UKC

After the recent inquest into the death of a young woman who was presumed drowned whilst coasteering in appalling weather conditions, the family, who are quite understandably devastated by her death, called the inquest a 'sham' and criticized the rescue services. Whilst I do have huge amounts of sympathy with the family, the coroner was right to lay blame on the young woman and her brother for being ill prepared and heading off in dreadful weather and very rough seas. What distresses me is that the families criticism implies that 'rescue' is an inherent part of any individuals planning for an outdoor, adventurous activity. This just cannot be the case in my opinion. Rescue is a bonus, you do not factor it in to your safety planning. Its up to the individual to take proper precautions and plan appropriately. Any thoughts?

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


I think you are spot on.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Certainly in caving, rescue is part of your trip planning.

At the very least you leave a call out time with someone. If that someone is not a caver, you tell them how to call out cave rescue (not as simple as just calling 999, especially from a mobile!)

So, yes, you do take proper precautions and plan appropriately. That includes rescue planning.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

You're spot on.

I also fail to see how much more the rescue teams could have done without risking even more lives.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I agree that your rescue planning ensures your itinerary/location are easily available to rescue services if something happens, the point though is you don't take unnecessary risks safe in the knowledge that someone else will bail you out if it all goes wrong. Most cavers I know are super responsible in this regard.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Grieving families often need some sort of cause to fight for. I don't know enough about the situation to know whether or not the rescue was quick enough - but it certainly sounds like a no-win scenario from the telegraph article ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10708466/Total-sham-of... ). Rushing in to a rescue that results in the death of one of the rescuers would have been irresponsible.

I think we do have an expectation in the UK for a reasonable rescue response. The rescue services have a legal duty of care, and if this is not met then it is right to be concerned, I'm just not convinced that is the case here.

I'd be interested in what the BMC president's statement was though, given he is an independent witness (although not sure what credentials the BMC presidency gives you for coastal rescue).

In reply to Oceanrower:

How can rescue be factored in to the planning? Surely you must know that if something went tits up there is the chance that rescue might not be possible? Why is caving any different?

In reply to Gibson:


Of course rescue is factored into the planning. By leting someone know which cave you're going to, whereabouts within the cave, the registration of the car you're taking, where it will be parked and what time you expect to be out you are, to all intents, preplanning a rescue.

How can this be anything other than factoring a (potential) rescue into the plan?

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


What made you think the family was suggesting this? Just wondering.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


Sorry, I misunderstood from your OP.

From "Rescue is a bonus, you do not factor it into your safety planning" I assumed that you were saying people did not plan to be rescued. I was trying to point out that cavers very much do plan to be rescued!

In reply to Oceanrower:
Sorry, I misinterpreted your initial post as cavers especially plan to be rescued more so than other sports...

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Fully agree, we only know what we have seen from short articles in the press and I have a lot of sympathy for a grieving family but from what I have read it seems unfair to blame the rescue services for being a little slow to put their lives on the line, when with hindsight it seems the victims willingly, though perhaps ignorantly put themselves at great risk.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

The sea conditions on the day on which the woman died were quite appalling. I was incredulous when I first heard about this incident that anyone should have even considered going coasteering on that day.

In reply to FreshSlate:

I know that I have made a bit of a jump with my judgement but my reasoning is that they feel justified in leveling any criticism at rescue services, as though the responsibility for the death of the young woman can be in any way placed with the rescue teams.

In reply to splat2million:
"The rescue services have a legal duty of care"
Does that include a volunteer team like MRT?

In reply to armus:
>

As in this kind of nonsense?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-10837451

In reply to Gibson:

That seems rather different, in that one the casualty wasn't in an extremely dangerous situation.

In reply to armus:

If MRT respond to an incident then they do have a duty of care. Same rules apply whether or not you're being paid. I'm not sure about whether MRT have a legal duty to respond in the first place, however - does anyone know better than me on this one?
I don't know if MRTs have ever been taken to court over this, but it wouldn't surprise me. I certainly know St John Ambulance have been, and they are also (mostly) voluntary.

Duty of care means providing care to the best of their ability. It does not require risks to be taken on by the rescue team. The judgement of these risks is the difference between the two cases Gibson links to and the coasteering incident.

In reply to splat2million:


I suspect Scott was there in his other capacity as the person who knows more about climbing at Swanage than anyone else.

As to the OP, agree entirely that the families anger seems misdirected

Generally, if you operate a rescue service which is registered as such, your a declared resource, and so do have a duty of care to affect a rescue if it's safe to do so, it's a sort of contract I suppose. That said, the important factor is the risk/benefit from the rescuers perspective - in this case it would seem that those in command of the rescue effort decided that the benefit of recovering what was likely to be a drowned casualty, versus the risk posed to the rescuers and their equipment wasn't justified. Fair enough in my mind, I think in this case the individuals misjudged the conditions and their capabilities - and should the rescuers have also been injured in the attempt, only to recover a dead body, and were unable to respond to a less hazardous rescue but one which saves a life - where's the logic in that? I feel that these services are taken for granted these days, false sense of security and all that's associated with it.

In reply to Bryn_F:


According to the reports the rescue service could hear her calling for help, and Scott Titt commented on the "lack of urgency".

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the details, but I've been a part of searches personally on the coast, where we have heard what we believe to be cries for help, but when the casualties have been questioned afterwards they have no recollection of calling for help. Who knows.

Either way, in my experience people who are trained to perform any kind of rescue work will approach every situation with the aim of saving life, it's not always that easy though. I wouldn't imagine there being any delay that wasn't without a reason.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:
>What distresses me is that the families criticism implies that 'rescue' is an inherent part of any individuals planning for an outdoor, adventurous activity.

I have read a couple of the news articles and that is not the impression I received at all. From what I recall, their main concern arises around delays in the rescue operation and the refusal to allow Scott Titt to lower a rope into the cave at an early stage of the operation which may have helped the unfortunate woman. They felt that the coroner did not allow this to be examined with the objective of learning lessons for the future.

There was a secondary issue about delays in communicating the death to the parents leaving the (understandably distraught) brother unable to talk to them for 4 hours. The mother, a Pyschiatrist, wanted the procedures examined since, apparently, this could exacerbate PTDS.

Neither of these requests seem unreasonable to me.

In reply to Bryn_F:


at least read the reports above ?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


There is only one relevant report above and that does not give many details, in my opinion certainly not enough for anyone on here to give any insights.

As a member of a cave and mountain rescue team I have been told that my responsibilities are to myself first, then the rest of the team and thirdly to the party that needs rescuing.

On one occasion when there were a group of teenagers led by instructors in a flooding cave I arrived and started getting into my caving kit only to be told by our controller not to bother yet as nobody was going in the cave for a while, until the water level receded. Nobody went in for 3-4 hours. We were then given an hour to get in and do what we could but we were instructed to exit the cave within the hour, with or without the group. As it happened we located and evacuated the group within the hour but the water levels rose very quickly almost exactly an hour after entry necessitating a rapid exit by the last of the team and some gear was left behind until the next day.

Only one member of our team has died during a rescue attempt and nobody wants that to happen ever again.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

Re Caving and rescue - there is a slight difference between Caving and climbing rescue in that cave rescue is (by necessity)comprised of active cavers whilst any lowland coastal climbing rescue incidents would largely involve the coastguard, not all of whom would be active climbers and would have different protocols. When I was caving the protocol was that a load of bearded men would emerge from the Hunters and drag you to the surface though things might have moved on since then.

In reply to Chris H:


Nope. They haven't.......

In reply to August West:





The same applies to first aid - you are not going to go and help someone that's in immediate danger of being squashed by a boulder teetering on a cliff above them. I've not read the story surrounding this but I assume it must have been bad if the CG had to hold back to rescue them.

I think the parent's are venting their anger towards the CG but probably know deep down that they weren't to blame.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

There is an interesting account written by 'Buffys Brother' in the comments section here from the dorset echo;

http://bit.ly/1rbSoIb

www.dorsetecho.co.uk/
news/
11087123.
UPDATE__Tragic_teacher_s_family_
criticise_cave_death_inquest/

Seems reasonable to assume that this really is buffy's brother.

For me, a worrying issue reported at the inquest was that the rescue team's leadership would do nothing different if placed in the same situation in the future.

I cannot imagine that having attempted to perform an unusual rescue(which high angle rescue is not unusual!) that the team would not have learned something new by which to improve for next time.

A debriefing procedure that actively looks for shortcomings and possible improvements should be standard practice for any team who's first interest is the casualty. This should be the case for exercises and real life(and most definitely death) rescues.

I fail to believe that a systematic debrief would not find room for improvement at any high angle rescue.

This should be obvious to the coroner and if 'buffy's brothers' inquest report is accurate, it seems an obvious failing that the coroner didn't at least suggest this.

Nothing can bring back this lass, and all involved should hold in mind that she first committed herself in the face of obvious peril.

Notwithstanding all the speculation about the team, it does sound like Ian Bulger deserves a medal. The old rescue adage that the 'casualty dies first' must have been the last thing on his mind when abseiling into a blowhole.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

It needs to be remembered that the grieving process includes anger so no one should be surprised that the parents are lashing out at the Coroner and the Rescue services both of whom will be well aware that this can and does happen.

In reply to August West:


It seems pretty clear from the second (linked) report that Bryn F's comment was incorrect

I can't work it out, were the rescuers from the coast guard? Are these guys employed or volunteers?

Just thinking about what Buffy's brother said in the link above about how a repeat of the incident would be handled the same way by the rescuers. If the rescuers were volunteers, then it seems reasonable that we all just have to accept the standard of service received, including whether that service includes (volunteer time consuming) procedures for constant improvement!

If the service is performed by employed members of the coast guard, I suspect that the health and safety at work act would be forefront in the minds of any employed incident managers when considering an operation to abseil into a cave blow hole. I hope this isn't what held up the rescue(if there indeed was any hold up).

Is there a difference in the way that 'employed' and 'volenteer' rescuers can operate?
I would imagine that a general common sense, use your sense, rely on your experience, 'the casualty dies first' approach would trump inflexible H&S procedures any day of the week?

This tragedy being a case in point;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-10837451

In reply to Simon2005:

I do accept that and can understand that when grieving you look for answers. I think, overall, I am bothered by what I perceive as a general trend towards believing that the rescue services are a get out of jail free card. I strongly believe that when taking part in potentially hazardous activities (non-guided that is)the individual is responsible for their own safety. It was still a tremendously tragic event. The two of them made a really bad call and it went about as wrong as it could go. We've all made bad calls.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I was home when this happened (I live a few miles away) and it sounded really grim. The cave that the lady was washed into contains (in calm seas) a DWS called Camel Filter, where you downclimb a crack (from a high ledge) and then traverse/bridge/squirm into a sea cave. There are a couple of lines in there, both of which require traversing the walls of the cave, and then climb/bridge up the cave to exit through a blowhole back on the high ledge.

Whilst the fault for being there in the first place lies with the brother and sister, the accounts in the Telegraph and Dorset Echo imply that information that should have been used at the inquest was blocked by the coroner. If all of that information had been available, then some lessons could have been taken from the situation to improve future outcomes.

As Chris says above, Scott Titt knows more about the cliffs/caves at Swanage than anyone else and also knows a bit about the sea. If the Cliff Rescue Team didn't heed his advice at the time, then that raises concerns.

The Cliff Rescue have, no doubt, saved the lives of climbers over the years at Swanage, but this seems to be an occasion where they didn't get it right.

In reply to steve taylor:

I don't know if you can conclude that they didn't get it right, guess you would have had to have been there but it is a shame all the evidence wasn't heard. I know individuals present have expressed concern but it is easy sometimes, when involved in rescues, to view things from your own perspective. Possibly if a couple of climbers had been the first on the scene they would have chucked a rope down the blow hole straight away but they would only have themselves to account for.

In reply to MooseMouse:


Speaking as someone who spent years in a Coastguard CRT (Cliff Rescue Team), I can answer your question with absolute certainty: nobody knows.

Technically, they're civil servants, but don't have any actual employment rights or benefits. Some money is paid across for training and for shouts - minimum wage, as it happens - but the MCA (the department in charge) always seemed to get in a right tizz when pressed as to status of team members.

The worst of it is that, being a branch of the civil service, the higher-ups are effectively arse-covering, political animals who follow the mantra that if they come up with a good idea, someone higher up the chain will take the credit for it, and if they make a bad decision, they'll be left carrying the can. So better to do nothing, and don't allow anybody to expose themselves to risk.

It's that bad.

Locally, teams are populated by real people who give a sh*t, although as has been pointed out, they're not always active climbers. These teams tend to strain against the leash somewhat, and it surprised me not at all that Mr Bulger put himself at risk - both of injury and summary dismissal from the team - because he felt that that risk was worth taking. I am immeasurably proud that he did so.

I've been in a similar situation, where it was a fight to be allowed to be lowered into the sea to rescue a casualty, albeit one who we already knew was dead. Politics dictated that we weren't hauled over the coals, but it could have been very different.

I haven't read any of the detailed reports, do can't comment specifically on this case.

Martin

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I agree with you ,its a sign of the times that no one wants to accept responsibility for there own faults ..

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

If what I have read is correct then the inquest supressed information (from Scott Titt of all people). Yeah, that's a problem.

Going off what the Brother has said then he sounds like he wants lessons learned as opposed to blaming anyone. He says that they praised the rescuer who did go into the cave and hopes he gets recommended for the bravery award. He also acknowledges the mistakes made by him and his Sister that got themselves into the situation in the first place.

I think the main problem was that the costguard refused to drop down a harness for her, something they could have done without jepordising their own men (which I assume accounts for the delay). They were in communication with her and had dropped down a non safety line which she was instructed not to swim to.

I think there must be an area where the two people who choose to go out in treacherous conditions are held accountable but the coastguard can learn something from a bad outcome of a rescue mission. I am sure many at the scene would have been distraught to have talked to the victim yet were unable to ultimately save her life.

Whether the family has wider views on whether "'rescue' is an inherent part of any individuals planning for an outdoor, adventurous activity" is absolute nonsense. They just want to know what happened to their relative and are pissed off because details have been obscured in this case. Just read the wittness statement, answer the difficult questions and have done with it, that's the whole point of an inquest. It's extremely distressing to have these things unresolved, that's what they're upset about, and not the 'entitlement to rescue' that you imply.

In reply to Slarti B:

"and the refusal to allow Scott Titt to lower a rope into the cave at an early stage of the operation which may have helped the unfortunate woman."

Granted the two coasteering people seem to have been reckless but the rescue group could have tried rope access into the cave earlier. Their tactics appear deserving of examination when, as it appears it might here, those tactics result in not saving the life of the person they are intent on saving.

I think the family are right to be annoyed at the coroner.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

My view is that as a volunteer Scout Leader I was responsible for the kids in my care just as much as during the day when I get paid. If as has been suggested the inquest did not allow all the evidence to be heard then the coroner was not doing his job correctly. The volunteer thing is a bit of a red herring.

I am guessing that the family will be reading this thread at some point. I hope that people will be respectful when expressing their views. We all take risks in one way or another.

I would like to express my condolences.