UKC

Heather Morning, the Mountain Safety Advisor for the MCofS, explores the thorny subject of mountain accidents and potential accident 'black spots' in the hills of Scotland.

"Should we be putting up warning signs?... Are there places we should avoid in the mountains? Are we putting ourselves at unnecessary (and in some folks eyes unacceptable) risk? Should a list be published and reviewed regularly of locations where accidents are occurring?..."

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2078

In reply to UKC Articles: a number of points. Not all mountain accidents involve mountaineers, some involve general tourists. Mountain literature such as The Munros should be updated to highlight seasonal specific blackspots/dangers eg Coire Tulaich and suggest alternative routes of ascent and descent for winter conditions.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I consider myself to be a fervent advocate of promoting safety in the mountains through education and increasing public awareness. It is becoming increasingly clear that very many people currently underestimate the challenge that our hills and mountains can present. However, when Heather postulates;

“You wouldn't think it was acceptable to jump in a car and drive without having some professional instruction first. Should venturing into the mountains be any different?”

I find I cannot agree with the analogy. In reality, many people obtain a provisional licence and are then accompanied by a qualified driver, not a professional instructor. Agreed, it may not be the best way to learn but it is widely accepted. Within the mountaineering context, we could sensibly replace qualified by suitably experienced, in line with the HSE definition of competence.

Moreover, exploring the driving analogy would have us being first licensed before venturing out and then having to be qualified before venturing out alone. Would anyone, other than the press and the ‘nanny state’, want to see that?

In reply to UKC Articles: The whole article seems to lead up to a suggestion that people pay money to go on courses organized by...the body behind the article.

The driving analogy is nonsense. Driving tests are to prevent people killing other road users, not themselves. You are quite a liberty to drive off-road without a licence, as you should be free to go walking or climbing without a licence. Just don't complain if you hurt yourself.

In reply to UKC Articles:

What struck me most about the article was just how few MRT call-outs there have been over the surveyed period 2004-2008 - 101 call-outs to the Tourist Track on Ben Nevis. That's 20 or so per year. To me, that doesn't sound like a dire problem desperately in need of a solution.

That's not meant to sound complacent, but the impression sometimes given is that the general public are somehow at huge risk every time they step onto a hill.

Erik makes the very sensible point that accidents will happen to climbers, walkers and general punters. It's perfectly possible for someone with no experience whatsoever to make a happy ascent and descent of Ben Nevis with no alarms - hundreds, probably thousands of people do this every year. The idea that anyone should be denied access to a hill for want of some kind of licence or instruction is nonsense.

Erik also makes the sensible suggestion that books and other forms of guidance should direct readers away from known danger spots. The Clachaig Gully is the one which has received attention recently, and I can think of a nasty descent from Blaven I wouldn't recommend to anyone. There does come a further question about maps - OS maps and Harveys maps in particular. Should they show danger spots? Harveys maps often have useful route information, so inclusion of appropriate guidance wouldn't be out of place, but I'm not so sure about OS maps.

As for publishing lists of accidents and known danger spots. Would it make a difference? I guess it wouldn't do any harm, but how many people would actively go looking for such information? If you're on holiday in Fort William and you've got, for example, Chris Townsend's book on walks in Lochaber as well as the appropriate map, are you really also going to look for an internet cafe to find whether your chosen routes have any danger spots?

The unfortunate fact is that hills can be dangerous. They can catch out the experienced and the inexperienced - different people will be caught out by different things. At some point, it has to be recognised that there's only so much that can be done, and that after a while, you have to take responsibility for yourself. Personally, I think that's a lesson worth learning.

In reply to UKC Articles: there is a sign at the entrance
near the beach carpark and footpath up the mountain in Glen Brittle .It explains that from there is mountainous and can be dangerous and to make sure you have experience and equipment so you wont need assistance to get back

In reply to tony: coire an tulaich is an important example, there have been two major avalanche incidents here during my time in the hills, the first killed 3 tourists who literally went for a play in the snow at the coire floor, the second killed 3 hillwalkers who were part of a big group of hillwakers climbing up the The Munros book route, ie up the coire headwall.

both completely different but both having the same catastrophic end result. I would argue the second example is the only one we could do anything about to help avoid in the future i.e by a simple addition to munro guidebooks.

But the problem is you are dealing with human nature here so if they see one person breaking trail and going up the headwall and are ok then they assume it will be ok for them, they would rather follow the steps than break trail up the ridge to the right.

The more we attempt to stop these accidents the deeper we sink into the litigous quagmire.

In reply to UKC Articles:

'Audio and visual warnings' - are the height of the mountains, the steepness and roughness of the paths, and the roughness of the weather not warning enough? What difference will a sign make, especially when such a sign warns people of the plainly lesser hazards of the path along the banks of the river in Glen Nevis?

In reply to Erik B:
I remember the first time I went up there - quite inexperienced and scared of snow on hills, so I saw snow on the headwall and opted to climb up onto the N ridge of the corrie and avoid the snow. I have a vague memory that was a recommended route in one of the books I read, but like you say, if there are footprints going one way, there's a good chance others will follow the same way.

I think you're probably right about that, and I suspect we wouldn't actually stop many accidents anyway.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:


Agree with all you say, but especially this.

I like the fact that people can get out on their own and have great experiences, get that exploring feeling, breaking new ground. The right to go for a walk in the hills should be protected.

If not what else, get in a kayak? go for a swim in the sea? sail a boat? go for a snorkel?

In reply to UKC Articles: "It is folk with inadequate experience and equipment who are exposing themselves to a greater level of risk"

1) There is nowhere that is without risk.
2) To gain the experience needed to assess risk, you need to be exposed to that risk (possibly with more experienced mates, or a training instructor).

Warning signs are a waste of time - the organisation putting up the sign cannot risk under-emphasizing the risk, so they over-emphasize it. The reader of the sign recognises this and therefore ignores it.

I am totally opposed to the 'nanny state', at least in this environment. I recognise that I alone am responsible for my own safety, in fact that is part of the attraction - "We go there to challenge ourselves, both physically and mentally; to make very real decisions that have very real consequences". The hills are one of the few places where we are still allowed to do this, and this is worth defending.

In reply to IainRUK:

Swimming is a good analogy, I think. You are taught the basics, probably indoors, but after that you are on your own. Some never leave the pool, some will swim at safe Med beaches, others will swim in lakes, surf, swim the channel, even. All are different stops on the journey, all have different levels of danger and committment, but nobody asks for your license before you swim out. And the sea is always a harsh mistress, and accidents will always happen

In reply to UKC Articles:

Nothing wrong with publishing accident statistics, however, as with all statistics, their usefulness depends entirely on their interpretation. They would need to have the number of call outs, estimated number of people going there and the type of terrain. If it were "featureless plateau" then you could ask yourself "ok, how good is my nav.?" or if it's "steep, exposed ridge" then you could think "high winds, ice and a nervous partner - I'll avoid".

However, I don't want signs saying "warning, experienced people only". I've come across these before, and they are next to useless - in the same way that signs with an estimated time are useful. You don't know who's put them up! What counts as experienced? E3 leader? Did my bronze Duke of Edinburgh 15 years ago? Walk to the shops once a year? When it says "requires corrct equipment" what does that mean? Walking boots? Waterproofs? Sunhat? Full winter racks, crampons, and ice axe? I think the people who take notice of these are the people who least need to.
And as for courses.... I think that would probably rule out most of the people on this forum, including some of the most experienced and safest. And what about a tourist? What comparative qualification do they require? How would it all be policed? Ridiculous.

Tim

In reply to Green Porridge: its is an inevitable slippery slope (excuse the pun), the only way to police it (if thats what society wants) is insurance. If you have insurance through a mountaineering body then you are covered for rescue, if you dont then you are not. This may deter non mountaineers from wandering from the road edge. This would also provide the mountaineering bodies with the level of influence they crave as it justifies their existence.

all rather grim Im afraid. I am extremely concerned that we are even discussing this, thin end of the wedge if you ask me.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Got to say, not very impressed with the article overall. I don't think it offers anything new to the argument and I find the reasoning somewhat weak. I was hoping for a more balanced and in-depth result from the investigation.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I'm all for freedom to explore regardless of training etc.
I dread to think of legislation and insurance scenarios coming into play.
Of course the hills are potentially dangerous. No matter how trained and experienced you may be, you are kidding yourself if you think you are risk free participating in hill sports.
I am against signposts- once you label one hill as risky where do you stop?
Posting warnings detracts from the experience and, I would argue, removes some degree of personal responsibility.
People will always come to grief on the hills. They always have and always will. The hills in the UK are too accessible to prevent people from going into them.
We're all in the same boat- complete novice or so- called expert.
Keep it free and please don't go down the nanny state road.

In reply to Erik B:

And again:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=170

In reply to stupot:

Couldn't agree more

In reply to MG:

Indeed.
The article basically said "Statistically most people die in bed so bed seems like an accident spot but of course because lots of people spend a lot of time in bed that's not really true. And therefore perhaps we should all pay the MCofS to do courses to make us safe in bed."

In reply to UKC Articles:

I am really disappointed that this article was not much more robust in defending our freedom in the hills. Accidents happen in the mountains and not just to ill-prepared people.

In reply to Eric Herring:

There is on going dialogue about accidents and rescue call outs in the UK's hills: all the MR teams are involved, the BMC, the MCof S and others.

These call outs and accidents 'appear' to becoming more frequent and in the rapid news cycle where everyone is looking for some new issue to splash across their web/print news page they get a lot of publicity.

The fear is, and this is happening, that some media will be calling for signage in the mountains, regular patrols, and worse could evolve, the greatest fear is legislation, obligatory rescue insurance.......

Those who spend a lot of time in the hills, us lot, and bodies like MRT, the BMC, the MCofS don't want this happen.

Education is the key, taking simple steps to increase your safety. Some are involved in this education: Heather Morning for one, as the Mountain Safety Advisor, MCofS.

In this brief article she asks some important questions about safety in the mountains and comes to some conclusions that defend our freedom in the hills.

If you go into the UK's hills, you need to have some basic skills, and one of the ways to do this is take expert advice.

The challenge is as always is how to get this message out to the thousands of people who are increasingly spending time in the great outdoors of Wales, the Lakes, Pennines and Scotland.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Buts its still a poor article which says very little

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

So this begs the question; Should the BMC/MCoS continue to promote mountain sports/activities which then leads to greater use, which leads to calls for more control/legislation

or should we revert to a lower key profile where uptake of these activities is by osmosis

In reply to UKC Articles: after seeing the photo of Heather Morning I realised that she ran my ML training with Andy Say, years ago in Pitlochry. Hello Heather! I'm still working in the outdoors! And I passed my assessment!

In reply to Doug:

It poses some questions for discussion and is part of an on-going dialogue.

It's part of the story.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The article was not at all robust in challenging obsessions with signage etc, or in making the point that skills/training/advice are no guarantee of safety, or in challenging the extent to which there really is a problem.

In reply to Removed User:

Now that is a bigger question: should those who represent us promote what we do to those who don't?

There are bigger forces at work of course when it comes to promoting the outdoors: outdoor equipment companies and the outdoor media (including UKC)

M

In reply to Eric Herring:

Ask the MR teams if there is a problem?

Heather is against signage, for increasing skill levels of those who enjoy the outdoors (and of course, skills/training/advice are no guarantee of safety, that's part of what you learn from kills/training/advice )

What are you for/against Eric?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
>>


The skills you need to learn to lower risk in winter are not basic they are technical and take time to learn, usually over a period of years. There are plenty of so called self-annointed experts who still have a lot to learn. But its not my place to assess these things. just like it isnt the experts place to ensure punters dont get killed. As far as Im concerned you should be allowed to go into the hills wether you have skills or not. looking to the future, perhaps the only pre-requisite of this freedom is that you sign a legal disclaimer to avoid any litigation proceedings in the event of an accident, if you dont sign it then you should face prosecution if you venture into the hills. Personally though Id rather we reverted back to how things were up until the late 90's and ignored all this new labour induced media hyped claptrap

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I didn't set it out as no problem.


Not what she wrote: 'I am not sure if visual and audio warnings are appropriate or effective.' Wishy washy stuff. I would want clear explanation of why they are neither appropriate nor effective.


She wrote: "Perhaps the way forward is to encourage and foster a culture of self reliance through the provision of training. You wouldn't think it was acceptable to jump in a car and drive without having some professional instruction first. Should venturing into the mountains be any different?" She appears to be arguing that it is unacceptable to go in the hills without professional training first. I disagree. And if it turns out that is not what she means, she should write more carefullu.

>(and of course, skills/training/advice are no guarantee of safety, that's >part of what you learn from kills/training/advice )

That point needs to be made explicitly as it is a significant counter to her own argument for more training.


See above

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: what I perceive as being the essential skills:

'soft' skills

understanding and forecasting weather
ability to read mountain terrain and chose the right 'line' for ascent and descent
navigation
avalanche awareness and prediction
fitness
diet

Use of equipment

use of ice axe NB breaking is only of use in certain situations eg at the start of a fall on a slope of neve, useless in powdery/grassy/rocky/water ice situations which is more the norm in the UK
crampon work - probably the most important skill to learn in this section and can not be learned quickly
maintenance of equipment, blunt crampons are dangerous
clothing
safety equipment and how to use it.

psycho skills

trusting your 6th sense
know when to turn back
understand your mental and physical limits
manage your fear when the inevitable whiteout and darkness kick in

would a day or two with an expert tick all these boxes?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:



Her conclusions seem to be that we need something like a driving licence before being allowed in the hills (not explicitly stated I know but leaving it open is almost worse). She appears to be deliberating opening the door to all sorts of regulation, qualifications etc. that will restrict people's freedom to take what risks they choose. It's a really weak article that could easily be seized upon by those who wish to regulate how people can take part in outdoor activities as supporting their cause. Most of the points have been made many times before and answered very robustly by those who feel that freedom to make our own judgements when climbing is hugely valuable. She makes no attempt to present these answers but instead acknowledges a whole range of possible restrictions.

Very dissapointing coming from the MCoS which I would hope and expect would support hill-goers' freedoms. Noteworthy that every post here has had major reservations (at least) about the article.

In reply to Erik B:

To be honest, ice axe breaking is never of use although braking may still be useful in limited situations!

In reply to Eric Herring:

I agree, and I'm sure the author would agree, as she was quoting a coroner.

And that is the point. The more the law gets involved, the more the media gets involved, the less 'freedom of the hills' there is.

In the old days, before the media explosion that made hillwalking fashionable, you know, Julie Bradbury (http://www.juliabradbury.com/ ... seetle down!), Bear Whatisface, and glossy outdoor gear magazines like Trail, it was easy to go out with friends, find a mentor maybe, and learn through experience.

Nowadays there are more people out on the hill, and who want to go out: they get a bit of gear and start and that is fine.

But it is better, if you learn from someone with more experience and learn properly: basic skills like defensive walking and preparation like taking a head torch/jacket/food would save many MR call outs for twisted ankles and benightments.

Then further like basic navigation, reading the terrain, what to do if someone does have an accident.

A good start is to get out and also watch and read stuff like

Hillwalking Essentials DVD
http://www.bmcshop.co.uk/product_info.php?cPath=220_312&products_id=563...

Stuff like this is absolutely invaluable, can save time learning and save lives..

BMC Winter Lecture
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=2772

MCof S Winter Lecture Series
http://www.mcofs.org.uk/winterlectureseries.asp

And don't be silly, no one at the MCofS or the BMC are saying that you should have to have a Hillwalking License - in fact they want to stop that happening.

What is crux here is reaching those who spend time in the hills and offering the opportunity to learn if they need to and if they want to.

And above all it is about keeping the wildness (and hey I've lived in real wilderness) in the hills of the UK.

M

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


She quoted a coroner then added a very wishy washy comment: that was her words I was quoting, not the coroners.


You need to get out of the habit of calling people on this site silly etc.
The author raised the driving licence analogy, something I thought was not a good idea.

In reply to Erik B:


Don't be silly Erik. Experience is everything, but you can gain skills a lot quicker from experts - some of the DVD's available are brilliant, some of courses are excellent and affordable (in fact are sunbsidised).

Learning from experts AND your own experience is the best way.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: You sound like a sales pitch

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: ok ok, i cant pick at any more of your comments

by the way, a wee interesting sidenote, a mutual friend of ours did his winter ML in a pair of wellies!

In reply to Fawksey:

If you are talking about anything with value (and something you believe in), it usually does.

Anyway, some more points of reference.

Waymarking - Dumbing Down the Mountain
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=48985

And importantly:

Why is MCofS against waymarking of routes up Scottish mountains? Let’s make it clear from the outset, MCofS aims to encourage and support folk who wish to enjoy the mountains, be they hill walkers or climbers. We provide free mountain safety & navigation resources on this website and with the support of the Scottish Government we also fund the Mountain Weather Information Service.

We want to ensure that people understand the risks involved in heading into the hills – and how to be as safe as possible through preparation and by acquiring basic navigation skills. Our position is based on an understanding of the relationship between mountaineering incidents – mountain rescue call outs – and their cause.

Scotland’s mountains offer a fabulous range of different experiences for people of all ages and abilities. Being self-reliant – having necessary basic skills - is the only way to enjoy these experiences as safely as possible.

The argument in favour of waymarked paths is that their provision would obviate the need for folk to have map and compass skills and encourage more people to get active. MCofS believes map and compass skills are absolute basics for anyone heading for the mountains and that they can save your life.

MCofS believes that waymarking would encourage people to venture beyond their capabilities and get into difficulties. So what are the problems with waymarking?

Scotland’s weather, poor visibility, wind, rain, frost, and snow fall at pretty much any time of the year can all remove, damage or cover waymarks.

What is the inexperienced hill walker supposed to do in these circumstances? Who decides where to place waymarks? How far apart? What type of waymark design for the different types of mountain geology and flora we have in Scotland? Who maintains them? Who is liable when the waymark isn’t where it should be and folk get lost, injured or worse?

Of course the other point is that our mountains have many different points of access and while many walkers will tend to take a natural line of ascent, many simply want to exercise their freedom to enjoy the hills and take whatever route they wish.

MacWhirter states (incorrectly in some circumstances) that other countries have waymarked tracks and Scotland should be the same. An example is waymarked paths from hut to hut in some European countries. The huts are manned and the routes are usually on rocky terrain where the terrain enables waymarks to be relatively permanent and prominent along mountain tracks. Even so, some waymarks are missed and relying on them alone is not advisable. Scotland has some long distance paths which are waymarked at their start and end points, and some of these traverse high ground, but we don’t have the same mountain infrastructure as they have in Europe or the manned huts. Some of our long distance paths, whilst signed, still require naviagtional skills as parts of the route will not have an obvious track. These high-level routes will also be subject to adverse weather conditions, with poor visibility and the nature of the terrain limiting the usefulness of waymarking.

MacWhirter also states that many visitors from Europe will be disappointed not to fimd waymarked routes. It's interesting therefore to note that visitscotland's walking website promotes walking in Scotland's mountains to visitors as being relatively unique in not having waymarked paths, offering an experience where people can enjoy the freedom of the outdoors and explore.

People go to the mountains to enjoy the freedom, and to get away from restrictions, rules and an over-regulated world. Mountains 'offer a field of free action where nothing is organised, or made safe or easy, or uniform by regulations'*. Mountains are one of the few remaining places where people can discover themselves and connect with nature.

Waymarking isn't the answer – it's being self-reliant that will open up a world of opportunities to the hill walker, not being made unrealistically to feel 'safe' in an often unpredictable mountain environment.

David Gibson, Chief Officer, MC of S

http://www.mcofs.org.uk/news.asp?s=2&id=MCS-N10312&nc=

In reply to Erik B:

Nice.

I guided a 70 year old woman above 14,000ft and I was wearing sandals! Seriously.

M

In reply to UKC Articles:

Is this just an article writen for consumption on a climbing web site, or is it an article that will be released to the UK media / press ?

(and yes, I am aware that UKC is within public media domain)

Its one thing to air views to a "hill savvy" readership as opposed to the general public - what was the intended audience of the article ?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Can't beat either of those, but I did my summer ML in trainers after pouring boiling water over my toes camping in the hills just days before.

In reply to petestack:

The article is not well written but that isn't the point. I think it does an ok job of discussing some of the issues in a fairly shallow way and let's remember, this a forum. Anyone wanting to take an indepth interest can contribute directly to the MCofS if they wish.

As an aside, Coire an t-Sneachda, never "Coire an t'Sneachda".

In reply to Donald M:

I can assure you Donald, UKClimbing.com, the online outdoor media, will be continuing this dialogue, both editorially and the more free-form forum discussion, with all readers, and the MCofS and the BMC in the future.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Fair enough, but as I have said a few times before, the general postings on here don't represent the whole picture or spectrum of opinion.

A useful discussion but pretty much eveyone seems to be in agreement - no need or desire for signs or the intentions that go with them.

In reply to UKC Articles: An interesting article which echos some of my thoughts about risk. Basically that some routes, locations or activities are a lot more dangerous than other similar ones.

I do think that many people climbing and walking just don't have enough knowledge to understand the COMPARATIVE level of risk that they are taking. Most walkers/climbers know what they are doing is RISKY and therefore take sensible precautions, however they may not know enough to understand that two routes/activities that are outwardly similar have a very different level of risk. A good example is the knowledge that the normal route up the Buachaille is far more dangerous than almost any other 'normal' walking route up a Monroe.

If there are 'black spots' or routes that are more dangerous than others (which I think there are) then it is up to the climbing/mountaineering community to think about how to address the issue of repeated accidents. If some form of 'education' about the risks can be accomplished, then in no way would it be detrimental to mountaineering freedom. The issue is that if it is seen that climbers/mountaineers are not 'informed participants' than there may be outside pressure to changes things which we all want to avoid.

Unfortunately I've been disappointed about much of the quality of discussion so far in this thread so far.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
If some form of 'education' about the risks can be accomplished, then in no way would it be detrimental to mountaineering freedom.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. It is the suggestion that this education has to be formal and result in a licence that is causing concern.

The issue is that if it is seen that climbers/mountaineers are not 'informed participants' than there may be outside pressure to changes things which we all want to avoid.

But this article is providing that pressure from the "inside"!


In what way?

In reply to MG:



Where is that suggestion made?

Probably this "The whole article seems to lead up to a suggestion that people pay money to go on courses organized by...the body behind the article" which noone else appears to agree with. I have to say I found your thoughts weird on this as it doesn't read like that at all. Thankfully noone else appears to think that either.

In reply to Donald M:

Implicitly in
"You wouldn't think it was acceptable to jump in a car and drive without having some professional instruction first. Should venturing into the mountains be any different?"




I have to say I found your thoughts weird on this as it doesn't read like that at all. Thankfully noone else appears to think that either.

How else do you read
"Through their mountain safety initiatives the Council offer subsidised training course in mountain skills. Current courses on offer can be viewed at www.mcofs.org.uk"

In reply to MG:

I think most people understand the analogy of driving although most don't agree with it. If you are going to hang onto every word then I would suggest starting a separate thread looking at the style of prose.

On your second point, I read the sentence as a pointer to the subisidised courses run by the MCofS and as an attempt to make people aware of them. This is what the BMC do with their Alpine courses.

The whole point is to get people to go on courses to learn the skills!

In reply to Donald M:

Well I am going to read published articles as they are written, not try to second guess the author. I also think that it's important that if the MCoS is going to contribute it should take care with what it writes or it will be used against them - I am sure McWhirter(?) with his waymarks thinks this article supports his general position.


That's pretty much what I said.

In reply to MG:

No, you said the whole article leads to suggesting people go on course run by the MCofS. I think that is complete nonsense and it is mentioned as part of the content, and rightly so.

Poorly written article certainly but I applaud the sentiment.

In reply to Donald M:

By all means promote training as a cost effective and sensible way to gain vital skills. I've done a number of courses and don't begrudge a penny I spent.

However, I would be the last person to suggest, as this article inferred, that it is in some way socially unacceptable to head out on the hills without prior professional training.

In reply to Donald M:

It does! The final section is: So, are there any answers?, and the final pargraph starts "Perhaps the way forward is to..." before talking about courses.

The weakness of the article is that it doesn't explicitly answer any of the questions it raises but implies increasingly strongly that courses and licences are the way forward. I am sure any outsider (e.g. journalist or civil servant wanting to promote more regulation) would read it as strongly supporting their position.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Blatant "adverticle" for MCoS courses

In reply to MG: More generally, has the number of accidents per person day increased over the last decade, or three decades? No attempt is made to answer this in the article but my guess would be that it has not.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Glad I am not the only one to see it that way.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Yes, the Mcof S do promote safety, a does the BMC.

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland, the MCofS, represents mountaineers, climbing and hill walking enthusiasts in Scotland.

As well as representing our membership, which comprises 130 mountaineering, climbing or walking clubs, and individual members, we also aim to represent the interests of the estimated 400,000 people who head for Scotland’s mountains every month.

We 'work for Scotland's mountains and mountaineers' by providing a range of services, advice and information, including: representing rights to responsible access; activities relating to mountain safety; working with other mountaineering organisations, stakeholders, partners in the Scottish Environment LINK group; providing insurance and our quarterly colour magazine 'The Scottish Mountaineer' and a range of other membership benefits.

http://www.mcofs.org.uk/home.asp

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
I agree with your general points about risk, but

Really? Even in summer? Or is it the avalanche risk in winter?

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Totally disagree but this is: MCofS courses are great and people who want to increase their understanding of mountaineering skills should go on one. They are run by mountaineers for mountaineers and I would commend the MCofS for organising them and subsidising them.

Well done, poorly written article though.

PS can we have an article on the risks of spitting the dummy and how to retrieve toys thrown out of the pram. Maybe one also for people who like to analyse everyword and loose the general message.

In reply to Erik B:
...
...
...

To do what? Walk up the tourist track up Ben Nevis in June? Follow the hordes up Ben Lomond in August? Wander up the monster paths on Snowdon on a sunny summer Sunday?

Yes, there are some things you need to know to walk up a hill in summer (mostly that the weather at the top is likely to be different to that at the bottom) but to imply that you need to have ice axe and crampon skills in order to do summer hillwalking is silly (and I don't think you meant to imply that...)

The thing is, there are accidents and accidents. I was reading a news report the other day which was of the "Mountian rescue criticise poorly equiped party" variety. At the end there were mentions of two other accidents, with the comment that the parties in those cases were properly equipped. The accidents in the Corrie an t-Snechda (sorry Donald) "blackspot" the other year were to a different group of people to what I would guess would be a typical victim of an accident on the Ben Nevis track in June.

I think the question is, how do we try and make sure that everyone who goes into the hills is equipped and knowledgable in a way that is appropriate to their experience and what they want to do?

In reply to Donald M:

What would you say is the general message in the article?

In reply to johnSD:

Good question. This is getting quite comical actually. The article is so vague and open to interpretation we now have about have a dozen different ways of reading it! I think the message to the MCoS should be "write more carefully or not at all"

Aside: Their bolting position statement makes similarly little sense due its language.

In reply to johnSD:

I would say the general jist is that there is a debate to be had about how risk is mangaged and approached in the hills and that experience, skills and knowledge are important. It glosses over much of the detail though and rightly so as one article can never deal with the whole topic. This is an ongoing debate, not a final destination.

I am not sure there is a general message.

In reply to MG:

Yes. I'm sure there will be more. As you say, this article poses questions and looks at only part of the challenge.

In reply to Donald M:

< PS can we have an article on the risks of spitting the dummy and how to retrieve toys thrown out of the pram. Maybe one also for people who like to analyse everyword and loose the general message. >

Do you mean like politicians and their spin doctors? Or maybe tabloid hacks looking for a story between pandemics? Or how about insurance companies and their lawyers, I’m sure they would love to quote such an esteemed body out of context?

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

I mean anyone and everyone. I have now found my dummy and am about to buy a van, maybe that will be a new toy.

Interesting to note the comparision with skiing and the use of FIS code which no ski centre wants to be seen not using.

In reply to MG:
However, there is a conundrum they are trying to deal with which is probably quite difficult to write about with real clarity.

On the one hand, access to the hills is free for all, regardless of ability, experience, equipment and so on, and I'm not sure anyone here would want that to change.

On the other hand, it's generally assumed that 'appropriate' levels of ability, experience and equipment can improve safety in the hills, and that it's therefore desirable that hill-goers of all kinds are suitably equipped (with technique and ability as well as physical equipment such as clothing and footwear) and able to deal with the challenges they are likely to face. In order to reduce accidents and incidents, it's therefore assumed that it's desirable to increase ability levels, and one obvious way of doing that is through suitable training courses. The worry then becomes the idea that some degree of training is required before the novice hill-goer is allowed onto the hills without supervision - in direct conflict with the idea of free access.

I've used the word 'assumed' carefully and advisedly, because I don't know the extent to which these notions have actually been tested and verified. We do know that accidents happen to experienced and inexperienced, but we don't know what degree of training would be needed in order to reduce the numbers of accidents.

I also think we have to understand that there will be inexperienced hill-goers who will never see themselves as being in need of training, because they never intend spending much time on the hills - the casual weekend walker who takes a holiday in the Highlands and fancies a wee bit of a walk up a big hill.

In reply to UKC Articles:
I'd have to agree with the majority here that the article is not well written (either that or I'm missing the point!). I really don't think that the MCofS want any form of licensing - but unfortunatly used a poor annalogy which gave that impression. The same annalogy gives the impression that do support professional instruction as a pre-requsite as well. The way the coroner is quoted and his conclusion not challenged gives that impression as well.

Identifying accident blackspots is a bit of a waste of time imo, as there are too many variables (seasonality, popularity, a UKC picnic etc) - the buchialle being a great example, this year it certainly was a winter blackspot, but may not be again for anther 5-10 years yet the potential hazzard remains the same given the "right" conditions.

I'd have thought that an analysis of the TYPES of accident would be more useful to people (Adam Watsons book on the Cairngorms has an excellent example of this type of reporting) as it identifies what the most common cause of accidents/fatalities regardless of location and I'll bet theres some really obvious common themes. This surely would allow people to travel into the hills better equipt for common problems rather than locations to avoid. Maybe an annual summary and analysis on the MCofS website and/or the Scottish Mountaineer publication (similar to the SMC journal)?

I would (and I suspect so would the vast majority on here) support the availability of training for those who want or need it, just so long as it doesn't become an expectation or requirement for everyone.

The MCofS does do a very good job of making training courses available at a good price - a few people from our club every year do attend and generally find it immensly useful, esp the likes of avalanch awareness and winter skills as they condense a lot of skills into a weekend leaving you free to practise them for the rest of the season! You could spend a lot of weekends trying to pick the same stuff up from friends or books and still get it very wrong.

What is undoubtable is that there are more people out in the moutains and even if there are proportionally fewer accidents now, as the number of incidents increases the strain on MRT increase - if cheap accessable training can reduce that great, I can't see a problem UNLESS the same argument is used as justification for training to become complusary or at least it to be frowned upon not to have attended a training course. Thats a very difficult one handle though and would need a very two pronged approach from teh MCofS (to push training's benefits and simutaneously reject it as a "requirement").

Cheers,

Stuart

In reply to tony:

<snip clear statement of position>

I think you just managed it much better than the MCoS.

In reply to StuDoig: The commonest cause of an accident is the simple slip or trip. It's just that slipping or tripping in some places is more dangerous than others.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Going over old ground this. In my first" Winter climbs on ben nevis" guide which was printed in the 70's it does two things:
1. Highlights the accident blackspots of descending
2. gives comapss bearings on getting off the plateau

Same withthe descent next to the claichaig gully.

.Same with coming down off scafell - well known and publicised blackspot.

So ourclimbing community has been doing this sort of thing for years

In reply to UKC Articles:

The problem is that to a large majority of hill-goers in the UK, the BMC, MCofS and Mountain Rescue is of little relevance. Many will not have heard of the first two and an alarming number think mountain rescue will be a helicopter to whisk them away, not a bunch of sweaty humans! No amount of videos available through national body websites will make a blind bit of difference.

In the 'old days' you learned your hill skills with older family members, scouts, mates, whatever. Today you can walk into a shop in many towns and buy most of the kit you need to climb Everest. People want instant gratification, and how to get this is supplied aplenty by TV programmes, guidebooks, charity challenges, and websites.

The number of rescues is growing. The number of callouts to uninjured, lost or otherwise inconvenienced is growing. We now get lat/long from car sat navs, from mobile phones, and grid references from GPS that haven't been set up properly and still think they're in Taiwan or similar. We have the phenomona of bracken-fast. So many people who now go up mountains who were never going to get back down unaided. They lack the equpiment, skill or bollocks to do it.

This is what we're trying to prevent. I doubt many are in favour of licencing, compulsory insurance or other burocracy.

But it is a growing problem. MRTs are coping, but it can be frustrating. We welcome suggestions of how to reduce it. Signs...maybe, publicity...maybe, but where is the right place so it is seen by the right people? Many of the 'victims' will never have considered themselves at risk.

We field many phone calls along the lines of "We're lost and it's going dark" "Have you got a torch" "No" "Have you got a map and compass" "No, I've got a GPS/mobile" "Do you know how to work it" "No"!

I welcome any initiatives to try and get through to a large group of people who really are accidents waiting to happen. Just rubbishing the attempts of Heather Morning and MCofS isn't helpful. Suggesting answers to reduce the problem would be. And remember, we're not aoiming at the informed and klnowledgable, we're trying to catch the eye of the newcomers and in-experienced. Each avoidable accidnet is a statistic delivered to the few who do seek to curb our freedom. If we work from within to provide solutions, then they have no amunition.

Cheers,

Nick

In reply to N Owen, Team Leader, LAMRT:


I agree pointing out the weakness of the article doesn't help solve the problems you outline but I think it is none the less needs doing to avoid getting on a slippery slope to licences etc., which is something I think would be very undesirable.

Some possible initiatives:

1) More signs at car-parks etc. explaining clearly that what is beyond is wild country with the associated risks. These are present at some places already e.g Ben Nevis and don't intrude or affect people on the hill, but would perhaps make people think twice if they are unprepared The Swiss, for example, seem to use these quite a lot and have a fairly clear division between "mountain" and "valley" areas. If people were made slightly more aware that from this point on, you are on your own, it would possibly help.

2) If, as you say, convenience rescues are increasing then rescue teams, MCoS, etc. being more open to being publicly critical after rescues that are clearly for convenience rather than genuine accidents.

3) Simply accepting that accidents will happen if people choose to take part in risky activities and being willing to state this publicly and often in a non-sensationalist manner.

4) Ultimately, if mountain rescue services are too stretched, then reconsidering whether free rescue by volunteers is sustainable. I know this is highly controversial and in many ways undesirable. However to me having to pay for rescue (either direct cash or insurance) would be preferable to other restrictions. Paid for systems work well in other countries and I think that if people were aware that being rescued had a price, they might be a bit more careful about ensuring they are prepared.

In reply to N Owen, Team Leader, LAMRT:
I do think this thing of instant gratification is a problem, and a related problem is the idea that turning back is not an option. The trouble is, people only learn from their mistakes when they make them. Pre-mobile phone, if you made a mistake, you generally had to sort yourself out. Now, as you say, the first option for many is to make the phone call to the MRT.

What sort of proportion of hill-goers would fall into that category, in your experience? Not doubting your thoughts by any means, but I wonder if there's a sledgehammer and nut argument in this case?
Not sure what you mean by working from within. Surely the dilemma is that many of the newcomers and inexperienced are not 'within' anything - they're the ones who have gone into Blacks, bought the gear and reckon they're ready. They're outside the sphere of influence of the likes of the BMC, the MCofS and the MRTs.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid I have no suggestions how to address this. To a large extent, I think that the accidents and incidents are part of the price paid for the access and freedoms we have.

In reply to UKC Articles: Safety information boards in key places and in certain conditions, safety information in a simple form on swing tags on gear?? The do's and don'ts on Petzl kit in simple pictorial form are a good example.

We put some signs up in Gt Langdale back in February for a few. Maybe they worked, maybe they didn't...difficult to be sure. I know some people ignored them and got stuck when the snow re-froze in the late afternoon. We rescued them! It got a mention in the local paper and some nameless person chirped up with the rather predictable 'thin end of the wedge' fallback. Nonsense. A temporary response to a temporary problem. We took the signs down as soon as the thaw set in. It's safe to assume he wasn't related to one a number of fatalties or near fatalies that occurred in what were essentially superb conditions...if you were equipped and experienced enough to deal with them.

We're planning another campaign for the forthcoming half term. Always a time when people get caught out without a torch. Such a simple thing, and yet it happens so often.

Nick

In reply to UKC Articles:


I really don't understand the need some people feel they have to "do something" when there really isn't any need. It won't stop until you have recorded announcements (like they have in airports warning you your bags will be blown up if you turn your back on them) in the middle of nowhere "just in case - it could save a life, you know...". Feck off and leave the mountains to whoever wants to get away from all that. We've had enough of it and the mountains are the last retreat.

J

In reply to UKC Articles: The avalanche in Coire Tulach was triggered by an experienced mountaineer- no doubt it will happen again.
The Clachaig descent from the AE is notorious - a sign at the top might help.

Scottish hills are hazardous in Winter, earlier this year we assisted a party who were cragfast on a route in Glencoe.
They had no idea of the seriousness of their situation, but had every bit of shiny new kit available.

In reply to UKC Articles: The article is a classic either/or trap...

...a false dichotomy - both/and is my philosophy, not either/or. We can have an unregulated wilderness and we can protect the unwary.

Of course the mountains are not to blame

In a few situations careful use of signs will probably save a few lives, head off moves by wider society to regulate us more and would not spoil the 'wilderness'.

The areas in question are by definition heavily frequented. Those wanting a wilderness experience should (like me) head off elsewhere for that pleasure and stop standing in the way of limited, reasonable measures which would be likely to reduce deaths in hotspots. It's irrelevant whether the hotspot effect is purely higher numbers - the fact is that hotspots mean we might be able to influence the deaths stats...it is an opportunity.

btw No-one is proposing a via ferrata on the Aonach Eagach...or have I missed something?

In reply to UKC Articles:

It would be interesting to see the stats/trends in a wider perspective. Such as do we expect the number of call outs to decrease given an increasing population? Given that every thing is has a risk and mountaineering has a higher risk, there are always going to be accidents, what is an acceptable number of call outs?

just a response to the MR team leader, when GPS first took off, I remember MRT representatives on some TV program hailing it as a important progression in mountain safety. I suspect a high number of your callouts are greatly assisted by GPS technology? I also suspect that every call out uses a mobile phone in some regard (contacting MR team members etc.) To summarise, would you prefer that the people that get stuck with only mobile phone/GPS didn't have these or do you assist you in your rescue efforts?

On a personal note, I think that not be active though sports such as mountaineering creates risk and adverse consequences to society and barriers to entry (be they regulatory or cultural imposed) should not be taken lightly. In short we need to encourage people into the hills not tell them to go away cos your not good enough.

In reply to IanC:

I'd say GPS are compliant in very very few rescues.

I'd also say mobile phones are one of the biggest advances in mountain safety in the last 25 years.

In reply to IainRUK:

Interesting cheers, suppose just thinking about it I've had a GPS for about 4 years but I don't think I've turned it on in 2, let alone take it out on the hills.

I still think that, 1) we have to accept accidents, accident black spots and inexperienced people as part of mountaineering and 2) that care needs to be taken using when stats to make an argument (not to undermine the work of those who commit many hours compiling & analysing them).

In reply to UKC Articles:
Remove all the warnings and leave the rest up to Darwin.

In reply to tony:
many of the newcomers and inexperienced are not 'within' anything - they're the ones who have gone into Blacks, bought the gear and reckon they're ready. They're outside the sphere of influence of the likes of the BMC, the MCofS and the MRTs.


Perhaps the best way of reaching these 'High Street' hillwakers is at the point of sale. Including an information pamphlet high-lighting the need for basic skills etc (perhaps some gear and course providers would sponsor this in return for advertising in it?) would at least help people realise they do actually need the basic skills, and give them some pointers to where they can learn about them.
Could gear manufacturers or sellers offer discounts for training courses as a marketing tool? ( I expect some shops could develop their own courses as well without too much extra investment, along the lines of the Clachaig winter safety lectures perhaps - a nice way of generating extra sales)
With a little imagination and will, there are a lot of ways to reach this group.

My wife has a driving licence and I have to be drunk before I get in a car with her. My mum also has a driving licence. I'd have to be unconscious before I got in a car she was driving. They've been driving for 25 & 50 years respectively. Just because someone has said you can do something and given you a bit of paper doesn't mean everyone will think you're safe doing it out in the real world no matter how much experience you have.

Anyway, back on the actual topic. Yes there are exceptions. You could have spent your life guiding in the Himalayas, it doesn't mean there isn't a chance that something could happen to you in the mountains of our country for whatever reason. It's generalities we're talking about here.

People get into trouble/die on mountains. The general reason would seem to be a lack of knowledge/experience. So how to get knowledge/experience to people before they get into trouble? Courses are a good way to get knowledge, ( I love Plassy, praise them to the hilt. Haven't experienced the Scottish courses ), but they would be a very expensive way of gaining experience. Books can help with specific routes. Realistically, the only way of gaining experience though is by getting into the mountains. Accuracy in assessment of risk is generally increased as experience is gained in a greater range of difficulties. If you spend your life walking up & down the Pyg Track in summer you're unlikely to have the experience a safe un-assisted ascent/descent in Scottish Winter conditions would require.

So what's the answer to reducing the chances of people getting into difficulties? Advertising at Point of Sale in a retailer? Can you tell me all the advertising that was around the til area the last time you brought something at a Outdoor retailer? Signs around/on the mountains? Don't think so. How many signs warning of something (not necessarily in the mountains) have you seen and decided they don't apply to you as you know what you're doing? Some sort of licence? God no. As alluded to above having a bit of paper doesn't necessarily mean you can do something. Insurance? I do have BMC Insurance as sh1t happens and I don't want to risk having to take out another mortgage because I didn't have it. Maybe that's the problem. Because there is no financial risk at calling out the MR do people treat them as just another service like the Police/Ambulance/Fire, there to do their bidding as a public servant? Should there be more media use nationwide to promote the MR councils and push that they're comprised of volunteers with no funding from government. Or should they be funded by government? (Followed of course by regulations, targets etc). Or should they become a business (Not for profit of course....).Or should they charge each time they're called out. (At this point I make no distinction between being called out because you didn't pack a rain jacket, and being called out to search an avalanche).

I hope that whatever happens is something instigated by the bodies who act for us at a national level and not imposed by those without any interest/knowledge/experience of the matter.

In reply to stupot: Agree completely. I will defend my right to get into the hills and take responsibility for myself. Once it becomes regulated, I will have a reduced desire to take part. And feel like I've lost something as a consequence. I am a rock climber as well as hill walker, and find that I come close to dangerous situations sometimes when I least expect it. It cannot be predicted and controlled, that is the nature of the beast. So lets not try. That would be pointless, and would reduce the enjoyment I get from the hills.