This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
...and you can have an effect by spending 30 seconds of your time reading this and filling out the form linked to below.
Some of you may know that the E.U. have issued a directive which is titled ‘Temporary Work at Height’. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have written draft guidelines to implement this directive by July 2004.
So what?
Well unfortunately the H.S.E. have included climbing and caving in this. Furthermore their regulations have applied Industrial Rope Access systems to all work at height including mountaineering and caving. For climbing and caving instructors/guides and ‘those within their reasonable control’ (eg. participants) this means that:
• 2 completely separate anchor systems and ropes need to be used at all times.
• Work areas will need edge protection (even tops of crags).
• Fragile surfaces (eg. cornices, snow bridges) will need signs on!
• Danger areas, where objects can fall to, will need signs to warn of the danger (base of crags).
• Written records will be required of inspection of all anchor points used during work sessions (anchors on crags, runners on routes, bolts in caves etc.)
• Two separate lines will be required when abseiling/jumaring and lowering (a retrievable abseil will not be allowed, as on one rope/anchor system). Two ropes would be required during SRT and ropes courses with single rope systems would not be workable.
• Abseil devices must be self-locking (eg. Petzl Stops, not stitch plates).
• Activities must be planned so that a worker can be rescued immediately with a minimum of two workers, with one at top to rescue other worker on all pitches. This ban on lone-working would mean that for a multi-pitch climb, for example, there would need to be an instructor at the head of every pitch ready to rescue the instructor leading the pitch – ie. 3 pitches = 4 instructors!
So what?
Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
The whole thing is barmy – the E.U say that they never intended the directive to apply to the outdoor activity world but H.S.E. have refused to budge on this.
What can we do?
H.S.E. have asked for responses to their regulations in a consultation exercise, which finishes 1st April 2004. Through many meetings of interested bodies, including the B.M.C., a response form representing the climbing/caving world has been completed, which refers to the regulations (a huge and complex document).
If as many interested parties as possible sign and return this form then it could make a big difference. The number of responses to H.S.E. will count!
It is in all our interests to give as much support as possible to try and prevent this nonsense piece of legislation going through. Please add your voice by downloading the following Word document and filling it in, it will take approximately 30 seconds.
http://www.rockfax.com/general/work-at-height-form.doc
(There is a PDF version here for those without Word, although you will need to use Acrobat Text tools to fill out the form. http://www.rockfax.com/general/work-at-height-form.pdf ).
The email address to send the completed document to is work.at.height.consultation@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Once you have filled it out, keep this thread alive by replying.
Alan James
Some of you may know that the E.U. have issued a directive which is titled ‘Temporary Work at Height’. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have written draft guidelines to implement this directive by July 2004.
So what?
Well unfortunately the H.S.E. have included climbing and caving in this. Furthermore their regulations have applied Industrial Rope Access systems to all work at height including mountaineering and caving. For climbing and caving instructors/guides and ‘those within their reasonable control’ (eg. participants) this means that:
• 2 completely separate anchor systems and ropes need to be used at all times.
• Work areas will need edge protection (even tops of crags).
• Fragile surfaces (eg. cornices, snow bridges) will need signs on!
• Danger areas, where objects can fall to, will need signs to warn of the danger (base of crags).
• Written records will be required of inspection of all anchor points used during work sessions (anchors on crags, runners on routes, bolts in caves etc.)
• Two separate lines will be required when abseiling/jumaring and lowering (a retrievable abseil will not be allowed, as on one rope/anchor system). Two ropes would be required during SRT and ropes courses with single rope systems would not be workable.
• Abseil devices must be self-locking (eg. Petzl Stops, not stitch plates).
• Activities must be planned so that a worker can be rescued immediately with a minimum of two workers, with one at top to rescue other worker on all pitches. This ban on lone-working would mean that for a multi-pitch climb, for example, there would need to be an instructor at the head of every pitch ready to rescue the instructor leading the pitch – ie. 3 pitches = 4 instructors!
So what?
Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
The whole thing is barmy – the E.U say that they never intended the directive to apply to the outdoor activity world but H.S.E. have refused to budge on this.
What can we do?
H.S.E. have asked for responses to their regulations in a consultation exercise, which finishes 1st April 2004. Through many meetings of interested bodies, including the B.M.C., a response form representing the climbing/caving world has been completed, which refers to the regulations (a huge and complex document).
If as many interested parties as possible sign and return this form then it could make a big difference. The number of responses to H.S.E. will count!
It is in all our interests to give as much support as possible to try and prevent this nonsense piece of legislation going through. Please add your voice by downloading the following Word document and filling it in, it will take approximately 30 seconds.
http://www.rockfax.com/general/work-at-height-form.doc
(There is a PDF version here for those without Word, although you will need to use Acrobat Text tools to fill out the form. http://www.rockfax.com/general/work-at-height-form.pdf ).
The email address to send the completed document to is work.at.height.consultation@hse.gsi.gov.uk
Once you have filled it out, keep this thread alive by replying.
Alan James
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Well, I'm all for anything that will make the outdoor pursuits industry unworkable, so they can count me in.
But at least I'm keeping your thread alive for you.
Well, I'm all for anything that will make the outdoor pursuits industry unworkable, so they can count me in.
But at least I'm keeping your thread alive for you.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: So what about a 7 year old soloing up a bit of rock? Are they included in this? What if a photograph of said activity is published for gain. Is the photographer liable? Utter madness. Typical nanny state.
I'll fill in the form ASAP.
Tim, TG
I'll fill in the form ASAP.
Tim, TG
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Alan, in the "So What" section there are examples in brackets. Are these examples your personal interpretation of the proposed legislation or has the HSE actually stated this is what it will probably happen?
Alan, in the "So What" section there are examples in brackets. Are these examples your personal interpretation of the proposed legislation or has the HSE actually stated this is what it will probably happen?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:
John, read the thing. It has far more serious implications for all of us no matter what you think about the Outdoor Pursuits industry.
Alan
John, read the thing. It has far more serious implications for all of us no matter what you think about the Outdoor Pursuits industry.
Alan
In reply to Blue Water White Death:
The document was written by someone else and sent to me. I will direct them at this thread to answer questions.
Alan
> Alan, in the "So What" section there are examples in brackets. Are these examples your personal interpretation of the proposed legislation or has the HSE actually stated this is what it will probably happen?
The document was written by someone else and sent to me. I will direct them at this thread to answer questions.
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Interesting that it's the UK HSE that's insisting on these regulations, and that the originators - the EU - never planned for this.
Done and e-mailed.
Interesting that it's the UK HSE that's insisting on these regulations, and that the originators - the EU - never planned for this.
Done and e-mailed.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
It's not a figment of Alan's imagination.
See http://www.thebmc.co.uk/news_det.asp?item_id=662 for BMC news item, and links to more information.
Information will also be appearing in High and Summit.
It's not a figment of Alan's imagination.
See http://www.thebmc.co.uk/news_det.asp?item_id=662 for BMC news item, and links to more information.
Information will also be appearing in High and Summit.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Cheers Alan, as this question must be addressed to ensure that this is not a knee jerk response to an individuals interpretation.
> (In reply to Blue Water White Death)
> [...]
>
> The document was written by someone else and sent to me. I will direct them at this thread to answer questions.
>
> Alan
> [...]
>
> The document was written by someone else and sent to me. I will direct them at this thread to answer questions.
>
> Alan
Cheers Alan, as this question must be addressed to ensure that this is not a knee jerk response to an individuals interpretation.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
How is that so? I read the text of the directive, and as far as I can see, it only mentions workers.
As far as I can see, there isn't really a threat to outdoor activities (as you suggest in the title).
That said, the guides provide a valuable public service with their regular conditions reports, so it would seem fair to support them in this.
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously1)
>
> John, read the thing. It has far more serious implications for all of us ....
>
> John, read the thing. It has far more serious implications for all of us ....
How is that so? I read the text of the directive, and as far as I can see, it only mentions workers.
As far as I can see, there isn't really a threat to outdoor activities (as you suggest in the title).
That said, the guides provide a valuable public service with their regular conditions reports, so it would seem fair to support them in this.
In reply to Mark L:
Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
Speculative maybe, but insurance is becoming more and more signifcant in the outdoor world - just ask your local wall manager.
Alan
> How is that so? I read the text of the directive, and as far as I can see, it only mentions workers.
Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
Speculative maybe, but insurance is becoming more and more signifcant in the outdoor world - just ask your local wall manager.
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I've filled in all the name and address fields. What else am I supposed to do? Comments or something? Suggestions would be welcome, not able to think today!
I've filled in all the name and address fields. What else am I supposed to do? Comments or something? Suggestions would be welcome, not able to think today!
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Only if they are taught by professionals.
Ah, the old "thin end of the wedge" argument.
With respect, that does sound very fanciful. If (as you suggest) the proposals are unworkable, then the insurance companies will face the possibility of not being able to insure climbers. The only thing this will do is lose them money. Do you really think this will happen?
> Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices.
Only if they are taught by professionals.
> Once this happens it will become best practice and
> insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless
> you are operating to those standards it may be impossible > to get insurance.
>
> Speculative maybe, but insurance is becoming more and
> insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless
> you are operating to those standards it may be impossible > to get insurance.
>
> Speculative maybe, but insurance is becoming more and
Ah, the old "thin end of the wedge" argument.
With respect, that does sound very fanciful. If (as you suggest) the proposals are unworkable, then the insurance companies will face the possibility of not being able to insure climbers. The only thing this will do is lose them money. Do you really think this will happen?
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Done and mailed. Typical of the scaredy cats in HSE to implement something that no-one else in Europe will be bothering with.
In reply to Mark L: The point being, that ANY instructor in Outdoor Adventure Activities will have to train his clients in INDUSTRIAL techniques, not climbing ones?
Watch out for the new breed of climbers, with all their Krabs in Stainless Steel...
Watch out for the new breed of climbers, with all their Krabs in Stainless Steel...
In reply to Mark L:
Foundry Travel no longer provide climbing insurance due to increased premiums.
> the insurance companies will face the possibility of not being able to insure climbers. The only thing this will do is lose them money. Do you really think this will happen?
Foundry Travel no longer provide climbing insurance due to increased premiums.
In reply to O Mighty Tim:
That could potentially be very good, they'll all take about 3 times as long over the walk in, thus leaving lots of empty routes.
My point is simply that insurance companies do not require the adoption of best practice, whether it be for car insurance, life insurance or climbing insurance. They merely set premiums according to risk (this will not change).
Fill in the form to help the guides, but don't believe that this is really a threat to climbing.
> Watch out for the new breed of climbers, with all their Krabs in Stainless Steel...
That could potentially be very good, they'll all take about 3 times as long over the walk in, thus leaving lots of empty routes.
My point is simply that insurance companies do not require the adoption of best practice, whether it be for car insurance, life insurance or climbing insurance. They merely set premiums according to risk (this will not change).
Fill in the form to help the guides, but don't believe that this is really a threat to climbing.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Yes, but thats because of the increased cost of claims and has nothing to do with "best practice" or EU directives.
> Foundry Travel no longer provide climbing insurance due to increased premiums.
Yes, but thats because of the increased cost of claims and has nothing to do with "best practice" or EU directives.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I'll do it when I'm not at work. But for those in Scotland, the MCofS are trying to co-ordinate a response.
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/news/work_height.html
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/news/work_height2.html
I'll do it when I'm not at work. But for those in Scotland, the MCofS are trying to co-ordinate a response.
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/news/work_height.html
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/news/work_height2.html
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Done
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Lets get one thing straight the majority of 'instructors' do not 'teach' novices any techniques. They simply drag punters up and down crags circus monkey stylee. Not even lip service is payed to the skills and techniques required to climb. This, in itself, is very bad practice for the future of climbing enacted by so called proffessionals and santioned by the BMC.
It gives the impression to new punters that they can simply turn up, be taken climbing, without engaging themselves with the skills required to take responsbility for themselves. This is diametric to the ethos of the participation statement that allows us all to continue participating in activities by virtue of a mutually agreed presence of risk.
This approach is probably the bigest threat to the future of climbing.
I do feel sorry for the professionals, especially those who's services I have employed, who have maintained and instilled the ethos of personal responsiblity within their clients. It might be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting all over again.
> So what?
> Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
> Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
Lets get one thing straight the majority of 'instructors' do not 'teach' novices any techniques. They simply drag punters up and down crags circus monkey stylee. Not even lip service is payed to the skills and techniques required to climb. This, in itself, is very bad practice for the future of climbing enacted by so called proffessionals and santioned by the BMC.
It gives the impression to new punters that they can simply turn up, be taken climbing, without engaging themselves with the skills required to take responsbility for themselves. This is diametric to the ethos of the participation statement that allows us all to continue participating in activities by virtue of a mutually agreed presence of risk.
This approach is probably the bigest threat to the future of climbing.
I do feel sorry for the professionals, especially those who's services I have employed, who have maintained and instilled the ethos of personal responsiblity within their clients. It might be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater and starting all over again.
In reply to Non professional and Proud:
In my experience, the exact opposite of this is true.
> Lets get one thing straight the majority of 'instructors' do not 'teach' novices any techniques. They simply drag punters up and down crags circus monkey stylee. Not even lip service is payed to the skills and techniques required to climb.
In my experience, the exact opposite of this is true.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Contary to popular belief many novices do not learn their skills from professionals. I think the extent of the impact or the regs will be nominal. Many new punters are not of the spoon fed masses and simply teach themselves, use books or learn skills from more experienced friends.
In addition you would be hard pushed to define a standard practice with which insurance companies could force you to comply. Even the MLTUK have resisted the urge to give prescriptive advice, rather than just general principals.
> So what?
> Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
> The whole thing is barmy – the E.U say that they never intended the directive to apply to the outdoor activity world but H.S.E. have refused to budge on this.
> Well apart from making the outdoor industry unworkable, if the directive is enforced it will become the way climbing/caving is taught to novices. Once this happens it will become best practice and insurance companies will view it as such. Hence unless you are operating to those standards it may be impossible to get insurance.
> The whole thing is barmy – the E.U say that they never intended the directive to apply to the outdoor activity world but H.S.E. have refused to budge on this.
Contary to popular belief many novices do not learn their skills from professionals. I think the extent of the impact or the regs will be nominal. Many new punters are not of the spoon fed masses and simply teach themselves, use books or learn skills from more experienced friends.
In addition you would be hard pushed to define a standard practice with which insurance companies could force you to comply. Even the MLTUK have resisted the urge to give prescriptive advice, rather than just general principals.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Completed.......BUMP
Completed.......BUMP
In reply to Mark L:
Come on Mark the vast majority of 'instructors' are employed in outdoor centers where techniques are not taught, climbing is not instructed it is a sort of 'fair ground day out'. These kind of professional they are not allowed, or their is insufficient time, or their qualification fall below the remit to instruct skills.
Be honest, most punters who attended one of these courses would be hard pushed to tell you what knots were used let alone what the rope was anchored to at the top.
Come on Mark the vast majority of 'instructors' are employed in outdoor centers where techniques are not taught, climbing is not instructed it is a sort of 'fair ground day out'. These kind of professional they are not allowed, or their is insufficient time, or their qualification fall below the remit to instruct skills.
Be honest, most punters who attended one of these courses would be hard pushed to tell you what knots were used let alone what the rope was anchored to at the top.
In reply to Anonymous:
> (In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX)
> [...]
>
Many new punters are not of the spoon fed masses and simply teach themselves, use books or learn skills from more experienced friends.
> [...]
>
>
I really would like to believe that after all it is pretty much how I started but I very seriously doubt that it is now the case. You only have to open your eyes on this forum or at a single pitch crag to realise that the balance has in all probability shifted in favour of spoon feeding. In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Thanks for raising this Alan. Its worth reiterating the 2nd April 04 deadline for responses. For those interested in reading from the horses mouth, see
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd192.htm
Thanks for raising this Alan. Its worth reiterating the 2nd April 04 deadline for responses. For those interested in reading from the horses mouth, see
http://www.hse.gov.uk/consult/condocs/cd192.htm
In reply to Anonymous:
Every climber that I know who has attended a professionally run course (including those who were complete novices) has returned as a better and safer mountaineer. Almost without fail, when you see groups out in the hills, they are being shown or practicing mountaineering techniques.
The activities that you describe are (in my opinion) more common of the volounteer group leaders than professional instructors.
> Be honest, most punters who attended one of these courses would be hard pushed to tell you what knots were used let alone what the rope was anchored to at the top.
Every climber that I know who has attended a professionally run course (including those who were complete novices) has returned as a better and safer mountaineer. Almost without fail, when you see groups out in the hills, they are being shown or practicing mountaineering techniques.
The activities that you describe are (in my opinion) more common of the volounteer group leaders than professional instructors.
In reply to Horse:
>>has in all probability shifted in favour of spoon feeding.
complete with tantrums and apple curd dribbled all over bib??
>>has in all probability shifted in favour of spoon feeding.
complete with tantrums and apple curd dribbled all over bib??
In reply to Non professional and Proud: Hello Denis.
In reply to Mark L:
Don't get me wrong mark I am not ruling out the massive contribution to the 'responsbility ethic decay' made by volenteer groups. I acknowledge that fact. I maintain however that based on numbers employed, you will find more 'instructors' performing 'fair ground ride' activties than you will find instructors actually instructing the skills and techniques required to take resposibility for yourself. It stands to reason, there are are alway a pryamid structure to the numbers with the relitive levels of the qualification for instance.
One thing if for sure, these days there are more punters who have been exposed to the 'fair ground ride' introduction to climbing than those who have been given an honest grounding by responsible instructors.
Don't get me wrong mark I am not ruling out the massive contribution to the 'responsbility ethic decay' made by volenteer groups. I acknowledge that fact. I maintain however that based on numbers employed, you will find more 'instructors' performing 'fair ground ride' activties than you will find instructors actually instructing the skills and techniques required to take resposibility for yourself. It stands to reason, there are are alway a pryamid structure to the numbers with the relitive levels of the qualification for instance.
One thing if for sure, these days there are more punters who have been exposed to the 'fair ground ride' introduction to climbing than those who have been given an honest grounding by responsible instructors.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Done & emailed.
Done & emailed.
In reply to graeme alderson:
No not denise. But its strange that this accusation should come from a BMC officer. You will find if you look hard enough that my opinion was once also that of the BMC. Are you saying Graeme that the participation statement and the requirement to take personal resonsibility has lost its credibility with the BMC?
No not denise. But its strange that this accusation should come from a BMC officer. You will find if you look hard enough that my opinion was once also that of the BMC. Are you saying Graeme that the participation statement and the requirement to take personal resonsibility has lost its credibility with the BMC?
In reply to Anonymous:
Possibly. As I said, that was only my opinion based on my experience (I don't really know that much about it).
That said, it would be a real shame if responsible and hard working guides were forced out of work by ill suited regulation. I only take exception to the view that this represents some greater threat.
> One thing if for sure, these days there are more punters who have been exposed to the 'fair ground ride' introduction to climbing than those who have been given an honest grounding by responsible instructors.
Possibly. As I said, that was only my opinion based on my experience (I don't really know that much about it).
That said, it would be a real shame if responsible and hard working guides were forced out of work by ill suited regulation. I only take exception to the view that this represents some greater threat.
In reply to Anonymous: If you are not Dennis then please register and do not post Anon.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
If you examine the whole regs, then outdoor climbing simply cannot proceed as a professional activity if the regs are imposed.
The regs assume that all activity takes place in a managed environment. hence the requirements for edge gaurds, signage etc. Many outdoor environments can be well managed against foreseeable risks, e.g. forests, building sites railway embankments. The climbers envirnonment does not lend itself to this. Why not, because the risks imposed by that environment are inherent.
In their haste to express their 'exemplary' safety record and how safe their activities are, the mountain professional's lobby have forgotten a crucial point.
That climbing and mountain activities are activites with inherent risks but participants, professional and amateur alike, join in all the same. Willingly and freely as a basic human right. This is the point that needs lobbying.
Why do they not make this point? Well it doesn't make for good advertising does it? Inherest risk, unavoidable hazard etc? It might be statistically unlikely but its the honest truth and it very believable for a number of bereaved relatives. I understand it and accept it, professionals understand it, so whats wrong with getting the governement to understand it?
Climbing techniques and skills will never be prescribed. It takes judgement to apply a range of techniques. The techniques are a comprimise, maybe between speed and security etc. i.e. immediate security is not alway the overriding factor. I can understand that a suit in London is not going to understand that security is to always absolute if he has never tunneled through a cornice or such like.
I think the outdoor lobby, has for a long time, convieniently forgotten to emphasises the risks associatted with that cornice and other inherent risks that are willingly taken in pursuit of our game. They have instead emphasised how 'safe' it is.
No suprises then that the understanding of the burocrates has become skewed.
If you examine the whole regs, then outdoor climbing simply cannot proceed as a professional activity if the regs are imposed.
The regs assume that all activity takes place in a managed environment. hence the requirements for edge gaurds, signage etc. Many outdoor environments can be well managed against foreseeable risks, e.g. forests, building sites railway embankments. The climbers envirnonment does not lend itself to this. Why not, because the risks imposed by that environment are inherent.
In their haste to express their 'exemplary' safety record and how safe their activities are, the mountain professional's lobby have forgotten a crucial point.
That climbing and mountain activities are activites with inherent risks but participants, professional and amateur alike, join in all the same. Willingly and freely as a basic human right. This is the point that needs lobbying.
Why do they not make this point? Well it doesn't make for good advertising does it? Inherest risk, unavoidable hazard etc? It might be statistically unlikely but its the honest truth and it very believable for a number of bereaved relatives. I understand it and accept it, professionals understand it, so whats wrong with getting the governement to understand it?
Climbing techniques and skills will never be prescribed. It takes judgement to apply a range of techniques. The techniques are a comprimise, maybe between speed and security etc. i.e. immediate security is not alway the overriding factor. I can understand that a suit in London is not going to understand that security is to always absolute if he has never tunneled through a cornice or such like.
I think the outdoor lobby, has for a long time, convieniently forgotten to emphasises the risks associatted with that cornice and other inherent risks that are willingly taken in pursuit of our game. They have instead emphasised how 'safe' it is.
No suprises then that the understanding of the burocrates has become skewed.
In reply to All:
I am not in a position to answer many of these questions since I am merely acting as a go-between for the person who asked me to post this. I have pointed him at the thread and hopefully he will answer some of the questions in his own time although he isn't a regular on here.
In reply to those few wishing to make this into a discussion about outdoor instructors;
Please start another thread.
Alan
I am not in a position to answer many of these questions since I am merely acting as a go-between for the person who asked me to post this. I have pointed him at the thread and hopefully he will answer some of the questions in his own time although he isn't a regular on here.
In reply to those few wishing to make this into a discussion about outdoor instructors;
Please start another thread.
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I also wonder what effect this legislation will have on climbing walls.
Since these could be interpreted as coming under the 'Working at Height' rules (due to the fact that money changes hand to allow climbing to take place), it may be impossible for walls to offer lead routes, or anything other than top-roping with two ropes, belayed by independent belayers, or automated belay devices.
In reply to graeme alderson:
No, it clearly wasn't Dennis; the punctuation was in all the right places.
If, it had. Been Dennis it, would have, been more; like this?
I also wonder what effect this legislation will have on climbing walls.
Since these could be interpreted as coming under the 'Working at Height' rules (due to the fact that money changes hand to allow climbing to take place), it may be impossible for walls to offer lead routes, or anything other than top-roping with two ropes, belayed by independent belayers, or automated belay devices.
In reply to graeme alderson:
> Hello Denis
No, it clearly wasn't Dennis; the punctuation was in all the right places.
If, it had. Been Dennis it, would have, been more; like this?
In reply to captain paranoia: It is my understanding that the draft regs will not affect your bog standard users of climbing walls as the regs are directed at those working. But people instructing at walls will be affected in the same way as those instructing outdoors will be affected.
In reply to captain paranoia: maybe, He has learnt... How? to turn the grammar CHECK ON on his BROWSER>
In reply to Mark L:
I think this is wrong and in fact it is due to directives, although whether they are EU directives or not, I don't know.
From next year anyone actually selling insurance has to be trained and certified hence it will no longer be possible for third parties, like the Foundry, to act as brokers. I also suspect that this has some implications for the BMC.
Alan
> Yes, but thats because of the increased cost of claims and has nothing to do with "best practice" or EU directives.
I think this is wrong and in fact it is due to directives, although whether they are EU directives or not, I don't know.
From next year anyone actually selling insurance has to be trained and certified hence it will no longer be possible for third parties, like the Foundry, to act as brokers. I also suspect that this has some implications for the BMC.
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Alan, from what Neil told me it is because of a couple of claims that have happened (air ambulances cost a lot of money) and not because of directives. You might be right about new stuff coming in next year but that is not why they stopped.
In reply to graeme alderson:
What does it matter so much who I am Greame? Can you nswer the question? What is the BMC's position regarding the requirement for personal responsbility?
Whenever the BMC is asked for comments on accidents it wheels out the participation statement.
"The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions and involvement."
On the other hand it has provided a framework with the SPA that encourages new participants to blindly trust their supervisor. Indeed there is no, official at least, remit for that supervisor to even teach the skills that are being employed in the activity because the supervisor is competant to supervise only not to instruct.
This kind of blind trust is not the same kind of trust you build up in a climbing partner.
Surely the requirement for personal responsibility encompassed in the participation statement includes an individual taking responsibility for skills and rudimentary checks of techniques employed by the supervisor.
Why does the BMC on the one had advocate personal responsiblity and on the provice a whole mechinism for introducing new people to climbing without even paying lip service to that requirement.
This has got a tad of thread but it follows a theme;
Basically that climbing is dangerous and you should take responsiblity for knowing what you are doing. Even then that is not enough, you will face hazards that no skill can avoid. They are inherent to participation.
Many techniques are a justified comprimise, security at height only being one factor that decreased the risk.
What protects us from being done for manslaughter or sued for negligence when your climbing partner is killed? The fact that you both were willingly participating in activities with risk.
In the future the nanny state will stamp on that right. I could not blame them for misunderstanding because almost the whole mountaineering lobby is failing to be honest about the risk.
I am not advocating macho risk taking or irresponsible route choices disproportionate to ability. I am not advocating that we propose the risk to be statisically higher than its current, respectibly low value.
I advocate that the mountaineering lobby be honest about the risks, that they express that risk in preference to exerting 'how safe' it is.
It is by acknowledging that risk we will all be allowed to carry on tommorrow.
The fallout of acknowledging that risk is that each participant will be more likely to take resonsponsibility for our own involvement.
What does it matter so much who I am Greame? Can you nswer the question? What is the BMC's position regarding the requirement for personal responsbility?
Whenever the BMC is asked for comments on accidents it wheels out the participation statement.
"The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions and involvement."
On the other hand it has provided a framework with the SPA that encourages new participants to blindly trust their supervisor. Indeed there is no, official at least, remit for that supervisor to even teach the skills that are being employed in the activity because the supervisor is competant to supervise only not to instruct.
This kind of blind trust is not the same kind of trust you build up in a climbing partner.
Surely the requirement for personal responsibility encompassed in the participation statement includes an individual taking responsibility for skills and rudimentary checks of techniques employed by the supervisor.
Why does the BMC on the one had advocate personal responsiblity and on the provice a whole mechinism for introducing new people to climbing without even paying lip service to that requirement.
This has got a tad of thread but it follows a theme;
Basically that climbing is dangerous and you should take responsiblity for knowing what you are doing. Even then that is not enough, you will face hazards that no skill can avoid. They are inherent to participation.
Many techniques are a justified comprimise, security at height only being one factor that decreased the risk.
What protects us from being done for manslaughter or sued for negligence when your climbing partner is killed? The fact that you both were willingly participating in activities with risk.
In the future the nanny state will stamp on that right. I could not blame them for misunderstanding because almost the whole mountaineering lobby is failing to be honest about the risk.
I am not advocating macho risk taking or irresponsible route choices disproportionate to ability. I am not advocating that we propose the risk to be statisically higher than its current, respectibly low value.
I advocate that the mountaineering lobby be honest about the risks, that they express that risk in preference to exerting 'how safe' it is.
It is by acknowledging that risk we will all be allowed to carry on tommorrow.
The fallout of acknowledging that risk is that each participant will be more likely to take resonsponsibility for our own involvement.
In reply to graeme alderson:
Air ambulances? you are confusing TP insureance and Travel insureance. (Air ambulances are free in this country and would only be billible in certain foreign countries. Maybe you mean emergency medical repartiation? very expensive for travel insureance.)
The main concern is that TP may one day compulsary, expensive and burdonsome from a regulatory point of view, (i.e. jump through this hoop, get this badge= here is your certificate of cover... excludes bouldering and soloing!)
Air ambulances? you are confusing TP insureance and Travel insureance. (Air ambulances are free in this country and would only be billible in certain foreign countries. Maybe you mean emergency medical repartiation? very expensive for travel insureance.)
The main concern is that TP may one day compulsary, expensive and burdonsome from a regulatory point of view, (i.e. jump through this hoop, get this badge= here is your certificate of cover... excludes bouldering and soloing!)
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Point taken about instructors although I do think the whole subject is one and the same theme. I wasn't expecting a reply from Greame anyway.
> (In reply to All)
> In reply to those few wishing to make this into a discussion about outdoor instructors;
>
> Please start another thread.
>
> Please start another thread.
Point taken about instructors although I do think the whole subject is one and the same theme. I wasn't expecting a reply from Greame anyway.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I've skimmed through the full 166 pages of the consultation document, and can't see where there is any mention of the HSE specifically wanting to impose industrial rope access criteria to climbing, mountaineering of caving in the natural environment. You obviously know more than I do, but then again you're in a position to.
However
In para 114 of their consultation notes, the HSE specifically mention that they are aware of concerns from the outdoor pursuits industry regarding the practicality of imposing such restrictions, and are considering representations.
In my opinion, despite their acknowledgment of concern, it will do no harm whatsoever to complete the form, and I for one will be happy to do so.
Of possible greater concern is the impact that these regulations could have to those crags and areas of the country which have been traditionly used for climbing instruction. Every crag could end up being plastered in warning signs, and possibly lead to access paths having handrails, and permanent belay anchors being made compulsory wherever locations are used by persons 'employed' or 'giving instruction'. Furthermore, the regulations would lead to all persons engaged in anything other that purely voluntary personal adventure activities being legally obliged to prepare a written risk assessment before any activity could take place.
If the regulations were to be applied strictly to the letter (as I read them), this could mean that persons conducting guided walks up Striding Edge for example, would have to ensure that the party was fully roped, and if not roped, any passages where a potential slip could occur would have to be permanently safeguarded. DO WE WANT OUR CLASSIC SCRAMBLES TO BE TURNED INTO BRITISH VIA FERRATAS?
If the authorities push this regulation through without amendment to take in to account the special needs of the climbing and outdoor community, it will produce a totally unenforceable ass of a law, BUT WOE BETIDE ANYONE WHO IS UNFORTUNATE TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF ACCIDENT, AS THEY WILL CERTAINLY BE DEEMED TO BE IN BREACH OF IT NO MATTER OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
DONT LET THE POLITICIANS MAKE YET ANOTHER COCK UP due to our apathy.
I've skimmed through the full 166 pages of the consultation document, and can't see where there is any mention of the HSE specifically wanting to impose industrial rope access criteria to climbing, mountaineering of caving in the natural environment. You obviously know more than I do, but then again you're in a position to.
However
In para 114 of their consultation notes, the HSE specifically mention that they are aware of concerns from the outdoor pursuits industry regarding the practicality of imposing such restrictions, and are considering representations.
In my opinion, despite their acknowledgment of concern, it will do no harm whatsoever to complete the form, and I for one will be happy to do so.
Of possible greater concern is the impact that these regulations could have to those crags and areas of the country which have been traditionly used for climbing instruction. Every crag could end up being plastered in warning signs, and possibly lead to access paths having handrails, and permanent belay anchors being made compulsory wherever locations are used by persons 'employed' or 'giving instruction'. Furthermore, the regulations would lead to all persons engaged in anything other that purely voluntary personal adventure activities being legally obliged to prepare a written risk assessment before any activity could take place.
If the regulations were to be applied strictly to the letter (as I read them), this could mean that persons conducting guided walks up Striding Edge for example, would have to ensure that the party was fully roped, and if not roped, any passages where a potential slip could occur would have to be permanently safeguarded. DO WE WANT OUR CLASSIC SCRAMBLES TO BE TURNED INTO BRITISH VIA FERRATAS?
If the authorities push this regulation through without amendment to take in to account the special needs of the climbing and outdoor community, it will produce a totally unenforceable ass of a law, BUT WOE BETIDE ANYONE WHO IS UNFORTUNATE TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF ACCIDENT, AS THEY WILL CERTAINLY BE DEEMED TO BE IN BREACH OF IT NO MATTER OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
DONT LET THE POLITICIANS MAKE YET ANOTHER COCK UP due to our apathy.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Alan. It seems to me that on one hand the government is panicing about obesity/NHS funding and wants people to take a more responsible attitude to their personal health and fitness, while on the other they want to make it impossible to do so.
Filled and sent.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Alan. It seems to me that on one hand the government is panicing about obesity/NHS funding and wants people to take a more responsible attitude to their personal health and fitness, while on the other they want to make it impossible to do so.
Filled and sent.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Email sent
I think it's highly unlikely to impact on recreational climbers via the best practice/insurance route, but you never know, stranger things have happenened. Given the ignorance about climbing shown when you have to fill in one of their bloody forms, it's best to be on safe side. And if the HSE can't see a differance between a building site and a crag then anything is possible.
Email sent
I think it's highly unlikely to impact on recreational climbers via the best practice/insurance route, but you never know, stranger things have happenened. Given the ignorance about climbing shown when you have to fill in one of their bloody forms, it's best to be on safe side. And if the HSE can't see a differance between a building site and a crag then anything is possible.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Do you think that the mountaineering lobby are in some ways responsible for that ignorance or misunderstanding?
> (In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX)
> Email sent
>
> .. Given the ignorance about climbing shown when you have to fill in one of their bloody forms, it's best to be on safe side. And if the HSE can't see a differance between a building site and a crag then anything is possible.
> Email sent
>
> .. Given the ignorance about climbing shown when you have to fill in one of their bloody forms, it's best to be on safe side. And if the HSE can't see a differance between a building site and a crag then anything is possible.
Do you think that the mountaineering lobby are in some ways responsible for that ignorance or misunderstanding?
In reply to Alan Stark:
??? Isn't this tecnically the case now? or does custom and practice count?
This will not happen because I and many other will in broad day light be removing Vis ferratas by what ever means it takes and with as little damage to rock as possible. Likewise signs, gone.
Lets clarify the 'ANYONE', as Chris the tails said, HSE at work act only applies if you are at work.. if you are employed.. receiving money. You can only be in breach of the regulation if you are govened by it in the first place.
I think you are probably right that a criminal court, when interpreting the act, is unlikely to have the choice of differentiating between gross negligence and and incident due to inherent dangers i.e. rockfall.
apathy in mountaineering community has done much damage already.
> Furthermore, the regulations would lead to all persons engaged in anything other that purely voluntary personal adventure activities being legally obliged to prepare a written risk assessment before any activity could take place.
>
>
??? Isn't this tecnically the case now? or does custom and practice count?
> DO WE WANT OUR CLASSIC SCRAMBLES TO BE TURNED INTO BRITISH VIA FERRATAS?
>
>
This will not happen because I and many other will in broad day light be removing Vis ferratas by what ever means it takes and with as little damage to rock as possible. Likewise signs, gone.
> .... BUT WOE BETIDE ANYONE WHO IS UNFORTUNATE TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF ACCIDENT, AS THEY WILL CERTAINLY BE DEEMED TO BE IN BREACH OF IT NO MATTER OF HOW THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED.
>
>
Lets clarify the 'ANYONE', as Chris the tails said, HSE at work act only applies if you are at work.. if you are employed.. receiving money. You can only be in breach of the regulation if you are govened by it in the first place.
I think you are probably right that a criminal court, when interpreting the act, is unlikely to have the choice of differentiating between gross negligence and and incident due to inherent dangers i.e. rockfall.
> DONT LET THE POLITICIANS MAKE YET ANOTHER COCK UP due to our apathy.
apathy in mountaineering community has done much damage already.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Done.
Done.
In reply to Paul Saunders:
Will fill it in later, but want to bump it up. The most seriously important thread here, surely, for quite a while. This crap really could be the beginning of the end for our regulation-free world of hillwalking and climbing.
Will fill it in later, but want to bump it up. The most seriously important thread here, surely, for quite a while. This crap really could be the beginning of the end for our regulation-free world of hillwalking and climbing.
In reply to Anonymous:
No
I blame hollywood
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
> [...]
>
> Do you think that the mountaineering lobby are in some ways responsible for that ignorance or misunderstanding?
> [...]
>
> Do you think that the mountaineering lobby are in some ways responsible for that ignorance or misunderstanding?
No
I blame hollywood
In reply to Rob Jones:
I work as a route setter and I use two ropes in line with IRATA, be very surprised if the majority of other route setters don't do likewise.
> (In reply to graeme alderson)
>
> And route setters!
>
> And route setters!
I work as a route setter and I use two ropes in line with IRATA, be very surprised if the majority of other route setters don't do likewise.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
In my opinion this is a good thing
keep the crags free of organised groups, ensure my children are safe if they go climbing with school.
nobody pays money to go on an organised trip with the expectation of hurting themselves
reduce risk in the outdoor industry, therefore reduce insurance premiums so companies can actually afford to run outdoor activities
remember it is an industry & not a pass time for these outdoor operators, they should be subject to he same working at height restrictions and best practice guidlines as roofing contractors, rig workers, builders & factories etc
it does not stop me taking my own risks if i want to, learn in safety, only risk your own neck
In my opinion this is a good thing
keep the crags free of organised groups, ensure my children are safe if they go climbing with school.
nobody pays money to go on an organised trip with the expectation of hurting themselves
reduce risk in the outdoor industry, therefore reduce insurance premiums so companies can actually afford to run outdoor activities
remember it is an industry & not a pass time for these outdoor operators, they should be subject to he same working at height restrictions and best practice guidlines as roofing contractors, rig workers, builders & factories etc
it does not stop me taking my own risks if i want to, learn in safety, only risk your own neck
In reply to martin A:
Have you actually read this? If so suggest you read it again and think about what this implies and whether there would actually be anybody prepared to teach children.
Have you actually read this? If so suggest you read it again and think about what this implies and whether there would actually be anybody prepared to teach children.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Done
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Alan, looking at the response form, Q1 and its answer aren't really clear to me. Should the question not read "be exempt from" rather than "subject to"? Or am I misunderstanding the whole thrust of the argument.
I don't regard myself as being particularly thick, but either I'm having a thick moment, I'm missing something obvious, or the Q & A as stated don't really make sense.
Alan, looking at the response form, Q1 and its answer aren't really clear to me. Should the question not read "be exempt from" rather than "subject to"? Or am I misunderstanding the whole thrust of the argument.
I don't regard myself as being particularly thick, but either I'm having a thick moment, I'm missing something obvious, or the Q & A as stated don't really make sense.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
It's a good point Rob.
I am only acting as a posting go-between here so I can't really comment on the form. I have asked the person who is co-ordinating the response to comment but I think my email arrived too late yesterday and he doesn't have email at home so it could well be Monday before he sees this thread.
Alan
It's a good point Rob.
I am only acting as a posting go-between here so I can't really comment on the form. I have asked the person who is co-ordinating the response to comment but I think my email arrived too late yesterday and he doesn't have email at home so it could well be Monday before he sees this thread.
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
done
done
In reply to Mark L:
I agree, a great shame, I've no problem with the profession, I have regularly employed guides and instructors. Their occupation is no threat to mountaineering and I didn’t intend to suggest as much. Sorry if I was misunderstood.
My comments about outdoor ‘fair ground ride’ style supervisors stand though and I would be very glad of anything that restricted their trade.
> (In reply to Anonymous)
> That said, it would be a real shame if responsible and hard working guides were forced out of work by ill suited regulation. I only take exception to the view that this represents some greater threat.
> That said, it would be a real shame if responsible and hard working guides were forced out of work by ill suited regulation. I only take exception to the view that this represents some greater threat.
I agree, a great shame, I've no problem with the profession, I have regularly employed guides and instructors. Their occupation is no threat to mountaineering and I didn’t intend to suggest as much. Sorry if I was misunderstood.
My comments about outdoor ‘fair ground ride’ style supervisors stand though and I would be very glad of anything that restricted their trade.
In reply to Anonymous: (16:20 Fri)
´No not Denis. But its strange that this accusation should come from a BMC (at the top of their supposed profession?) officer.´ Strange - no, BMC officers have been shooting-themselves-in-the-foot for years. Hence, in 2004 this latest (it was avoidable)HSE development.
´No not Denis. But its strange that this accusation should come from a BMC (at the top of their supposed profession?) officer.´ Strange - no, BMC officers have been shooting-themselves-in-the-foot for years. Hence, in 2004 this latest (it was avoidable)HSE development.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Thanks for the information. I have completed and sent off the form.
Thanks for the information. I have completed and sent off the form.
"Hence, in 2004 this latest (it was avoidable)HSE development".
How was it avoidable? I know the BMC have been in consultation with the relevant bodies for at least a year.
How was it avoidable? I know the BMC have been in consultation with the relevant bodies for at least a year.
In reply to Mooncat:
Ive read it many times & sit on the NIG for working at heights, im just amazed at the reluctance for change within the outdoor pursuits industry, it reeks of bad management practice. These course operators are there to make money just like any other industry, if you think they can self regulate or let someone like the BMC look after safety in group instruction then you are deluded. If some operators are not duely dilligent the very 1st corporate killing incident in the industry will bring down some far harder rules.
Ive read it many times & sit on the NIG for working at heights, im just amazed at the reluctance for change within the outdoor pursuits industry, it reeks of bad management practice. These course operators are there to make money just like any other industry, if you think they can self regulate or let someone like the BMC look after safety in group instruction then you are deluded. If some operators are not duely dilligent the very 1st corporate killing incident in the industry will bring down some far harder rules.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
What does the peak park planning board think of this? There will need to be guardrails round the tops of all the crags on Kinder with a long one round the Downfall area and imagine the length of fencing needed for Stanage.
The written report on the inspection of belays and runners, will this be done before you do the route or after? Rather tricky on somewhere like Cloggy or Gogarth.
Posted my form, held in the queue now as they do not seem to work Sundays, unlike instructors. That will have to change if they implement this idiocy.
What does the peak park planning board think of this? There will need to be guardrails round the tops of all the crags on Kinder with a long one round the Downfall area and imagine the length of fencing needed for Stanage.
The written report on the inspection of belays and runners, will this be done before you do the route or after? Rather tricky on somewhere like Cloggy or Gogarth.
Posted my form, held in the queue now as they do not seem to work Sundays, unlike instructors. That will have to change if they implement this idiocy.
In reply to martin a:
So you really think it's sensible that an instructor giving a course in leading techniques be required to inspect and make a written record of every runner placed by the person (s)he's teaching to lead?
Sheesh!
So you really think it's sensible that an instructor giving a course in leading techniques be required to inspect and make a written record of every runner placed by the person (s)he's teaching to lead?
Sheesh!
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Filled out and sent. Bump.
In reply to Non professional and Proud:
Just because YOU say it, doesn't make it true. Piss off you prat.
> (In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX)
> [...]
>
> Lets get one thing straight the majority of 'instructors' do not 'teach' novices any techniques. They simply drag punters up and down crags circus monkey stylee.
> [...]
>
> Lets get one thing straight the majority of 'instructors' do not 'teach' novices any techniques. They simply drag punters up and down crags circus monkey stylee.
Just because YOU say it, doesn't make it true. Piss off you prat.
In reply to Anonymous:
Ahh! another lie dressed up as fact.
>I acknowledge that fact. I maintain however that based on numbers employed, you will find more 'instructors' performing 'fair ground ride' activties than you will find instructors actually instructing the skills and techniques required to take resposibility for yourself. It stands to reason, there are are alway a pryamid structure to the numbers with the relitive levels of the qualification for instance.
People get what they ask for. If somebody asks for a trial session to see what climbing is like, should we sign them up for a full course of training?
> (In reply to Mark L)
>
> Don't get me wrong mark I am not ruling out the massive contribution to the 'responsbility ethic decay' made by volenteer groups.
>
> Don't get me wrong mark I am not ruling out the massive contribution to the 'responsbility ethic decay' made by volenteer groups.
Ahh! another lie dressed up as fact.
>I acknowledge that fact. I maintain however that based on numbers employed, you will find more 'instructors' performing 'fair ground ride' activties than you will find instructors actually instructing the skills and techniques required to take resposibility for yourself. It stands to reason, there are are alway a pryamid structure to the numbers with the relitive levels of the qualification for instance.
>
> One thing if for sure, these days there are more punters who have been exposed to the 'fair ground ride' introduction to climbing than those who have been given an honest grounding by responsible instructors.
> One thing if for sure, these days there are more punters who have been exposed to the 'fair ground ride' introduction to climbing than those who have been given an honest grounding by responsible instructors.
People get what they ask for. If somebody asks for a trial session to see what climbing is like, should we sign them up for a full course of training?
In reply to martin a:
The industry does not self regulate and neither does the BMC look after safety in the industry. A host of bodies, including the BMC, MLTB, ABC, AALA, IRATA and the HSE all contribute and effect what goes on within the outdoor industry and all organisations providing activities are required to operate within well toughtout, tried and tested National guidlines and the law.
Change should come about as a result of real concerns for safety (unfortunatley often as a result of accidents or near misses) not as ill conceived regulations. (why are other European contries not including sport as the UK HSE are?). The outdoor industry in this county has an excellent record for safety and the changes required in response to this document would not improve this, neither are they reasonably practicable.
IMO This document is primarily aimed at the construction industry and that's where it should stay.
The industry does not self regulate and neither does the BMC look after safety in the industry. A host of bodies, including the BMC, MLTB, ABC, AALA, IRATA and the HSE all contribute and effect what goes on within the outdoor industry and all organisations providing activities are required to operate within well toughtout, tried and tested National guidlines and the law.
Change should come about as a result of real concerns for safety (unfortunatley often as a result of accidents or near misses) not as ill conceived regulations. (why are other European contries not including sport as the UK HSE are?). The outdoor industry in this county has an excellent record for safety and the changes required in response to this document would not improve this, neither are they reasonably practicable.
IMO This document is primarily aimed at the construction industry and that's where it should stay.
In reply to tony: yes, this is the classic approach of the UK civil service and notably DEFRA - to impose European regulations on the population with greater stringency than was ever envisaged by Brussels. I find it difficult to react rationally to this HSE insanity because any sign of bureacracy produces shortness of breath and a desire to injure them...
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Done.
Is this going to affect other professional mountaineers, ie those who mount an expedition in the expectation of making money from photos, articles, lectures etc?
It's a farce.
Nick
Done.
Is this going to affect other professional mountaineers, ie those who mount an expedition in the expectation of making money from photos, articles, lectures etc?
It's a farce.
Nick
In reply to Nick Lambert:
I cannot see why this would be the case.
1) If you are not being paid while you are climbing then you do not come under the regs
2) The regs will not apply abroad.
> Is this going to affect other professional mountaineers, ie those who mount an expedition in the expectation of making money from photos, articles, lectures etc
I cannot see why this would be the case.
1) If you are not being paid while you are climbing then you do not come under the regs
2) The regs will not apply abroad.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I have read through some the consultation response and would be glad of some feed back about some of the questions.
Did anyone else read the response before they emailed it? In it’s current state I have grave problems with it and cannot return it to HSC without some clarification.
Alan. Who authored this response? Is it a collective work, such as the one that John Cousins was presiding over? Can you get the author to answer my concerns via this board please. I am not a professional but I am prepared to stick up for them if I think that doing so will not be detrimental to climbing in general. But I think if professionals are calling for support then a bit more explanation is required.
I have outlined my concerns in posts below. I await a response.
I have read through some the consultation response and would be glad of some feed back about some of the questions.
Did anyone else read the response before they emailed it? In it’s current state I have grave problems with it and cannot return it to HSC without some clarification.
Alan. Who authored this response? Is it a collective work, such as the one that John Cousins was presiding over? Can you get the author to answer my concerns via this board please. I am not a professional but I am prepared to stick up for them if I think that doing so will not be detrimental to climbing in general. But I think if professionals are calling for support then a bit more explanation is required.
I have outlined my concerns in posts below. I await a response.
Q9. We aim to encourage dutyholders to assess the ‘overall’ risk involved in working at height, for example by considering the risk of installing equipment for work at height as well as the risks of using it, by taking full account of the nature and duration of the work, by taking account of emergency and rescue situations and by taking a full range of technical solutions:
9a) Are our aims understood?
Yes. This is standard good practice in our industry and our good safety record attests that this is effective?
I think it is not appropriate to just say ‘yes we will carry on doing what ever it takes to maintain our excellent safety record’ in respect of fixed protection. This is not the case, not least because of the ethics of fixed protections.
The response to this question lack the vigilance required to protect our game from fixed protection.
Consider the term ‘full range of technical solutions’ in a question referencing ‘installed equipment for work at height’
I believe bolts and other fixed equipment would fall into the category of ‘ full range of technical solutions’. There would be little doubt that installing them would increase the security in many situations, especially in winter where protection is limited.
It goes without saying that this is a pretty unfavourable solution for most!
Of course they wouldn’t be fixed equipment for long because they would get chopped. That doesn’t mean to say that a court would consider their use or pre-placement to be impractical in the event of an accident.
Similarly a court may consider a pre-placed rescue top rope(s) is a suitable precaution?
I think the response needs to give good measure of explanation to HSE the acceptance of risk and willingness to commit to a route that form part and parcel of the sport. I.e. That the most desirable is not necessarily the safest of the ‘full range of technical solutions’.
You used a useful term with reference to operating in poor weather. ‘is an integral, and in some cases unavoidable, part of the experience.’ Could the same not be true of the absence of ‘fall protection’ and ‘fixed equipment’?
9a) Are our aims understood?
Yes. This is standard good practice in our industry and our good safety record attests that this is effective?
I think it is not appropriate to just say ‘yes we will carry on doing what ever it takes to maintain our excellent safety record’ in respect of fixed protection. This is not the case, not least because of the ethics of fixed protections.
The response to this question lack the vigilance required to protect our game from fixed protection.
Consider the term ‘full range of technical solutions’ in a question referencing ‘installed equipment for work at height’
I believe bolts and other fixed equipment would fall into the category of ‘ full range of technical solutions’. There would be little doubt that installing them would increase the security in many situations, especially in winter where protection is limited.
It goes without saying that this is a pretty unfavourable solution for most!
Of course they wouldn’t be fixed equipment for long because they would get chopped. That doesn’t mean to say that a court would consider their use or pre-placement to be impractical in the event of an accident.
Similarly a court may consider a pre-placed rescue top rope(s) is a suitable precaution?
I think the response needs to give good measure of explanation to HSE the acceptance of risk and willingness to commit to a route that form part and parcel of the sport. I.e. That the most desirable is not necessarily the safest of the ‘full range of technical solutions’.
You used a useful term with reference to operating in poor weather. ‘is an integral, and in some cases unavoidable, part of the experience.’ Could the same not be true of the absence of ‘fall protection’ and ‘fixed equipment’?
Regulation 13 – Inspection of places of work at height
Q27. Do you agree that a duty to inspect visually the surface before work at height commences should be included in the Regulations? Is it practicable?
Yes. It is standard practice to visually inspect every step taken in the outdoors. It is not appropriate or practical in the natural environment to record these inspections
What? You are setting yourself up for a hugh fall here! So you have taken responsibility for inspecting every step! Are you mad!
You cannot be sure that your co-workers or clients will take the same steps!
Are you culpable if you fail to notice yourself or warn of a slippery step! Slips and trips are inherent risks.
With regard to inspecting a surface to ascertain its fragility you need to emphasis the limitations of a visual inspection? The outdoor environment is not constructed from homogenous consistent construction materials. You can take precautions against braking footholds or footholds, you can warn of suspects flakes. But what do you do if their use is unavoidable?
I seriously wonder now if anyone who emailed this to he HSC has read the response.
Q27. Do you agree that a duty to inspect visually the surface before work at height commences should be included in the Regulations? Is it practicable?
Yes. It is standard practice to visually inspect every step taken in the outdoors. It is not appropriate or practical in the natural environment to record these inspections
What? You are setting yourself up for a hugh fall here! So you have taken responsibility for inspecting every step! Are you mad!
You cannot be sure that your co-workers or clients will take the same steps!
Are you culpable if you fail to notice yourself or warn of a slippery step! Slips and trips are inherent risks.
With regard to inspecting a surface to ascertain its fragility you need to emphasis the limitations of a visual inspection? The outdoor environment is not constructed from homogenous consistent construction materials. You can take precautions against braking footholds or footholds, you can warn of suspects flakes. But what do you do if their use is unavoidable?
I seriously wonder now if anyone who emailed this to he HSC has read the response.
Q22. Should duties concerning fragile surfaces be qualified by SFAIRP?
Yes. 9.-(1) assumes that an employer can prevent persons falling through fragile surfaces and does not use SFAIRP. Adventure activities can only comply with this by stopping all winter mountaineering activities. Currently such activities proceed safely due to a reliance on the workers skills and experience of weather knowledge, snow conditions and the handling properties of the fragile surface. So far as is reasonably practicable should be applied to 9(1) and 9 (2)b
The response to this question is so massively overstated and hyped that I doubt whether anyone would consider it credible.
Consider
Currently such activities proceed safely due to a reliance on the workers skills and experience of weather knowledge, snow conditions and the handling properties of the fragile surface.
It is obvious that you cannot ‘proceed safely’ in winter terrain, on fragile surfaces. This is evidenced by the numerous accidents! These have occurred to mountain professionals and amateurs alike. Ice, shattered and snow being what they are, there is no doubt that such accidents will continue to occur in the future.
The assessment of the risks of ‘fragile surfaces’ is such a subjective affair that it would be misleading and dishonest to imply that you could in anyway ‘proceed safely’.
The fact is that professional and amateur mountaineers make a judgement and then proceed (or even retreat) accepting the risk.
The kind of risks that a professional mountaineer takes on Fragile surfaces far exceed the risk that any civilised society would want to see its workers partake as part of a profit making construction industry. Professional mountaineers are accepting the risk as a way of life rather than to meet a deadline or make a bonus.
You can only claim that it is possible to ‘proceed safely’ if you are 100% confident that a professional mountaineer will never be involved in an incident caused misjudging fragile surfaces.
This is clearly cannot be definite.
It is just not an exact science, or at least, far less exact than materials science etc.
The professional makes a judgement regarding the surface but acknowledges that there is a risk he may be wrong.
What I am saying do not overplay the skills that you use to manage risk and make them into some kind of magic tool that they are not.
Be honest and acknowledge that, in fact, you are prepared to take more risk than in other industries. It is part of the game.
Do not pretend that those skills can guarantee that you can ‘proceed safely’.
Remember that under the regulations it will be the criminal courts rather than civil lawyer who will be taking you to task when you inevitably fail in that guarantee.
If professionals are obligated to guarantee that you can ‘proceed safely’ they may find that they are limited to non serious or trivial terrain. This may not be considered mountaineering instruction at all. Professionals will be stuck in the ice factory.. .or abroad where the regulations do not apply!
Yes. 9.-(1) assumes that an employer can prevent persons falling through fragile surfaces and does not use SFAIRP. Adventure activities can only comply with this by stopping all winter mountaineering activities. Currently such activities proceed safely due to a reliance on the workers skills and experience of weather knowledge, snow conditions and the handling properties of the fragile surface. So far as is reasonably practicable should be applied to 9(1) and 9 (2)b
The response to this question is so massively overstated and hyped that I doubt whether anyone would consider it credible.
Consider
Currently such activities proceed safely due to a reliance on the workers skills and experience of weather knowledge, snow conditions and the handling properties of the fragile surface.
It is obvious that you cannot ‘proceed safely’ in winter terrain, on fragile surfaces. This is evidenced by the numerous accidents! These have occurred to mountain professionals and amateurs alike. Ice, shattered and snow being what they are, there is no doubt that such accidents will continue to occur in the future.
The assessment of the risks of ‘fragile surfaces’ is such a subjective affair that it would be misleading and dishonest to imply that you could in anyway ‘proceed safely’.
The fact is that professional and amateur mountaineers make a judgement and then proceed (or even retreat) accepting the risk.
The kind of risks that a professional mountaineer takes on Fragile surfaces far exceed the risk that any civilised society would want to see its workers partake as part of a profit making construction industry. Professional mountaineers are accepting the risk as a way of life rather than to meet a deadline or make a bonus.
You can only claim that it is possible to ‘proceed safely’ if you are 100% confident that a professional mountaineer will never be involved in an incident caused misjudging fragile surfaces.
This is clearly cannot be definite.
It is just not an exact science, or at least, far less exact than materials science etc.
The professional makes a judgement regarding the surface but acknowledges that there is a risk he may be wrong.
What I am saying do not overplay the skills that you use to manage risk and make them into some kind of magic tool that they are not.
Be honest and acknowledge that, in fact, you are prepared to take more risk than in other industries. It is part of the game.
Do not pretend that those skills can guarantee that you can ‘proceed safely’.
Remember that under the regulations it will be the criminal courts rather than civil lawyer who will be taking you to task when you inevitably fail in that guarantee.
If professionals are obligated to guarantee that you can ‘proceed safely’ they may find that they are limited to non serious or trivial terrain. This may not be considered mountaineering instruction at all. Professionals will be stuck in the ice factory.. .or abroad where the regulations do not apply!
Q22. Should duties concerning fragile surfaces be qualified by SFAIRP(so far as is reasonably practicable)?
Yes. 9.-(1) assumes that an employer can prevent persons falling through fragile surfaces and does not use SFAIRP. Adventure activities can only comply with this by stopping all winter mountaineering activities. Currently such activities proceed safely due to a reliance on the workers skills and experience of weather knowledge, snow conditions and the handling properties of the fragile surface. So far as is reasonably practicable should be applied to 9(1) and 9 (2)b
Why is this response limited to winter mountaineering? It seems like the ideal place to acknowledge that quite a few summer crags are pretty fragile too. Rocks snap off underfoot, gear fails and natural objects land on your head.
There have been plenty of such accidents,
some involving professionals,
some involving kids,
some in the most unlikely of places,
some of them fatal.
All of them likely to happend again.
You can take all the precautions you like, inspect each step taken as proposed in question 13 but you can never be as sure about the natural environment as you can about construction materials and scaffolding!
This is an inherent part of the risk, far better to acknowledge that you understand the risk and willingly participate anyway rather than make out that some magic skill can redeem you from it.
Be realistic in your admission of where fragile surfaces exist in the natural environment. I.e. practically everywhere and not just in winter.
Yes. 9.-(1) assumes that an employer can prevent persons falling through fragile surfaces and does not use SFAIRP. Adventure activities can only comply with this by stopping all winter mountaineering activities. Currently such activities proceed safely due to a reliance on the workers skills and experience of weather knowledge, snow conditions and the handling properties of the fragile surface. So far as is reasonably practicable should be applied to 9(1) and 9 (2)b
Why is this response limited to winter mountaineering? It seems like the ideal place to acknowledge that quite a few summer crags are pretty fragile too. Rocks snap off underfoot, gear fails and natural objects land on your head.
There have been plenty of such accidents,
some involving professionals,
some involving kids,
some in the most unlikely of places,
some of them fatal.
All of them likely to happend again.
You can take all the precautions you like, inspect each step taken as proposed in question 13 but you can never be as sure about the natural environment as you can about construction materials and scaffolding!
This is an inherent part of the risk, far better to acknowledge that you understand the risk and willingly participate anyway rather than make out that some magic skill can redeem you from it.
Be realistic in your admission of where fragile surfaces exist in the natural environment. I.e. practically everywhere and not just in winter.
Q14. Can or should we attempt to define ‘competence’ in the Regulations?
Yes. The issue of competence is well defined in HSC’s ‘Guidance to the (Adventure Activities) Licensing Authority’ (L77)
Whooooowa!.
Isn’t the competency guidance given by the AALA is in relation to Activity providers. I.e centers and companies. It is strictly hirarcical and would not serve the interests sole traders, self employed and contractors working without attachment to larger organisations!
I am also pretty concerned that we fall into a situation where the training boards operate a cartel.
I want to use my own judgment when I choose an instructor or guide. I do not want to be bound limited or restricted to what the Mountain training boards insist is the minimum mark of competence i.e. this qualification or that badge.
Yes. The issue of competence is well defined in HSC’s ‘Guidance to the (Adventure Activities) Licensing Authority’ (L77)
Whooooowa!.
Isn’t the competency guidance given by the AALA is in relation to Activity providers. I.e centers and companies. It is strictly hirarcical and would not serve the interests sole traders, self employed and contractors working without attachment to larger organisations!
I am also pretty concerned that we fall into a situation where the training boards operate a cartel.
I want to use my own judgment when I choose an instructor or guide. I do not want to be bound limited or restricted to what the Mountain training boards insist is the minimum mark of competence i.e. this qualification or that badge.
Regulation 15 – Exemption by the Health and Safety Executive
Q30. Should any group of people, type of premises, type of work equipment or class of activities be exempted from these Regulations?
The best defence is against these regulations is not to keep harping on about excellent safety records. The best stance is that you acknowledge the risk and are willing to accept them as professionals.
Lets be careful that we do not overstate the place of professional instructors in demonstrating best practice. There are many sources of technical advice and amateur climbing and mountaineering would still survive without professional instructors.
Similarly in the development of techniques, there are many practitioners who are not professional instructors but who nonetheless are a valuable resource for techniques and developments of techniques. In contrast, if I’m honest (and generalising) many of the resources produced by professional instructors, text books etc are simply tired old regurgitations of older works rather than representitive of innovation or improvement of techniques.
Q30. Should any group of people, type of premises, type of work equipment or class of activities be exempted from these Regulations?
> The adventure activities industry has an excellent safety record, so much so that HSC disbanded its own advisory committee
The best defence is against these regulations is not to keep harping on about excellent safety records. The best stance is that you acknowledge the risk and are willing to accept them as professionals.
> The Regulations do not consider the interface between sport and industry. The inadvertent application of these inappropriate regulations will not improve the existing safety record and yet it has the potential to increase the number of accidents by denying participants’ access to professional coaches who will be unable to demonstrate the sport’s best practice.
Lets be careful that we do not overstate the place of professional instructors in demonstrating best practice. There are many sources of technical advice and amateur climbing and mountaineering would still survive without professional instructors.
Similarly in the development of techniques, there are many practitioners who are not professional instructors but who nonetheless are a valuable resource for techniques and developments of techniques. In contrast, if I’m honest (and generalising) many of the resources produced by professional instructors, text books etc are simply tired old regurgitations of older works rather than representitive of innovation or improvement of techniques.
>
> What? You are setting yourself up for a hugh fall here! So you have taken responsibility for inspecting every step! Are you mad!
>
> You cannot be sure that your co-workers or clients will take the same steps!
> Are you culpable if you fail to notice yourself or warn of a slippery step! Slips and trips are inherent risks.
> What? You are setting yourself up for a hugh fall here! So you have taken responsibility for inspecting every step! Are you mad!
>
> You cannot be sure that your co-workers or clients will take the same steps!
> Are you culpable if you fail to notice yourself or warn of a slippery step! Slips and trips are inherent risks.
You are in indutry, if you don't see a hazard it doesn't mean you aren't responsible in fact you are more liable for not checking well enough.
Try telling anybody who fills out risk assesments the slips and trips are inherent. It is the HSE's and every safety advisors dream to have no accidents slips and trips shouldn't happen (walking into walls becasue you are too busy looking at your feet)
In reply to mikesmith:
Exactly Mike. The Outdoor industry should be exerting their exemption from the Regs on the grounds that, like amateurs, they are willingly accepting the risk.
Instead this response seems to take the opposite view namely
"we're really safe already, we don't need any more regs!"
That is the fallacy I am trying to highlight.
You cannot guarantee safety in this game. If you do you are just setting up some poor sod for a corporate manslaughter case.
If the HSE force the outdoor industry to make guarantees about safety then I think that professionals would no longer be in a position to properly represent the game. In fact they would be misrepresenting it.
I wouldn’t blame the HSE for doing this because at the moment the outdoor lobby is failing to make the point that these are activities with risk that cannot be avoided without fundamentally changing the game. Instead the ouddoor lobby keep making the point of how safe they are! Doh!
The only stance to take is that mountain professionals should be exempt on the grounds of being willing to take risk.
Exactly Mike. The Outdoor industry should be exerting their exemption from the Regs on the grounds that, like amateurs, they are willingly accepting the risk.
Instead this response seems to take the opposite view namely
"we're really safe already, we don't need any more regs!"
That is the fallacy I am trying to highlight.
You cannot guarantee safety in this game. If you do you are just setting up some poor sod for a corporate manslaughter case.
If the HSE force the outdoor industry to make guarantees about safety then I think that professionals would no longer be in a position to properly represent the game. In fact they would be misrepresenting it.
I wouldn’t blame the HSE for doing this because at the moment the outdoor lobby is failing to make the point that these are activities with risk that cannot be avoided without fundamentally changing the game. Instead the ouddoor lobby keep making the point of how safe they are! Doh!
The only stance to take is that mountain professionals should be exempt on the grounds of being willing to take risk.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:
This includes your local climbing walls or any other similar facility the increased costs and red tape will make these also unworkable, many facilities will close, many already suffer with rising insurance.
If they don't maybe just in case they decide to ask punters to also climb on double ropes indoors.....
There will almost certainly be a knock on effect upon competative climbing mobile facilities with Entreprises etc.
Would you like your wilderness (what we have left of it) spoilt by signs warning you of the blatently obvious.
Some (many) may not be prepared to head out and make up the ropes as they go along (or using ropework textbooks) instructors required....
This will affect everyone from scout N formers up the Mountain Guides + any charitable events made possible by the work to members of the industry giving their time.
This includes your local climbing walls or any other similar facility the increased costs and red tape will make these also unworkable, many facilities will close, many already suffer with rising insurance.
If they don't maybe just in case they decide to ask punters to also climb on double ropes indoors.....
There will almost certainly be a knock on effect upon competative climbing mobile facilities with Entreprises etc.
Would you like your wilderness (what we have left of it) spoilt by signs warning you of the blatently obvious.
Some (many) may not be prepared to head out and make up the ropes as they go along (or using ropework textbooks) instructors required....
This will affect everyone from scout N formers up the Mountain Guides + any charitable events made possible by the work to members of the industry giving their time.
In reply to Consultation response reviewer:
He was just giving an example. Think too hard you may explode.
He was just giving an example. Think too hard you may explode.
In reply to martin A:
>>keep the crags free of organised groups, ensure my children are safe if they go climbing with school.
Of course they are going to be safe, because it is currently possible for them to die post AALA introduction. And with this new regulation there will no longer be no danger of death to people involved because greater managment and red tape makes the danger gop away.
Is the crag the kids are at more or less dangerous whilst their teacher/instructor is off errecting signs? Is it more or less dangerous after the signs are errected?
>>keep the crags free of organised groups, ensure my children are safe if they go climbing with school.
Of course they are going to be safe, because it is currently possible for them to die post AALA introduction. And with this new regulation there will no longer be no danger of death to people involved because greater managment and red tape makes the danger gop away.
Is the crag the kids are at more or less dangerous whilst their teacher/instructor is off errecting signs? Is it more or less dangerous after the signs are errected?
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Posted.
This saddens me as the cost of instruction will increase making it even harder to facilitate courses for kids etc..
Fingers crossed.
Richard Hogan.
Posted.
This saddens me as the cost of instruction will increase making it even harder to facilitate courses for kids etc..
Fingers crossed.
Richard Hogan.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
another reply sent.
another reply sent.
Looks like the servers down!
Your message is delayed
Message for domain hse.gsi.gov.uk delayed at hse.gsi.gov.uk.
Unable to deliver to domain for 24 hours.
Will continue trying for 72 hours.
No action is required on your part.
Last attempt failed because:
Can't connect to host
Your message is delayed
Message for domain hse.gsi.gov.uk delayed at hse.gsi.gov.uk.
Unable to deliver to domain for 24 hours.
Will continue trying for 72 hours.
No action is required on your part.
Last attempt failed because:
Can't connect to host
In reply to Anonymous: done and posted
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I have read the response document, and the Health and Safety document, and overall I agree with the response. There are a few minor niggles I have but, being minor, I have left the text unaltered.
There are a few things the HSE document does indeed stress to me at least:
1. That it is an employer's responsibility that signage and similar are in place at regions of danger. This means that there would be no permanent signs. There seems to be no way in which a landowner is responsible for this.
2. There is a hint that private work, at home may be brought into this, which may affect DIY enthusiasts, but I suspect that this may be a way that private mountaineers get slapped with the same restrictions.
3. Currently this is not the case as if it is being done for sport, with no money being earnt for it, then it does not come under the regulations.
So in effect it does look like the instructors may be the ones suffering. But it sounds like there is a provision for making it tighter to encompass everyone working at height, which is currently being left out.
Of course the other thing is that it may mean that more climbs get bolted so that they can be used by instructors.
The document sounds as if it has been crafted with a buildings slant to it, and then applied to all people earning money through heights. And this is the main reason that caused me to respond. They have transferred specific cases to a generality, without thought for implementation.
I have read the response document, and the Health and Safety document, and overall I agree with the response. There are a few minor niggles I have but, being minor, I have left the text unaltered.
There are a few things the HSE document does indeed stress to me at least:
1. That it is an employer's responsibility that signage and similar are in place at regions of danger. This means that there would be no permanent signs. There seems to be no way in which a landowner is responsible for this.
2. There is a hint that private work, at home may be brought into this, which may affect DIY enthusiasts, but I suspect that this may be a way that private mountaineers get slapped with the same restrictions.
3. Currently this is not the case as if it is being done for sport, with no money being earnt for it, then it does not come under the regulations.
So in effect it does look like the instructors may be the ones suffering. But it sounds like there is a provision for making it tighter to encompass everyone working at height, which is currently being left out.
Of course the other thing is that it may mean that more climbs get bolted so that they can be used by instructors.
The document sounds as if it has been crafted with a buildings slant to it, and then applied to all people earning money through heights. And this is the main reason that caused me to respond. They have transferred specific cases to a generality, without thought for implementation.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Done.
Done.
info mailed. Isn't this like not just serious but SERIOUS?? Just a thought, but given the number of e-mail addresses you have from rockfax, Alan, can you not mail all members en-masse to encourage a major resonse (assuming no data-protection probs with doing so)??
daf
daf
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Bump, form filled and sent
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
What a load of nonsense! Typical from the government to take a directive from the EU and apply it totally wrongly. Even more typical that when their mistake is pointed out instead of correcting it they just go ahead as before. Form submitted, good luck with stopping this rubbish.
What a load of nonsense! Typical from the government to take a directive from the EU and apply it totally wrongly. Even more typical that when their mistake is pointed out instead of correcting it they just go ahead as before. Form submitted, good luck with stopping this rubbish.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: I agree that this directive is a load of rubbish. It was penned by people who have no experience of the outdoor industry and when the most knowledgeable people in that industry were consulted, the resulting feedback was simply ignored.
As for the idea that the crags are supposed to be made safer, I think that if they make it impossible for instructors to take people multipitching, more and more people will simply dive into it themselves with no experience. In some cases this may work but it could lead to more accidents not only for novices but also for the experienced people they may affect in the mountains.
I also noticed someone say that they think instruction is simply spoon-feeding a day out, I strongly disagree with this as I have been on a PyB rock course and a winter week with Alan Kimber and both of these made me a far safer and more efficient mountaineer. It all depends on whether the client is willing to take in the knowledge.
I'm hoping to get into instruction so I really hope this mess gets sorted.
As for the idea that the crags are supposed to be made safer, I think that if they make it impossible for instructors to take people multipitching, more and more people will simply dive into it themselves with no experience. In some cases this may work but it could lead to more accidents not only for novices but also for the experienced people they may affect in the mountains.
I also noticed someone say that they think instruction is simply spoon-feeding a day out, I strongly disagree with this as I have been on a PyB rock course and a winter week with Alan Kimber and both of these made me a far safer and more efficient mountaineer. It all depends on whether the client is willing to take in the knowledge.
I'm hoping to get into instruction so I really hope this mess gets sorted.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX et al: Extremely serious points made in this thread - will be checking to see that we have put a response in at work at the appropriate level.
However I thought I would make the following point. There are around 4 distinct ares this legistlation can cover and its impact and desirability varies between these.
1) General Adventurous activities provision for developement and enjoyment - i.e. taking kids top-roping, abseiling, high wire courses etc. in known / managed locations.
In this case I have no fundemental problems with whatever regulation they wish to apply - this is not 'climbing' and particpants should not be subjected to the accompanying risks. In this case the best arguement against excessive regulations is the EXCELLENT safety record of centres running high-wire courses, climbing walls and top-roping when kids are under instruction. As was pointed out in the form. However legistlation in this area would have negligable immediate immpact on recreational climbing.
2) Instructional Courses. In this case the techniques taught MUST reflect best practice amongst amature participants. This area I am relatively concerned with - however all climbing and mountaineering SKILLS can be taught with a vast degree of safety. Teaching skills in a 'clinical' environment with bolted anchors as back-ups for example, might not be as adventurous or as much fun as doing it whilst going 'real' climbing but is possible. Again in this case a good arguement is the EXCELLENT safety record of Plas-y-Brennan type courses etc. although the issue of the BMC participation statement is certainly more valid than in case 1) above.
3) Guiding. Guiding in it's broadest sense - being taken on a route outdoors you are not capable/able/willing to climb yourself (i.e. eveything from Striding Edge, to the Cullins, to 0.5 to the Corner) is the only element of the outdoor industry that would effectively be UNWORKABLE in its current form by the legistlation. There is a traditional british ethic that being guided up routes is bad form - but do we really want to see a complete end to ALL guiding right down to things like grade 1 scrambles??? I really don't think so. It is ONLY in this case where the compelling arguement
is the PARTICIPANTS ACCEPTANCE OF RISK.
4) Participation within work time (i.e. Armed Forces). All Forces moutaineering and climbing in the UK would effectively be BANNED. Taking things FAR too FAR as the whole point of the exercise is to acustom military personnel to risk taking and risk management in a cost effective manner - as well as develope other skills / navigation / fitness etc.. RAF Mountain Rescue would even be effected!!!!
There are two distinct sides to the Outdoor Activities Industry. at one extreme - high wire courses and single pitch climbing venues which can be managed / inspected for loose rock etc. to eliminate almost completely objective danger. At the other - the mountains and multipitch routes will always remain dangerous to some extent.
This legistlation might be applicable to the former - but certainly not the later. The arguements against legistlation are different in both extremes -
- the activites are already as 'safe' as practicable.
- legistlation is completely inappropriate as the mountains can never be safe but participants are aware of the danger and best practice reduces the risks considerably.
Let us not get confused about which elements we are objecting to and which arguements may be appropriate in that case.
Mark
However I thought I would make the following point. There are around 4 distinct ares this legistlation can cover and its impact and desirability varies between these.
1) General Adventurous activities provision for developement and enjoyment - i.e. taking kids top-roping, abseiling, high wire courses etc. in known / managed locations.
In this case I have no fundemental problems with whatever regulation they wish to apply - this is not 'climbing' and particpants should not be subjected to the accompanying risks. In this case the best arguement against excessive regulations is the EXCELLENT safety record of centres running high-wire courses, climbing walls and top-roping when kids are under instruction. As was pointed out in the form. However legistlation in this area would have negligable immediate immpact on recreational climbing.
2) Instructional Courses. In this case the techniques taught MUST reflect best practice amongst amature participants. This area I am relatively concerned with - however all climbing and mountaineering SKILLS can be taught with a vast degree of safety. Teaching skills in a 'clinical' environment with bolted anchors as back-ups for example, might not be as adventurous or as much fun as doing it whilst going 'real' climbing but is possible. Again in this case a good arguement is the EXCELLENT safety record of Plas-y-Brennan type courses etc. although the issue of the BMC participation statement is certainly more valid than in case 1) above.
3) Guiding. Guiding in it's broadest sense - being taken on a route outdoors you are not capable/able/willing to climb yourself (i.e. eveything from Striding Edge, to the Cullins, to 0.5 to the Corner) is the only element of the outdoor industry that would effectively be UNWORKABLE in its current form by the legistlation. There is a traditional british ethic that being guided up routes is bad form - but do we really want to see a complete end to ALL guiding right down to things like grade 1 scrambles??? I really don't think so. It is ONLY in this case where the compelling arguement
is the PARTICIPANTS ACCEPTANCE OF RISK.
4) Participation within work time (i.e. Armed Forces). All Forces moutaineering and climbing in the UK would effectively be BANNED. Taking things FAR too FAR as the whole point of the exercise is to acustom military personnel to risk taking and risk management in a cost effective manner - as well as develope other skills / navigation / fitness etc.. RAF Mountain Rescue would even be effected!!!!
There are two distinct sides to the Outdoor Activities Industry. at one extreme - high wire courses and single pitch climbing venues which can be managed / inspected for loose rock etc. to eliminate almost completely objective danger. At the other - the mountains and multipitch routes will always remain dangerous to some extent.
This legistlation might be applicable to the former - but certainly not the later. The arguements against legistlation are different in both extremes -
- the activites are already as 'safe' as practicable.
- legistlation is completely inappropriate as the mountains can never be safe but participants are aware of the danger and best practice reduces the risks considerably.
Let us not get confused about which elements we are objecting to and which arguements may be appropriate in that case.
Mark
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
As soon as you posted you set the alarm bells ringing.
MOUNTAIN RESCUE. it could not continue as it does if any person was responsible for training and equipment.
the forces may get away with it due to non liability to HSE but coastguard and police joining in certainly would.
Imagine the scene, a winter whiteout at the top of Gardyloo gully and the team putting up marker barriers before anyone is allowed to proceed with rescueing anyone. solid anchors would have to be obtained to so many Kn in case there was a slip on the rope's. What sort of pantomime.
As soon as you posted you set the alarm bells ringing.
MOUNTAIN RESCUE. it could not continue as it does if any person was responsible for training and equipment.
the forces may get away with it due to non liability to HSE but coastguard and police joining in certainly would.
Imagine the scene, a winter whiteout at the top of Gardyloo gully and the team putting up marker barriers before anyone is allowed to proceed with rescueing anyone. solid anchors would have to be obtained to so many Kn in case there was a slip on the rope's. What sort of pantomime.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: sent and bumped.
In reply to sutty:
I imagine that you believe the fire brigade are subject to these regulations also.
> the forces may get away with it due to non liability to HSE but coastguard and police joining in certainly would.
I imagine that you believe the fire brigade are subject to these regulations also.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Agreed, the guidelines as drafted would be far too restrictive and would ultimately result in fewer people being encouraged to go climbing (especially from an early age, where many of our most talented climbers started).
Done and emailed.
Agreed, the guidelines as drafted would be far too restrictive and would ultimately result in fewer people being encouraged to go climbing (especially from an early age, where many of our most talented climbers started).
Done and emailed.
I have not and will not be signing the response because I believe it to be half-baked and counter productive for the reasons I outlined in my questions above to the author. Mark Stevenson has also elaborated those points and some. The HSC is now in position of hundreds of copies of this response, all arguing a completely counter productive point.
I would urge respondents to draft their own response to the consultation. Yet like lemmings they come in their droves and mail the document.
I notice that Alan has yet to confirm if this response represents the coordinated response of MLTUK or the work of a single author
The only sustainable way that outdoor industry can continue is if they seek to be exempt from the guidelines on the grounds that they acknowledge the risk of participation. Wake up outdoor industry there is no way you can offer the same assurances as the building or any other industry. Your activities do not take place on regulation concrete or validated scaffolding structures. Your activities do not take place in a managed environment. Discounting the natural hazards(which I believe you largely have anyway) their will be amateurs about who do not conform to the regs and who would pose a risk under the regs. Yet you still insist that you can 'proceed safely' in question 9 in regard to ice, snow and shattered rock. Please now remove your head from your own backside.
In the interests of equity and probably in an attempt not to ‘put people off’ you have forgotten the participation statement.
“The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions and involvement."
The response to the HSC does not exert this point at all. Instead it pussyfoots around, explaining how ‘safe’ the industry. Unfortunately the HSC are now in possession of countless copies of this response. This response will not result in exception from the regulations. It will merely precipitate a liberal helping of the caveat ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’ (SFAIRP)’ into the regulations.
This will ultimately work against professional mountaineers. Inevitably there will still be fatalities involving professionals. There will then follow much hand wringing about what ‘reasonably practicable’ actually implied. This has happened many times before but with slightly different terminology and from the relative ‘comfort’ of a civil or coroners court.
Post HSE WAHR implementation, incidents will be measured by the criminal courts and the stakes will not just be increased insurance premiums. Remember that manslaughter under section 7 of the HSE at Work Act 1974 implies a crime of ‘violent intent’.
A couple of custodial (or even suspended) sentences later the outdoor industry will pooping its pants about ‘reasonably practicable’. They will be reduced to activities that you can ‘reason practicably’ be performed on a soccer pitch.
The HSE is playing hardball, effectively having a stand off, insisting that instructors are no different to the rest of the workforce. Their stance is simple, no professional should be injured or killed in pursuit of their profession. This would seem like a sensible dictum for most in a modern society lest we end up in the dark ages working in dangerous mills! There is no way I would wish to live in a society where it was acceptable for ordinary workers to submit themselves to the kind of risk that mountaineers do. Mountaineers do it for a lifestyle choice rather than for a profit margin.
In principal, why would the HSE see the mountain professional’s exposure to height as any different to a construction worker and require him to take the same rigorous precautions? The HSE’s first priority is not the practicality of the precautions, if they are necessary in one situation then why should they be waived in another on the grounds of practicality? Remember these are mortal dangers. The HSE must ask ‘How much is a ‘working’ life practically worth?’
Are there some mitigating circumstances that allow precautions to be waived for the mountaineering community in comparison to the construction industries?
Are there less fragile surfaces in the mountains?
Are the fragile surfaces less fragile than in the construction industries?
Do professional climbers have X-Ray visions and can discern fragile surfaces better than a construction site inspector?
Is there less exposure to height?
Are there less ‘single rope severing sharp edges’ in the mountains than in the construction industry?
Clearly the answer to all these questions is no. However the climber is willing to make practical compromises against of security at height or security from fragile surfaces that trade off positively against other important attributes of achieving the objective e.g. speed etc.
The climber is willing to accept inherent risks that the HSE will not permit of construction workers et al.
I am not denying that the climber’s skills and judgement play a huge role in minimising the effect of these risks, the sport’s safety record speaks for itself in that respect. The construction industries record does not.
However you simply cannot be as assured about fragile surfaces in the mountains as you can be about rigorously inspected regulation materials, or validated scaffolding structures in the construction industry. Just think about winter climbing or read the dangerous blocks thread to focus your mind.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=73752
Loose blocks and fragile surfaces are not unusual, they are normal in the environment for a climber. Be honest, both professionals and amateurs accept it all the same.
The mountaineering lobby should be calling for an acceptance that professional climbers be allowed to willing accept risk as part of the job as a basic human right.
This consultation was an idea opportunity to explain the case of all climbers to the nanny state.
Instead the mountain lobby has jumped on the band wagon of how ‘safe’ they apparently are or have been. Regardless of what the British Mountain Guides Association used to falsely promise in there advertising (pre-1997) there are no ‘safety guarantees’ that are worth the paper they are written on.
The MCofS are clear in their advice about what to expect when hiring a professional ‘ There are no guarantees in these activities’
I have no doubt the mountain lobby will rightly revert to the ‘willing participant defence’ next time a fragile surface gives way and they end up in court. The time to exert the fact that you are willing participants like the rest of us is NOW.
Quit ranting on about how safe you are. Your only sustainable defence is that climbing is dangerous but that you are willing acceptors of risk.
I would be interested to hear why the author of the response has not taken the ‘willing to accept the risk approach?’ since this is enshrines the rights of the amateur mountaineer too. I am waiting.
In reply to sutty:
I think a point need clarifying about signing fragile surfaces. The construction industry signs fragile surfaces so that workers keep off them. If an area of crag or route was indentified as fragile then climbers would have to keep off it.
This applies to much of rock that you cannot be sure about. It would exclude many famous loose blocks and pinnicles. So for a kick off all routes that pass over, or beneath loose blocks at Tremadog are out! I reckon PyB would either have to do an awful lot of trundleing (lets not go there!) or find somewhere new to climb. errr... Probably the indoor wall.
The point is that you cannot not impliment 'so far as is reasonably practicable' measures against such a ubiquitous hazard. Nor can you temporarily sign them.
I think a point need clarifying about signing fragile surfaces. The construction industry signs fragile surfaces so that workers keep off them. If an area of crag or route was indentified as fragile then climbers would have to keep off it.
This applies to much of rock that you cannot be sure about. It would exclude many famous loose blocks and pinnicles. So for a kick off all routes that pass over, or beneath loose blocks at Tremadog are out! I reckon PyB would either have to do an awful lot of trundleing (lets not go there!) or find somewhere new to climb. errr... Probably the indoor wall.
The point is that you cannot not impliment 'so far as is reasonably practicable' measures against such a ubiquitous hazard. Nor can you temporarily sign them.
In reply to sutty:
Civilian teams could quite happily continue because they are not employed. They are volenteers. They do not fall under the HSE at Work Act.
I'm not sure about military teams, RAF etc. Perhaps mark would know more about that. I presum that RAF teams are willing acceptors of risk as part of work. The armed services kill staff all the time but I'm not sure the HSE get involved do they?
> (In reply to Mark Stevenson)
>
> As soon as you posted you set the alarm bells ringing.
>
> MOUNTAIN RESCUE. it could not continue as it does if any person was responsible for training and equipment.
>
> As soon as you posted you set the alarm bells ringing.
>
> MOUNTAIN RESCUE. it could not continue as it does if any person was responsible for training and equipment.
Civilian teams could quite happily continue because they are not employed. They are volenteers. They do not fall under the HSE at Work Act.
I'm not sure about military teams, RAF etc. Perhaps mark would know more about that. I presum that RAF teams are willing acceptors of risk as part of work. The armed services kill staff all the time but I'm not sure the HSE get involved do they?
Does anybody know how other 'lifestyle professionals' manage risk?
Surely Rugby players are employed? Do they have to fill in the accident book every time they break their nose or cut themselves?
Similarly professional cricketers? Do they have to fill in the ‘near miss’ book every time a cricket ball whizzes past their head?
Where I work if you get a paper cut you have to go see a manager and have a lecture on how you should be careful not to cut yourself on paper! Clearly rugby players are not subject to this level of regulation but fall under the HSE at work Act none the less.
Surely some risks are accepted as part of certain jobs.
This is the only way forward for professional climbers who make a lifestyle choice about the level of risk their occupation carries.
Surely Rugby players are employed? Do they have to fill in the accident book every time they break their nose or cut themselves?
Similarly professional cricketers? Do they have to fill in the ‘near miss’ book every time a cricket ball whizzes past their head?
Where I work if you get a paper cut you have to go see a manager and have a lecture on how you should be careful not to cut yourself on paper! Clearly rugby players are not subject to this level of regulation but fall under the HSE at work Act none the less.
Surely some risks are accepted as part of certain jobs.
This is the only way forward for professional climbers who make a lifestyle choice about the level of risk their occupation carries.
In reply to Anonymous:
As far as I know, most of the members of the RAF teams are also volunteers although several in each team will be full time.
> I'm not sure about military teams, RAF etc. Perhaps mark would know more about that. I presum that RAF teams are willing acceptors of risk as part of work.
As far as I know, most of the members of the RAF teams are also volunteers although several in each team will be full time.
In reply to Consultation Response Reviewer.:
As I have stated several times, I am not in a position to comment on this matter. My name appears at the top of the thread simply because I posted it for a friend of mine who had asked me and needed the download forms in position. I have made several attempts to contact him however he hasn't responded probably because he is away - it is half-term after all.
He sent me an circualr email last week in which the following is stated -
I have attached a completed consultation document. Many meetings have led to the response attached and have included the MLTUK, CCPR, Sport UK, LEA sector, Mtn Rescue, AAIAC, PyB, BMC, Scouts, Mountain Guides etc. As you can imagine the actual regulaitons from the HSE are long and often incomprehensible, hence hopefully the work has largely been done for us through these meetings.
I'm not sure if this is a thorough enough explanation for you, and I can't comment on it, but it does seem to indicate that some plenty of consultation has taken place.
It it wasn't for the fact that this thread contains some good debate, I would probably pull it since I am very uncomfortable about having my name at the top of a thread with so many un-answered questions.
Please be patient, I am sure the response will come although probably next week now.
Alan
> I notice that Alan has yet to confirm if this response represents the coordinated response of MLTUK or the work of a single author
As I have stated several times, I am not in a position to comment on this matter. My name appears at the top of the thread simply because I posted it for a friend of mine who had asked me and needed the download forms in position. I have made several attempts to contact him however he hasn't responded probably because he is away - it is half-term after all.
He sent me an circualr email last week in which the following is stated -
I have attached a completed consultation document. Many meetings have led to the response attached and have included the MLTUK, CCPR, Sport UK, LEA sector, Mtn Rescue, AAIAC, PyB, BMC, Scouts, Mountain Guides etc. As you can imagine the actual regulaitons from the HSE are long and often incomprehensible, hence hopefully the work has largely been done for us through these meetings.
I'm not sure if this is a thorough enough explanation for you, and I can't comment on it, but it does seem to indicate that some plenty of consultation has taken place.
It it wasn't for the fact that this thread contains some good debate, I would probably pull it since I am very uncomfortable about having my name at the top of a thread with so many un-answered questions.
Please be patient, I am sure the response will come although probably next week now.
Alan
In reply to Anonymous: Are you sure about this. I know that people who set routes at climbing walls are considering as working whether they are paid or not ie work is not defined by remuneration but by the activity.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Sorry Alan I wasn't intending to point the finger at you. I should have worded that differently.
I understand that this isn't your response to the HSC and you are providing a service by posting it in good faith.
I also understand that you are not this chaps keeper!
In defence of who ever authored the response it I also apprechiate that responding to the HSC or to these boards is nobodies full time job! I have got better things to do myself and hence the staggared replies!
I am feeling now that this response is does not represent a coordinated effort by the bodies the author mentioned in his email to you. Other than the fact it is way off the mark, no representitives of those bodies have claified points on this boards as you would expect if this was a timed and measured response.
However please do not pull the thread because as you say this is an ideal opportunity to debate a very basic principal and ethos of our game. Certainly it is one that has become lost for many reasons, and one we will regret loosing in the future.
Besides no purpose would be served in pulling the thread. I have received thes posting 9 times via seperate, chain mail type emails. It is better to leave the thread so that future chain mail receivers can review the debate before they post their response.
Sorry Alan I wasn't intending to point the finger at you. I should have worded that differently.
I understand that this isn't your response to the HSC and you are providing a service by posting it in good faith.
I also understand that you are not this chaps keeper!
In defence of who ever authored the response it I also apprechiate that responding to the HSC or to these boards is nobodies full time job! I have got better things to do myself and hence the staggared replies!
I am feeling now that this response is does not represent a coordinated effort by the bodies the author mentioned in his email to you. Other than the fact it is way off the mark, no representitives of those bodies have claified points on this boards as you would expect if this was a timed and measured response.
However please do not pull the thread because as you say this is an ideal opportunity to debate a very basic principal and ethos of our game. Certainly it is one that has become lost for many reasons, and one we will regret loosing in the future.
Besides no purpose would be served in pulling the thread. I have received thes posting 9 times via seperate, chain mail type emails. It is better to leave the thread so that future chain mail receivers can review the debate before they post their response.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Good points and well made.
I certainly agree that their is a slideing scale of risk.
However I must take issue on one point. If climbing takes place on outdoor natural rock then we must still exert that risk exists. I think you are underestimating the effort that would have to be applied to give assurenceds required for natural structures.
I also do not think we can have a situation where the participation statement applies to some kinds of activity but not to another because most people think it is safe.
It is important that even beginners understand the risk and are not given the impression that something they are told is climbing is safe. That would misrepresent our sport.
Accidents attributed to natural hazards(i.e. falling rock) have occurred in the most unlikely of places.
These accidents have resulted in fatalities even to children. Even the coroner in one of these cases found that the incident was a case of bad luck but was eager to emphasise that these kinds of risks do exist.
If a non climbing coroner understands this point then so should climbers! We shouldn’t sell the participation statement short. It has value in protecting all of our rights to continue climbing.
Good points and well made.
I certainly agree that their is a slideing scale of risk.
However I must take issue on one point. If climbing takes place on outdoor natural rock then we must still exert that risk exists. I think you are underestimating the effort that would have to be applied to give assurenceds required for natural structures.
I also do not think we can have a situation where the participation statement applies to some kinds of activity but not to another because most people think it is safe.
It is important that even beginners understand the risk and are not given the impression that something they are told is climbing is safe. That would misrepresent our sport.
Accidents attributed to natural hazards(i.e. falling rock) have occurred in the most unlikely of places.
These accidents have resulted in fatalities even to children. Even the coroner in one of these cases found that the incident was a case of bad luck but was eager to emphasise that these kinds of risks do exist.
If a non climbing coroner understands this point then so should climbers! We shouldn’t sell the participation statement short. It has value in protecting all of our rights to continue climbing.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously1:Encore, agree totally get the rules in now with massive fines for non compliance
In reply to Anonymous:
Civilian teams could quite happily continue because they are not employed. They are volenteers. They do not fall under the HSE at Work Act
So, does that mean that a guide who takes someone out climbing for money has to comply but when he does the same route and does not get paid he does not have to comply?
Civilian teams could quite happily continue because they are not employed. They are volenteers. They do not fall under the HSE at Work Act
So, does that mean that a guide who takes someone out climbing for money has to comply but when he does the same route and does not get paid he does not have to comply?
In reply to sutty:
I know this is a litle off the point but it might answer your question.
A ML holder who takes a young client out for free does not have to hold an AALA licence, but if he is given any money, even a donation towards transport costs he must be AALA approved.
I presume this means that the answer to your question would also be yes.
Now back to the main debate...
mehmet
I know this is a litle off the point but it might answer your question.
A ML holder who takes a young client out for free does not have to hold an AALA licence, but if he is given any money, even a donation towards transport costs he must be AALA approved.
I presume this means that the answer to your question would also be yes.
Now back to the main debate...
mehmet
In reply to Mehmet Karatay:
So if that is the case any volunteer MRT member who gets any expenses will have to comply then.
So if that is the case any volunteer MRT member who gets any expenses will have to comply then.
In reply to Mehmet Karatay:
Rubbish!
If you take money for teaching minors you have to be approved by AALA. If you want to take a minor out free of charge but they pay towards petrol the AALA regulations dont count either whether you aer qualified or not.
Scout groups for instance are exempt.
Rubbish!
If you take money for teaching minors you have to be approved by AALA. If you want to take a minor out free of charge but they pay towards petrol the AALA regulations dont count either whether you aer qualified or not.
Scout groups for instance are exempt.
In reply to Anonymous:
The AALA publish guidance on what constitutes nominal payment at
http://www.aala.org/guidance_details.php/pArticleHeadingID=39
Remember the AALA regs are there to protect vulnerable kids in outdoor activiities rather than to stop individuals working for expenses only to circumnavigate the regulations.
The same strict controls are not appropriate for adult activities. Adults should choose for themselves what makes an acceptable instructor and whether payment is appropriate.
The response to the HSC in question 14 suggests that the AALA regs are appropriate for adult activities too. I have already pointed out that that is a falicy for various reason. Not least the imposition of a cartel that nominal payment terms would bring about.
Come to think of it maybe that is why the outdoor professional lobby are not seeking exemption from the regs. A cartel imposed by the regs would of coarse be in their favour.
Sutty in 7 year of MR I have only ever heard traveling expenses for callouts mooted once... and that bloke was dunked in a pond for it!
MRC had discussions several years ago based on worries that, if they say employed a cleaner for a couple of hours a month, they would then fall foul of all sorts of employment related laws in respect of volenteer rescue personel. In the end it was decided that it was not an issue.
> (In reply to Mehmet Karatay)
>
> Rubbish!
>
>
> Rubbish!
>
The AALA publish guidance on what constitutes nominal payment at
http://www.aala.org/guidance_details.php/pArticleHeadingID=39
Remember the AALA regs are there to protect vulnerable kids in outdoor activiities rather than to stop individuals working for expenses only to circumnavigate the regulations.
The same strict controls are not appropriate for adult activities. Adults should choose for themselves what makes an acceptable instructor and whether payment is appropriate.
The response to the HSC in question 14 suggests that the AALA regs are appropriate for adult activities too. I have already pointed out that that is a falicy for various reason. Not least the imposition of a cartel that nominal payment terms would bring about.
Come to think of it maybe that is why the outdoor professional lobby are not seeking exemption from the regs. A cartel imposed by the regs would of coarse be in their favour.
Sutty in 7 year of MR I have only ever heard traveling expenses for callouts mooted once... and that bloke was dunked in a pond for it!
MRC had discussions several years ago based on worries that, if they say employed a cleaner for a couple of hours a month, they would then fall foul of all sorts of employment related laws in respect of volenteer rescue personel. In the end it was decided that it was not an issue.
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
done and emailed!
done and emailed!
In reply to Consultation Response Reviewer:
I meant minors you know like best mates kids etc..
Crazy regs!
The charity regs are attrocious!
Seems it's ok to kill someone by using non 'qualified' staff for charity abseils but not if you want to pay a 'pro' to keep things safe.
The AALA regs should protect all activities involving minors except with those with accompanying parents.
I meant minors you know like best mates kids etc..
Crazy regs!
The charity regs are attrocious!
Seems it's ok to kill someone by using non 'qualified' staff for charity abseils but not if you want to pay a 'pro' to keep things safe.
The AALA regs should protect all activities involving minors except with those with accompanying parents.
In reply to Blue Water White Death: these are the interpretations of the regs by a a variety of organisations who have been in talks with the HSE, including MLTE, BMC Assoc of Mtn Instructors etc
In reply to Mark L: there is a section in the regs (not the directive) that states 'workers and those in their control'.
In reply to Anonymous: Actually MLTUK are behind this response as are the BMC as they are concerned about the afect on both recreational climbers and the fact that the HSE could dictate how the sport is taught. Not a good thing surely?
In reply to Anonymous: In my experience the vast majority of instrcutors, guides and centres make the risk very clear on the application form, consent form or literature that clients inc. parents receive, as this is common sense and best practice. The BMC or UIAA participantion statement is usually used, or words to that effect.
In reply to Consultation response reviewer: god effort! The response was filled in by MLTUK after variuos consulations and can be altered added to or whatever. The aim here was to bring the whole issue to the attention of mainstream climbers. I sent it to Alan as a way of doing this. I have not responded to requests for clarification or taken part ion the debate as I've been away for a week. Thanks to all for comments and to those who responded. Feel free to alter the response, add own opinions or do nothing. I for one am very grateful to Alan to posting this, and if nothing else its intereing to see the broad range of opinions out there about guided/instructed climbing!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...