Have a look at the BCA consultation document on Eco-hangers. It was put on-line a few days ago.

The implication is that someone from the Equipment Committee will be setting up a comments section on here .. but they don't appear to have yet.

http://www.british-caving.org.uk/?page=129

Have you not just done that? 

Cookie said:

Have you not just done that? 

Click to expand...

I suppose I have ... so, with apologies to the Equipment Committee if they wanted it done in a different way, anybody got any comments?

FWIW I agree with everything, but do not feel able to provide any of the specialist knowledge the Committee is seeking. 

damian said:

I suppose I have ... so, with apologies to the Equipment Committee

Click to expand...

Don't apologise, the document got put up but we could not get the E Mail address to work until Les Williams came back to sort it out.  We wanted to have this working before it got announced.

So yes, it is there on the BCA web site at

 

and the front piece says most of what is needed to be said as an introduction.  All paragraphs are numbered so please quote the paragraph number in any comment to help identification. 

One key area which even Damian could help by comment, is about whether the drafts of the scheme (in Courier New font) are clear enough to understand.  What may be clear to the Committee may not be to you.  And for areas like anchor inspection which are safety critical (like when you hang off an anchor you should have spotted was defective! - but of course you always use 2).

Oh by the way, there are two document links in the link line, some how the spacing got lost which should have separated them.  So  "Anchor and Inspection Regime" is one document whose annexes give a complete history of the work done by CNCC Technical Group (which is worth reading in its own right) whilst "Anchor Discussion Document" is the discussion document.

Discussion on this (or new) threads is most welcomed, especially if you disagree with something.  We are seeking opinions and views and this seemed the easiest way of getting some feed back.

Lastly, I can't over emphasise the amount of work done by CNCC Tech Group in those early days which has lead to such a successful scheme to which all cavers must owe a very large vote of thanks (and probably more than one or two beers ).

Happy reading 

Bob Mehew said:

One key area which even Damian could help by comment, is about whether the drafts of the scheme (in Courier New font) are clear enough to understand.  What may be clear to the Committee may not be to you.  And for areas like anchor inspection which are safety critical (like when you hang off an anchor you should have spotted was defective! - but of course you always use 2).

Click to expand...

Yes, Bob, it was all pretty clear when I read it.

many thanks Damian

Bob,
Just sent you an email via BCA site.  Essentially looking to borrow/hire a pull-test unit for a little job that I've got to organise as the usual one I use has been robbed.  Does the BCA own one of these, and if not do you know who else might? 
Thanks for that.

Only a cursory glance at the document but this springs to mind immediately as being unworkable for CSCC region:

"74 E&T therefore propose the following:

(10) A recognised Anchor Installer can become a recognised Anchor Trainer in the region in which the individual is recognised as an Anchor Trainer by:

(a) being nominated by that RCC (see Annex 2);
(b) placed or replaced at least 10 anchors within the previous 2 years;
(c) having inspected at least 10 anchors within the previous 2 years, and
(d) having assisted in running a training course by another trainer;
(e) having assisted in running an Anchor Revalidation Workshop by another trainer who cannot be the same trainer as in (d) above (see Annex 5) and which takes place within 12 months of assisting on a training course; and
(f) being recognised by BCA's Equipment and Techniques Committee based on reports (see Annex 4) by both trainers."


I'm assuming that the criteria are "and" rather than "or", i.e. the wannabe Anchor Trainer must do (a) and (b) and (c) etc.. If this is the case then it's easy to imagine there quickly not being an Anchor Trainer on Mendip and, once this occurs, it would be very difficult for someone to fulfill the necessary requirements to achieve such status. Unless we start bolting unnecessarily or finding a lot of vertical systems pronto then the requirement to place/inspect 10 anchors is too much (for here) IMO.

You make a good point and not just for Mendip,  Although the anchors don't have to be placed in the region nominating the person.  However, there is a feeling that trainers should have a reasonable level of experience which was the thinking behind the proposal.  I wonder if there is another mechanism to achieve this objective? 

And yes you are right, there are a load of "and"s missing!

Hmm, yes, after only a few years we will either have no qualified installers or we will be able to walk from anchor to anchor all the way down the UFS extensions.

graham said:

Hmm, yes, after only a few years we will either have no qualified installers or we will be able to walk from anchor to anchor all the way down the UFS extensions.

Click to expand...

 

Getting qualified then, Martin? 8)

Bob Mehew said:

However, there is a feeling that trainers should have a reasonable level of experience which was the thinking behind the proposal.  I wonder if there is another mechanism to achieve this objective? 

Click to expand...

Do away with (b) and (c) altogether and replace with something along the lines of "Candidates should possess a suitable level of experience to fulfill the role" and then leave the interpretation of what is "suitable" open to discretion.

Oh, and they'll need to get rid of (e) as well since we've only got one trainer down here and are highly unlikely to get any more. Also, the word "both" in (f) would be replaced with "the" and "trainers" would become "trainer". It's easy to get into the "let's be specific" mode when writing guidelines but also easy to oversee the consequences of specifying absolute terms - what is easily achieved and reasonable in a region where there are, literally, thousands of anchors can be unachievable and very difficult in a region where only one or two bolts may be placed in a three year period.

graham said:

Getting qualified then, Martin? 8)

Click to expand...

UFS is beyond me at the moment - not fit enough, and carrying too much weight 

Re e & f; this can be achieved using trainers from other regions.  Indeed we seek to ensure there is a reasonable exchange of information across the country and not let the scheme become regional.  There was a reluctance to use open words like "suitable" as these give no minimum "grade".  Tricky one this, I need another glass of wine and time to think / drink.

I thought the trouble we had had on Mendip was that "the trainer" did not want to travel down south to train people,
so srap that bit.

No, not quite. The trainer wasn't free at weekends and the potential trainee at the time could travel take unpaid time off during the week and the reimbursement of expenses from BCA wouldn't cover loss of earnings so it was stalemate.

O.K.
but we do not want to set ourslves up for future stalemates, do we?

Absolutely correct! - this is why it is important to foresee pitfalls which may arise in our specific region but which are unlikely to affect regions where bolting activity is much more run of the mill and routine: even you will realise that there is a limit to the amount of bolting which can be done on Mendip, even if we went totally insane and started retrobolting every pitch in excess of 3 metres!