27 replies to this topic

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Inspired by comments in another thread, I thought it might be useful to post a checklist of the Top 5 subjects an RO should consider when debugging a stage before anyone makes an attempt at shooting it:

1. Safety:
[_] a. Check every possible angle of fire to ensure that the stage will be safe for each competitor, official and spectator while it's being shot.
[_] b. Check the range surface for potentially dangerous dips, bumps, rocks, ricochets and other irregularities.
[_] c. Check all props a competitor might use for support (including doors & ports) are strong and durable enough for the intended purpose and for the duration of the match.
[_] d. Check that targets are not placed too highly whereby shots passing through them will leave the shooting bay.
[_] e. Ensure there is sufficient room for the RO to monitor safe competitor action without interfering with the competitor.

2. Scoring:
[_] a. Check every possible angle of fire to ensure there are no shoot-throughs, remembering to consider short and tall competitors.
[_] b. If there are partial targets on the stage, make sufficient and identical spares in advance to ensure consistency and more efficient replacement.

3. Consistency:
[_] a. Secure each target stand (and popper) to the range surface.
[_] b. Mark paper target stands with the precise angle, location and layout of targets (take digital photos if possible).
[_] c. Make a written note of the sequence and presentation of all Scoring and Penalty Targets (especially overlapping and adjacent ones).
[_] d. Record the height of "non-standard length" sticks used to hold paper targets, in case they get shot and need to be replaced, and have spares ready.
[_] e. If there are moving targets, use a stopwatch to record their approximate speed when activated, and check them again prior to each walkthrough demonstration.

4. DQ Traps:
[_] a. Ensure targets don't encourage a competitor to inadvertently run past them while shooting and therefore break the 90 degree barrier.
[_] b. With a table start, use a non-slip surface to prevent the gun moving when the competitor reaches for it, and ensure the table itself is securely anchored.
[_] c. Always use a sturdy chair without arms or other impediments, so that competitors don't get entangled when rising.
[_] d. It's better to use a rear starting line (i.e. heels against rear) rather than a starting box, to minimise the chance of competitors tripping forwards on the start signal.
[_] e. For other areas in the COF, use strongly braced barricades rather than charge or fault lines, to further minimise the chance of tripping.

5. Gamer loopholes:
[_] a. Check if there are ways which a gamer might circumvent the intent of the COF, but don't force everyone to shoot the COF in exactly the same way (e.g. allow options).

6. Supplies:
[_] a. Have spare cable lengths for activators of moving targets, in case they get shot and broken.
[_] b. If the weather looks doubtful, have plastic covers ready.
[_] c. Have at least one spare battery for your timer and, if possible, a spare timer.
[_] d. Have an ample supply of tan, white & black patches for paper targets, plus white & black paint for poppers. Using the wrong colour can be distracting for competitors.

++++++++

If there's something I've missed (I'm a bit sleepy!!), just add your suggestions in another post.

[Neil Beverley]

Hi All

Excellent thread, Vince.

Can I add to Vince's plea to add additional ideas to this thread.

I have recently been tasked to rewrite the RO, CRO and RM seminars on behalf of IPSC and IROA.

In the last few years I have been placing a bigger emphasis on what Vince nicely refers to as debugging a stage. It's not just good practice it's essential.

I delivered a Level II course this weekend and I present this under a slightly different heading but support Vince's intent 100%. I refer to this under the currently topical heading of "Risk Assessment".

Is there a risk from the safety angles?
Is there a risk of a shoot-through?
Is there a risk that a prop might fail?
Is there a risk of a competitor trap?
etc., etc.,

When I rewrite the seminars this is a subject that I believe can and should be expanded on. Therefore as requested please keep your ideas flowing so that all can be considered for inclusion. Thanks.

[Neil Beverley]

I ask for Vince's indulgence while I slightly borrow, or rather expand, his thread.

In my previous posting I supported Vince's "Debugging of Stages". OK! I called it something different but we're singing the same song. It's just that in the UK, and probably generally in Europe, "Risk Assessments" has become a bit of a buzz phrase at the moment.

I would like to expand on this by adding "Risk Management".

Again Vince and I are singing the same song.

The "Risk Assessment" is that a particular prop could break. The "Risk Management" is that you have spares available.

There is another aspect of "Risk Management" and I will give a very simple example of this.

On a range which has a common firing line of (say) 4 stages one of these stages involves movement from right to left, parallel to the shooting line. A stage such as this is better placed on the left hand side of the range. Competitors shouldn't, and aren't very likely to break the 90 degree mark but if they did it would most likely be to the LH side. If the stage is located on the right of the range then there is more of a risk than if on the right. If located on the LH side then an infringement should only affect the LH berm. Target placement would also play a role in the "risk". I believe this to be a very simple illustration of a "Risk Management" consideration.

Again I would ask for any thoughts, examples or contributions on this aspect of "Stage debugging" or "Risk Management".

Thanks.

[Vince Pinto]

Neil,

My indulgence is hereby granted, but it comes at a price ............ it's your shout for the first two rounds of Myers's Rum & Coke at our next meeting

[Skywalker]

Vince, Neil,
thanks for bringing this subject to our attention: I especially liked it because I usually help preparing the range for our annual Level III handgun Match, and I usually try to apply "debugging of the stage" or "Risk Management and Assessment" procedures.

My problem is that, even if I am really well-meaning, I usually am not able to carry on a complete/precise checklist of what to check and arrange for each stage in a consistent manner.

Your post definitely gave me food for our next incoming Level III match.

Thanks.

[Neil Beverley]

Vince

A good deal which I graciously accept with thanks!

Besides it's a win win situation. While I'm buying you your rum & coke it would be rude not to have one myself.

[Bill Nesbitt]

Is this where you check to make sure the stage follows the rules?

Bill Nesbitt

[DaveP]

I delivered a Level II course this weekend

Which I attended, and am now a much wiser person...

So Bill,

The answer to your question is a YES ...O'h goodness... YES

[Wheels]

Dave P,
If this is where we check the rules......
Let's start with question 1...........
What three elements............


Well, it's worth a try init?

Neil,
Thanks for a great weekend

Cheers
Steve

[Neil Beverley]

Steve

Welcome to the forum.

I spoke to AP this morning. He's still in shock!

I'm pleased that you all "enjoyed" the weekend.

[Wheels]

Neil,
Are you considering compiling risk assessment sheets to be given
to designers / builders so they can complete the sheets as part of
a pre-course review?
That should give the course reviewer a "head start", and be able to
compare the on-site review with the build preview.
Hopefully, that will speed up the whole on-site review process and
give a more "stable" match.
Steve

[DaveP]

I spoke to AP this morning. He's still in shock!

Shock !..

Hmmmmm... I for one am totaly mentaly exhausted !

I'm so glad to hear that I 'enjoyed' the weekend... its just that it is not 'enjoyed' as one would normaly use the word !!!!

(But I still recon that my match worked, apart from 1 or 2 small minor details)

And welcome from me Steve, remember if in doubt refer to 11.8.2

(just keeping the thread on topic )

[Neil Beverley]

Neil,
Are you considering compiling risk assessment sheets to be given
to designers / builders so they can complete the sheets as part of
a pre-course review?
That should give the course reviewer a "head start", and be able to
compare the on-site review with the build preview.
Hopefully, that will speed up the whole on-site review process and
give a more "stable" match.
Steve

Steve

I hadn't considered it but I will. There may be some scope for doing something at the course review stage.

The other thing that springs to mind is is to look at developing a pro forma stage check list. That might work.

It has to be a balance between being a paperwork exercise and what we really want which is trigger time.

Thanks for the idea.

[Wheels]

Dave,
I agree that your match would have worked, I just
can't see how the duck could take refreshments to
the CRO without spilling them!

We don't need the rule book anyway, we've got the new and
improved edition of the "Neilbook". A portable and handy
device that can be used anytime day or night!
No mess, no fuss and no need to put it in a waterproof cover>
This latest edition updates itself automatically to the new rules
and now has included (free of charge)a "fast search index"
and "Selective speech recognition"
Just feed it a couple of times a day, and your new "Neilbook"
will last forever
To order your "Neilbook" please send a cheque or postal order
to: The house next to the noisy pub, Somewhere on the
outskirts of London, UK

[Neil Beverley]

(But I still recon that my match worked, apart from 1 or 2 small minor details)

Even the world's most creative accountant wasn't going to make your match design add up!

On the other hand 10/10 for presentation. We all had a a good laugh.

Seriously, well done to you all. You worked hard and deserved the end result.

[Wheels]

Neil,
Sorry mate, back to the subject.
The way I was thinking of the risk assessment, is to give
it to the people building the stages and setting targetry.
They assess the stages and the overall range complex themselves.
The info is then given to the reviewer before the on-site review.
In this way any problems that may arise because of simple mistakes
can be rectified during the build stage, because hopefully, they will
not submit an out of spec assessment.
When the reviewer checks the assessment, any problems that may
arise, but have been assessed as satisfactory by the builders, may be
looked into in more detail by the reviewer.
It should mean that if you have a tight schedule for review, only
differences of opinon may need to be looked at.
It's just an idea, and would be very helpful to new venues.
The old way of calulating the risk may work.
Steve

[Neil Beverley]

The way I was thinking of the risk assessment, is to give
it to the people building the stages and setting targetry.
They assess the stages and the overall range complex themselves.

Syeve

I can see that a risk "checklist" or "pro-forma" could be useful to stage designers as well.

Actually a copy of Vince's list as it stands would be useful if in the hands of every designer and match organiser. It serves as a very useful reminder of the things to be considered.

I still fancy having a look at a tick box style format as well or instead of. Something like a car servicing sheet or the UK MOT test check lists.

Of course if someone else wants to put something forward for consideration .......... ??????

[james h]

if you listen carefully you can hear the tumbleweed as it rolls past



seriously though, something like an if/then sequnce for checking compliance with rules/safety issues would be v useful. it can be a pain flipping back and forth through the book to check all is ok (hence the error on the bonus target )

[Vince Pinto]

Neil,

Since you wanted an actual checklist, I went back and edited my original post so that it's in point form rather than paragraphs.

[Neil Beverley]

Vince,

I like it. Thanks.

I think others here will also find it useful.

Skywalker? Wheels? What do you think?

I certainly think I will add something like this to the seminar material in time.

[Skywalker]

Neil, Vince,
as I posted B4, I like the idea (what to check) and the implementation (checklist).

I'll be printing ...er, um, well <groan> ... translating and re-printing it for my non-english-speaking teammates and fellow ROs.

Thanks again.

[JMD]

I’ve had the honor of working with many regions in the last few years that are developing their match production skills. Several conclusions leap to mind.

1. This should be a learning process. One ought to “always be teaching their replacement” and this is the perfect arena.

2. Use the Socratic method and some patience. Most do not have the
experience (wit or charm we do).

3. When approaching even the most basic “problem” I have found that when an answer is discovered or arrived at by discussion it is of greater value than being “told by an authority”.

4. Bigger problems, serious to dangerous, require many what ifs and what can be’s. Sure “no one will ever be that stupid” or “competitors are expected to be safe” are common retorts “BUT WHAT IF...”

My favorite, and said with humor, is even if someone does something stupid
and we “dig a hole”, how can 100+ people keep a secret?

Many course designers develop tunnel vision and become very possessive of their work – lets call it a degree of commitment. When rearranging or destroying someone’s “concept” it is often wise to use a little tact as they have done the lions share of the work and you hope to use them again.

When reviewing the course game it as a good shooter would, not as it was
“intended” to be shot. Always identify the “sweet spots” and work from there. Step backward, reach through windows, kneel, go prone and try every
trick possible.

Stage description/briefing language needs to be specific. Say what you mean
and enforce it with the first shooter.

If a piece of apparatus appears flimsy or problematic – it will be. If you do not have a spare you will need one. If you did not measure and document times and distances you will face challenges. Have more spares on hand and you will not need them... and remember despite your best intentions and efforts “Murphy” will be waiting.

Finally “freestyle” is not a euphemism for “vertical boxes” but defines a creative challenge offering choices in solving the problem.

*If I’ve repeated anything already stated -- then it was well said!


Joel

[schmitz]

Not only for RO's etc.

As a beginning course designer the genuine post of Vince has been a great help for me in designing courses of fire for our local IPSC level 2 match. (30/31 May 2004)
Because everything is brought back to basics!
It's easier to judge your own design when one keeps certain perspectives in the back of his mind.

Thank you Vince,

DVC, Henny

[SDC]

Besides DQ traps, you might want to also check for "RO traps"; ie. stages that require an RO to get so close to a shooter that he/she may end up interfering with the shooter, or gets into a dangerous situation. I once ROed a stage with a narrow alley with narrow alleys and multiple targets off to the sides, and if the shooter backs up or turns around, it can get really uncomfortable; one of the few times I've had a pistol pointed at me

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the additional input.

SDC,

The issue of giving the RO sufficient space to monitor safe competitor action is broadly covered by the very first line, but I still added an extra line at the bottom of the Safety section to give it more emphasis - thanks.

JMD,

A valid and worthwhile comment about being tactful when debugging another person's work. You've gotta do what you've gotta do, but you should definitely do so with diplomacy!