necessity.

See Safe Shooting...

http://www.full-bore.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=9

[Watcher]

Iain,

An interesting thread; where should resonsibility rest? I disagree with you in your conlusion.

From a procedural perspective I know that the NRA take the view that the RCO takes a level of responsibility. I believe there was a recent incident where a shooter at Bisley had not properly cleared his rifle at the end of a detail . Clearly he was at fault but the RCO was also held to be at fault and disciplined. He didn't properly check the shooters rifle.

I think the key difference between being in command of an aircraft and being in command of a rifle (and I use those words specifically) is that once a pilot takes off he is pretty well in full command of what happens to that aircraft. There is no-one else out there (apart from ATC perhaps?) who can decide what happens to that aircraft.

In respect to shooting the individual on the firing point is just one part of the whole activity (think of a busy Saturday on Century!). In such a circumstance the shooter is concentrating on his target so he has responsibility for the safety of his rifle and, while shooting, perhaps an arc of 2 -3 degrees between him and his target. Someone else needs to be taking in the whole scene (an arc of 360 degrees) and watching out for things like other shooters, red flags, hang gliders, horse riders etc.

In summary I think that shooting safety is a 'team effort' with everyone watching after everyone else but with our own particular resonsibilities depending on where we are on the range.

[Robin128]

I don't think one can prescribe a control framework that is standard and fits all.

One has to consider several things, here are a few...

Inherent risk

Operational risk

Detective or preventative controls

Cost of control

Effect on fun factors

The law.

A risk analysis is usually the first thing to perform.

I performed loads of these in Banking, Finance and business.

In shooting there is more of an emphasis on the control framework, when operating as intended, to be be preventative...ie stop accidents happening, rather than report them when they do.

Standards need to be set up and regularly compared with physical events and corrective action taken as and when necessary, either resulting in a conformity to such standards or to provide a basis for their review.

Any link of the control framework that does not perform leads to a break down in control...which may lead to the risk of injury or death on a range, or outside a range.

Some food for thought.

The responsibility is that of the shooter to be safe but additional responsibility is created, never delegated to the monitor....in this case the RCOs

Food for thought, aye?

[Polchraine]

Iain is (in my opinion) reasonable to suggest:

Most examiners and instructors I know take their responsibilities very seriously but they cannot cover every single combination of circumstances that might arise in a shooters future range activity. Once a shooter takes on the command of a firearm, it is his or her responsibility and no-one else's.

The shooter is responsible for the firearm - HOWEVER the RCO or Safety Officer has a responsibility to ensure the shooter is being responsible, and adhering to the rules.

As mentioned above: When leaving a range or stand the Shooter is responsible for ensuring his firearm is unloaded or safe, it is not up to the Officer to do that. The Officer has responsibility to ensure the Shooter has complied with the rules for unloading/proving safety.