aricooperdavis
Moderator
@andrewmcleod this is exactly my interpretation and understanding, and as such I don't think the BCA's statement really says anything that I didn't already assume to be true.
Well what a surprise, lack of reading comprehension is ensuring this thread goes round in circles over and over again. I’m at work at the moment, but will look to reiterate the answers to the above questions (that I think are all within this thread somewhere)!
I think it's entirely natural (and probably even the desired effect?) that when a statement on responsibilities like this is put out by a governing body it causes folk to pause and think about how/if they are fulfilling their responsibilities - and following on from that natural to ask questions.Not sure why people are making mountains.
In our club we do it as, anything organised by the comittee and has a signup or ticket on our students union website is considered "club trip" and anything else is personal trip. We will ask and appoint leaders for club trips that we think are suitable (through our experience caving with them as a collective). Personal trips we don't have control over and do not submit trip forms to our SU for so they are not related to the club. As for how we decided someone is able to lead trip I like to think of it as a two sections:The open diary is a good question, but it depends how a trip is "sold". I'm going here, anyone want to join me? is very different to offering to lead a group of novices (& as a club official would you be happy with that person doing that?)
To put it beyond all doubt. This is not being driven by the insurers wanting competency proof.
Normal caving builds experience, and therefore can be a source of competence, but isn't really 'training' - I guess including 'just go caving' might reduce the 'believability' of the document when used for its intended purpose.The 4 paragraphs in original statement are separate, though related, issues - but some people do seem to be assuming that each follows on from the other. But then the post also assumes things, such as not mentioning normal caving activities within the training options
... this thread goes round in circles over and over again.
While I'm unconnected to university caving, do you realise how much of a can of worms your comment opens?I think it's rather amazing, all round, that BCA has managed to get insurance cover for an unknown risk level undertaken by a body of people who may or may not have any pedigree of proven competence. I can easily imagine why an insurer might require some kind of yardstick competencies so it can better underwrite things but I'm not an insurance professional so this is pure guesswork.
I'm absolutely certain that BCA fundamentally would never do that; the insurers on the other hand...If BCA started to view eligibility for the insurance to be linked in some way with demonstrable competence (qualifications?) for Higher Education, what logical difference to that and non higher education members?