The UKRO Extrication Challenge 27th, 28th, 29th July 2006 Brighton
Brighton Racecourse, the venue for the Extrication Challenge, offered quite a change of aspect compared tp Plymouth a couple of years ago. Once again, as with Plymouth seafront, it enticed more of the public but unfortunately failed to attract emergency service personnel other than those performing in the event.

Back in 1989, as a founder member of the UK extrication challenge, I was convinced by Michael Akers and John Drudge that competition was needed as a catalyst to drive the rescue initiative forward, particularly as there was little initiative and no driving force to influence its development at that time. When I was asked to step away from the CUEES committee in 1996 and CACFOA invited on board, I anticipated then that eventually the concept would be overrun and the 'wheel' reinvented and renamed to meet new ambitions and development.

Although, with my hand on my heart, I can say that each year I have witnessed some improvements in the event, I can also honestly say that the challenge has grown beyond the restrictions being placed on it. In way of some explaination, let me say that there is nothing to be gained by removing vital learning resource from competition vehicles and, as for wrapping the whole affair in cotton wool, casualty care and risk management now has little bearing on the real world. However, I must welcome the advancement into 'heavy rescue'.

As opposed to competition, in the real world rescuers have to contend with undeployed SRS systems where on many occasions vehicles remain energised as access to the battery for disconnection will not be available. The idea of soft and hard protection was introduced to protect casualties during extrication, not dressing up competition casualties in firefighter gear. Moreover, how is it possible to assess the fitting of a C-collar on top of a turn-out coat. Where has the learning curve gone? Whose idea was it to remove innovation and stifle individual team initiative by denying the very core elements that need to be addressed? One would imagine that committee members and assessors have all the answers and that the problems derived of new vehicle technology and immediate aggressive resusciation and care are already well versed - think again!

It seems the whole concept has back-fired and the idiology of the 'Team Approach' relegated to firefighters only. Cards on the table; to meet Rescue Team needs the whole affair is far too minimal. Consider what is actually needed to save the life of an entrapped casualty with life threatening injuries? That is why the challenge was born, to push the boundaries forward; to encourage advancement and interactivity and cross-platform participation and training. Instead we are still faffing around with 'live casualties' who, as part of the assessment criteria, are unqualified to make any worthwhile judgements; especially when computerised medi-train mannequins are now available. Add to that an assessment criteria that is little different to when it all began.

I talk to many rescuers world-wide; firefighters, volunteers, EMS technicians, paramedics and emergency doctors. I separate them into two catorgories - Those that care and those that really care and have a track record to prove it. I listen to their comments and advice and wherever relevant, I involve the movers and shakers in my research. Extrication rescue is a passionate subject and, as always, I would like to open it up to you the reader and ask for your views -

• How would you change the Extrication Challenge to instill debate, share information, analyse and improve the team approach for crash rescue preparedness?
• Where do you see the Extrication Challenge going and how would you steer it there?
• How would you improve the assessment criteria?
• How do your views sit with the noteable Aim of the UKRO Extrication Challenge - To advance rescue science and technology and to develop proficiency levels in extrication, command and control and pre-hospital care"?