Sometims a full RA is not available or the hazards are unknown - for example the emergency services attending an incident. They have prior knowledge and experience of incidents, but each incident is unique and impossible to forsee all outcomes therefore dynamic risk assessment has to be done. Reinforced by good safety awareness and training and the ability to understand their own level of competencies, the vast majority of these incidents are dealt with in a controlled manner. It is important that the learnings from the incidents are passed on. David

In the example cited by Firestar it is possible the manager did not know the difference between a DRA and WRA, probaly due to lack of training. Clearly, before attempting this type of training scenario the manager should have liaised with a h&s person who would have explained the correct process. Operational managers often go full steam ahead thinking that they know what they are doing. You don't know what you don't know springs to mind. DRAs have a place but in my experience they are overly used and are often nothing more than a paper exercise. Obviously an over reliance of DRAs can do more harm than good. I once worked in utilities where the operatives were supposed to complete a DRA before starting the job. However, I would often find that they had not completed a DRA before starting work and sometimes completed one at the end of the job!

My understanding of when a DRA should be used is in circumstances where it is near impossible to determine the outcome thus formal written RAs cannot be used. Emergency situations such as terrorist attacks, fire and rescue, police operations, military movements etc are examples of where DRA was in my view designed for use. OK the principles of DRA can be used in everyday work situations to combat significant risk and i am all for using competence of workers to do on the job assessments when things are not quite what they state on the method statement or generic RA and update accordinly, but is this really dynamic risk assessing? Is the example provided by Chris, a rapidly changing opeational situation or just situation where a simple adjustment is needed? I don't believe as Ray suggests that DRA is a paper exercise, in fact quite the opposite. I do believe however, that the concept of using DRA in normal circumstances to basically get away from the real job of assessing the assessible is quite wrong. GC

I arrange drills and exercises of a security related nature in conjunction with statutory bodies and the relevant government department. DRA is a principal aspect of emergency contingency planning as it is not always possible to reasonably predict the outcome. Health and safety of persons affected by the scenario is a priorty so putting DRA in action in these circumstances is a must. Lessons learned should of course be recorded in formal emergency planning thereafter, but DRA does have an important role to play IMO and that of said organisations and the UK Government. GC

Garfield, my point being that if you "arrange" a training event, then the eventualities and issues arising should be foreseeable. In a wider context of course, it is perfectly conceivable that a training event could involve the completion of a DRA by those participating - the outcomes though, would be under the control of those in charge of the training event.

Just to add a cat to the pigeons so to speak - I would contend that DRA is the final stage of any formal risk assessment and is about the ongoing monitoring and self monitoring for risks developing as the work progresses. This artificial separation of formal task specific risk assessments from DRAs is causing a lot of confusion and I feel the emergency services have created a problem that should not have existed. Even in emergency situations the emergency plan addresses the known and likely contingencies and it is the variations that need to be DR assessed as the situation develops and continue until control is regained and the task is completed. I have extreme concerns about the current common useage of dynamic assessment Bob

.......which means you and I are in agreement, Garfield.

Sorry to interupt your eulogies...however, I was reading an article on SHP online yesterday regarding a fatality, where the worker was crushed to death under a falling load. A DRA had been implemented for the lifting task, but the 'HSE only recognises these in respect of the Armed Forces and Emergency Services.' Really, how interesting, would anyone one from HSE like to elaborate? See link below: http://www.shponline.co....-tonne-load-from-falling

DRA where introduced by the Fire Service to reduce the number of deaths and injuries to crews. They were preformed by highly trained officers at the scene. The police service embraced the idea. The were a number of difference in how they were carried out. The most important thing about a DRA is that the person making it may have to later write it down if it goes wrong. It may be Dymanic but still has to be justified. It also requires that those who will be carrying it out have the training necessary to understand all the options that can be used to deal with the problem.If not then the system fails. Remember it may be a DRA but you could have to justify it later if it goes wrong. You can only carry out a DRA if you are trained. It do not remove the responsibilty to carry out full assessments in planning an event even for the police. A good example of the is the HSENI report in police action at a riot in Belfast. You can see it on the PSNI web site as a FOI report

Hello, being a member of one of the emergency services, it seems to me that most situations have happened before somewhere, and therefore a full risk assessment for activities such as police mobile patrol is perfectly achieveable. The art of such a risk assessment is to provide the patrolling officer with a list of options to they can choose from dynamically when they encounter an incident - hence DRA. What can happen though is that in some cases managers use DRA as a cop out (ho,ho), avoiding their responsibilty for providing a system of work that is as safe as possible, and blame the patrol officer for not getting their DRA right. I have to agree with the comment that training exercises have to be thoroughly planned and risk assessed before hand. It just would not be safe for firearms training for example to be conducted without a lesson plan and a written risk assessment. Yes there would be options in the lesson for the officer to work through and it could be said that they would dynamically risk assess the situation for themselves, but the instructors would be fully in charge of the situation.

Quite right, the concept of DRA has been around for years and clearly should only be used in situations that are not reasonably forseeable hence military and emergency services use. Rays example from shp should have been covered by normal RA procedures, however I do not agree with the statement that DRA only applies the armed forces and emergency services. A quick search on the HSE website reveals reference to DRA on school trips, for example. Gidday

I agree with Bob and Clive, the Dynamic Risk Assessment does not replace a Risk Assessment; the RA provides a framework, whilst the DRA provides a mechanism to cope with those aspects that are dynamic and fast moving. In other words a DRA is an adjunct that complements rather than replaces a RA. Regards