Hi from wet rugby (but not as wet as many other places)

[Tony Ferrari]

Whilst there are good reasons for only belonging to one group, it is not uncommon for responders to belong to two (or more?), this is largely down to local practice (i.e. some groups insist on sole membership, whereas others have a more flexible policy. 4x4 Response UK do not dictate either way as this is a matter for local determination.

On a call out it should follow that which ever group calls out the responder first has the claim on them. If the second group then calls them out, they can simply respond that they are not available.

The other issue is annual TPL Insurance as both groups could end up paying for the same member! For historical reasons Hertfordshire and Beds & Cambs have traditionally had joint members but the respective reps have just had to confirm the number of joint members each year and the two groups pay for half each.... simples!

Tony (HT01 & BC028)

[Toby Deas]

Thanks for all the replys gents,

Although I don't really understand the reason for being a single member if that's the rules than I shall follow them. I have made a choice and joined the one I fell I would be most useful to.

Be surly it's about being available to help whoever needs it? Just seems a shame that if the other group has a sever issue and needs more responders than they have available then I would be able to assist just because I'm a member of a neighbouring group.
As you said it should work on a first ask first response system then I just wouldn't be available to the second.

But anyways. it's neither here nor there. Not for me to make the decision or step and and insist rules are bent or changed.

I'm just happy to be of assistance when I'm needed

Thanks
Toby

[James E Lyon]

Hi Toby,

Very similar position here

I think the thing about joining only a single group is entirely about the practicality -- so controllers know what's what, avoids complications if multiple calls arrive very close together etc...

I believe that nationally there is some inclination towards interoperability between groups, but each group is different so it's not always trivial for someone trained and set up to work one way, to suddenly leap in with another team -- and that's half the point, that working as a team that develops together is a strength in its own right.

However, any severe or major incident would of course open the possibility of controllers seeking support from other groups -- and we saw it recently when a national call went out for some additional standby cover during the floods -- and indeed when that happened, it was emphasised that no direct offers were sought; that everything should channel via the relevant controllers etc...

So, practical upshot?

Some people agree with two groups that they can belong to both, where it works and suits, but for the most part everyone fixes on just one group in the knowledge that controllers and national coordination efforts can make things happen if severity requires it.

In any case, I always assume/hope that if any neighbouring group had a major incident and wanted extra support then they would surely not hesitate in contacting the controller of the group(s) closest to the location of the incident, so that some coordinated collaborative working was possible. Everyone seems motivated by doing a good professional job of helping when and where required -- I've not heard anyone refusing to cross a border on principle :-)

Je.

[Toby Deas]

Originally Posted by LyonJE

Hi Toby,

Very similar position here

I think the thing about joining only a single group is entirely about the practicality -- so controllers know what's what, avoids complications if multiple calls arrive very close together etc...

I believe that nationally there is some inclination towards interoperability between groups, but each group is different so it's not always trivial for someone trained and set up to work one way, to suddenly leap in with another team -- and that's half the point, that working as a team that develops together is a strength in its own right.

However, any severe or major incident would of course open the possibility of controllers seeking support from other groups -- and we saw it recently when a national call went out for some additional standby cover during the floods -- and indeed when that happened, it was emphasised that no direct offers were sought; that everything should channel via the relevant controllers etc...

So, practical upshot?

Some people agree with two groups that they can belong to both, where it works and suits, but for the most part everyone fixes on just one group in the knowledge that controllers and national coordination efforts can make things happen if severity requires it.

In any case, I always assume/hope that if any neighbouring group had a major incident and wanted extra support then they would surely not hesitate in contacting the controller of the group(s) closest to the location of the incident, so that some coordinated collaborative working was possible. Everyone seems motivated by doing a good professional job of helping when and where required -- I've not heard anyone refusing to cross a border on principle :-)

Je.

In all fairness James that's very well written and makes perfect sense.
So from this point of view I can understand the possible complications. Plus as said before not much point in 2 separate groups providing insurance to the same individual!

Sorry if I have created upset within the camp, wasn't my intentions, just wanted clarification as to why I couldn't, or at least for why it wasn't a good idea.

I get it now so I'm looking forward to assisting MROC when needed