Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

"Range Is Clear"


Flexmoney

Recommended Posts

9.6.2 The Range Official responsible for a course of fire may stipulate that the scoring process will begin while a competitor is actually completing a course of fire. In such cases, the competitor’s delegate must be entitled to accompany the official responsible for scoring in order to verify the scoring. Competitors must be advised of this procedure during the squad briefing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flexmoney said:

8.3.8 “Range Is Clear” – This declaration signifies the end of the Course of fire. Once the declaration is made, officials and competitors may move forward to score, patch, reset targets etc.

Somebody watched the area one video!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9.6.2 does not mention "moving forward".  

 

Not sure this is something we want to range lawyer anyway?  We quickly lose our belt and suspenders approach to safety doctrine...as is evident by recent events.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slimm609 said:

That could have ended very badly!  

You think? you think a uspsa shooter, even one dumb enough to spend 5 seconds running back for a popper is going to just go all freakout and shoot someone? I dunno. I think it's likely to just end in a reshoot.

 

But there are some lessons to be learned, without a doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Flexmoney said:

9.6.2 does not mention "moving forward".  

 

Not sure this is something we want to range lawyer anyway?  We quickly lose our belt and suspenders approach to safety doctrine...as is evident by recent events.

 

 

No sir, it refers to the scoring process, which implies multiple activities necessary for scoring without defining or limiting what those might be.

 

Clearly there was some very poor judgment here by the individual way down range, and the other group being completely oblivious and deeper than prudent, not defending the individual/group decisions.

 

What's the solution? Set a line across the rear of the bay, nobody but the shooter and timer move forward of it until ULSC? Sounds good, but will slow things, not always insignificantly, when partial scoring of many stages can be done safely prior to ULSC.

 

Even if you did stop scoring, the timer could still end up down range, I'm slow and I've outrun the timer RO before, and/or moved in a manner they didn't expect and ended up with them downrange, so shall we institute absolutely no uprange movement by the shooter? Where do we draw the line?

 

Maybe mandate someone accompany the scorer and delegate that does nothing but watch the shooter and alert the scoring party if scoring is to commence prior to ULSC?

 

This whole episode is a lesson in complacency, thankfully the consequences were not physical. A discussion of the events is necessary, I'm not convinced that further regulating stage activities is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad no one got hurt. 

 

The HMFIC for that stage owns that one. 

 

i saw a few RO difficulties at this match. I guess that's what happens when you need such a vast number of voulenteers. 

Mr. Nelson put on a great match and I'm grateful for it all. 

Growing pains guys... this is what happens when we see a lot more shooters  but not a lot of infrastructure growth. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been at MANY matches (local) when a few of us were "following" the shooter

taping and scoring ...   Trying to "keep the squad moving" and save time.

 

Could have been caught in a similar predicament - but, so far, so good.

 

That video should be mandatory viewing for all USPSA shooters and RO's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Flatland Shooter said:

 

Its like the lady with the camera.  

 

Darwin's theory in process. 

 

"They are Uspsa shooters, nobody ever breaks the 180 or lets a round loose unintentionally"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why on stages which scoring is going to conducted ahead of time, more RO's are needed than the one on the timer and the scorekeeper is necessary to help manage the squad for these type of stages.  Sometimes at our local matches we get to much in a hurry and we have to curtail the enthusiasm  to get down range for resetting the stage.  It is either we have the too many people wanting to get the stage reset and not enough that you have to ask people to partake. 

 

Most experienced RO's I know and have worked with have had unexpected items occur, causing you to be in the wrong position.  That is why experience is necessary on the more complicated stages with more than the RO on the timer and the RO on the scoring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, motosapiens said:

You think? you think a uspsa shooter, even one dumb enough to spend 5 seconds running back for a popper is going to just go all freakout and shoot someone? I dunno. I think it's likely to just end in a reshoot.

 

But there are some lessons to be learned, without a doubt.

 

 

The reality is that we don't know how (literally) thousands of shooters will respond to such a stress event.  I can say, with some degree of certainty, that there is such a thing as sympathetic muscle contraction.  (<-- not sure if that is the proper term...perhaps "visceral", maybe somebody can correct me)  The idea boils down to muscles tensing under a stress.  I don't even believe that you have to get into fight or flight response (where some will have a heightened sense of reality while others will crap their pants and suck their body into T-rex arms).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of these were broken or fudged?  All, I'd argue.

 

Jeff Cooper's Four Rules:[6]

  1. All guns are always loaded.
  2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
  3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
  4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 I think it's likely to just end in a reshoot.

 

If you get into risk mitigation or hazard analysis, often you look at two aspects...

 

1.  The likelihood of the even occurring.

2.  The impact of the event occurring.

 

Even if the likelihood of an event is low, if the impact is high...you have an issue that needs addressed.  

 

The impact here is death.  And, while we can say the situation that leads to this has a low likelihood...we know it certainly isn't low enough (we have empirically evidence...actual things that have happened...that prove this out)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How to deal...

 

Once you have identified a hazard, how do you deal with it.  You apply a control.

 

In this case, it is really easy.  Keep people out of the freakin BOOM zone!

 

 

 

 

 

 

The BOD and DNROI have a bit of work to do here, immediately.  9.6.2 should never ever circumvent 8.3.8.  There cannot be ambiguity.  There cannot be exceptions.  There cannot be any question.

 

 

Safety, in this case, was designed to fail.  (I can expand on that if there is a desire to hear it)

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...