This email is going about so I guess its OK to make it public.

I have received the following from the South and Mid Wales Cave Rescue.

I believe MCR are looking into the situation but have yet to issue any advice to cavers; however you need to consider the implications before taking part in any activities involving rescue.

Important Information: Changes to Rescue Team Operations

This concerns some important changes to the way in which SMWCRT operates on rescues and training exercises, specifically around our ability to deploy individuals who are not current members of SMWCRT. Historically, SMWCRT has been able to temporarily ?co-opt? non-team members onto the team for the duration of an incident or training exercise. This has allowed us to make use of experienced cavers who happen to be at the scene and willing to help, or to give prospective new team members a taste of a rescue practice before they actually commit to joining the team. These ?co-opted? individuals would then be fully covered by the relevant insurance policies for the duration of the specific rescue or exercise they were co-opted for.

Unfortunately, as a result of some recent changes to insurance cover for Cave Rescue, which is provided by Mountain Rescue England & Wales (MREW), we have been advised that the insurer will now only provide cover for individuals who are current members of an MREW/BCRC affiliated Cave Rescue Team.

The result of this is that with immediate effect, SMWCRT can only deploy an individual on a rescue or training event, either underground or on the surface, if that individual is either:

a) a current Team Member or Probationary Team Member of SMWCRT, or
b) a current Team Member of another MREW/BCRC affiliated Cave Rescue Team.

Note: There are two exceptions to this situation which apply for the purposes of training exercises:

1. The ?casualty? on a cave rescue practice does not have to be a team member.
2. Surface-based ?observers? are permitted from outside the team. However, these must take no active role in the exercise, and would likely be limited to one or two observers agreed in advance, rather than being open to general non-team members.

In the case of SMWCRT, there is no mechanism for an individual to join at short notice in order to take part in a specific rescue or training event, so we are unfortunately restricted to accepting only those who have previously joined the team via the official membership process, which requires submission of an application form for approval by the SMWCRT Executive Committee.

We are working closely with the British Cave Rescue Council (BCRC) to navigate a way through the implications of these changes and others related to insurance, and I will let you know if there are any further updates.

On paper this may well be the case. In reality, one suspects that a caver assisting in a rescue wouldn't be told to eff off.

I have to admit I was pretty worried for MCR when I read that last night, as the system of wardens and effectively co-opted volunteers doesn't work under this new insurance scheme.

However, I have been reliably informed that MCR are well aware of this and have been looking into it for some time. Also, the current insurance still has several months to run, so no need to panic yet 

What does the insurance actually cover? As I doubt most cavers would worry about whether they had it or not.

Does this have similar implications for the CRO who use co-opted cavers, or are they on a different insurance scheme? In UWFRA, we don't really have a non-member volunteer list anymore.

mikem said:

What does the insurance actually cover? As I doubt most cavers would worry about whether they had it or not.

Click to expand...

Don't know for sure, but imagining the scenario, where a volunteer casualty in a training exercise was dropped and paralysed, that person may be unable to work for the rest of there life. It would be reasonable to expect that they would want compensation from the rescue team who caused the injury. Even if the casualty didn't seek compensation as they didn't want to do over their friends, their dependants may think otherwise...

Likewise in the event of an actual rescue, though the actual casualty is perhaps more likely to just be grateful for still being alive.

In the case of a fatality due to errors or accidents made by the rescue team, it is likely that dependants/ next of kin would seek compensation.

In either case, I suspect that this is what the insurance is for.

It has been apparent, to me, for many years that there are those on the MR top table and at regional level who are not, lets say, supportive of cave rescue. I served  as BCRC Equipment Officer on the MR equipment committee for many years. I am therefore not surprised but very saddened at the current state of play. Mountain and Cave rescue demand different skills but it seems we have MR dictating how cave rescue should operate and they are simply not qualified to so.
I was a BCRC officer when we joined the then Mountain Rescue Council so indeed bear some responsibility for the difficult position cave rescue has been placed. It is time the BCRC stood alone. It is one of the finest cave rescue bodies in the world and has teams and individuals with the skills and dedication to have carried out some stupendous rescues - and I don't just mean Thailand. I am no longer active other than looking after a bit of kit and don't envy those on the BCRC and teams who have to steer a way through this.

Jopo

Presumably the cost to operate outside of MREW could be prohibitively expensive - especially for the number of rescues we get. Also the fact that the busiest teams are generally multipurpose, so may not be able / wish to separate. CRO will be in the same position.

I meant other than the casualty, as that's pretty much unavoidable. The latest issue (72) of their magazine confirms that insurance covers accidental injury to participants during a rescue, but not illness (no.71 details a haul from Titan): https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/back_issues/

Alex said:

Does this have similar implications for the CRO who use co-opted cavers, or are they on a different insurance scheme? In UWFRA, we don't really have a non-member volunteer list anymore.

Click to expand...

I believe this has been an on-going issue at CRO for about a year or more regarding the caver's list (I don't think these are new changes, or at least the implications have been known about for a while?). CRO is not reliant on the cavers list: in addition to the cavers on the main team, they will call out UWFRA, Swaledale, COMRU, DCRO etc if necessary.

On the other hand, I can see why some MR teams that are far busier, with stringent entrance requirements and testing, weekly or fortnightly training and 50+ callouts a year, but only 20/30 members, look at some of the cave rescue teams that have 150 members who turn up to training maybe a few times a year for maybe 5-10 callouts a year (which most of the members won't go to) and ask why MREW should pay for 150 members of insurance when they don't seem to do a lot (not saying I agree, just saying I can understand the perception).

CRO sits somewhere in the middle with a larger cavers list that is rarely called out and do a few training sessions a year, and a main team who get the team kit, regular training and are much more like a 'standard' MR team (but with all the extra kit and skills for caving).

In terms of leaving MREW, one potential disadvantage would be that teams would no longer have access to controlled drugs (unless considerable negotiation, possibly involving some government action, took place).

PS I thought there was also insurance for co-opting additional _specific_ experts where necessary (e.g. if blasting or cave diving had to be done) but this wouldn't cover people being drafted in to help with the general rescue (so wouldn't cover caver's lists, non-team members etc).

& the decision will have been made based on the requirements of Mountain, rather than Cave, Rescue - where extra bodies are more likely to get lost / in the way, & stretcher carries can be avoided by calling in a helicopter. Not a lot we can do about it, up to BCRC to fight their corner.

I've heard it said 'that every caver on Mendip is a member of cave rescue', a spurious claim if ever there was one.  Genuinely democratising  cave rescue on Mendip would be a very constructive forward step.  I would like to see an organisation with bottom up democracy where the officers and team leaders are chosen by the membership.  I'd like to see a team that trains together and plans together.  In the new normal we are going to need smaller teams with higher expertise - why have 10 cavers hauling  a casualty up a 20 meter pitch when a highly competent team of 4 can achieve the same?  We are are also going to rely on younger rescuers at lower risk from the virus.  We will need a lean well trained and highly practiced team.  And that team will need new democratic structures to facilitate its creation.

As commented above ,this is very old news (a year or more)

There has been a partial solution agreed (BCRC/MREW) , with the insurers , not sure why SMWCRT don't have this up to date information.

It's something along the lines;
All co-opted cavers (who must be on a co-opted call out list) have to do a certain number of training days per year with the team they are affiliated to. They are then insured to the same level as a member for an incident.
Someone with more detail/knowledge can fill in the details or correct me.

My understanding , is that if you are a random caver at an incident, then no , you won't be asked or insured to assist.

Cave Diver Call-out members also have a similar solution, and can be on both call-out lists

Maybe someone from BCRC can clarify the situation.

On Mendip the quote is therefore untrue, when the quotes from Andy Sparrow and Alex Chien are compared with each other. A more up to date equivalent is probably something like "every co-opted trained caver is a member of cave rescue".

Or perhaps "every co-opted trained caver, on a formal call-out list, is a member of cave rescue"

It certainly used to be the case that BCA's PL scheme insurer was perfectly willing and able to insure cave rescue teams if that's what BCRC wanted, probably at little or no additional cost for people who are already BCA members.

AIUI we are only talking about insuring practices and similar events - I thought the government provided cover for actual rescues. That's why you have to call cave rescue out via a 999 call, since the involvement of the police is what triggers the cover.

" I thought the government provided cover for actual rescues. That's why you have to call cave rescue out via a 999 call, since the involvement of the police is what triggers the cover. "

Yes, there is a pittance of cover from the Police, but I was talking about same level cover as an actual team member:-

hence:  " They are then insured to the same level as a member for an incident."
which is the MREW insurance policy

alexchien said:

As commented above ,this is very old news (a year or more)

There has been a partial solution agreed (BCRC/MREW) , with the insurers , not sure why SMWCRT don't have this up to date information.

Click to expand...

They probably do, as it's sourced from an email doing the rounds, there's no knowing when it was written or by whom...

With regard to this specific email.

"  If you have any questions, please don?t hesitate to get in touch.

Tom Foord
SMWCRT Chair
www.smwcrt.org  "

Andy Sparrow said:

I'd like to see a team that trains together and plans together.  In the new normal we are going to need smaller teams with higher expertise - why have 10 cavers hauling  a casualty up a 20 meter pitch when a highly competent team of 4 can achieve the same?

Click to expand...

Kit is also becoming more specialized - plenty of cavers can bodge something together with a Stop, maybe a microtraxion, a basic/hand ascender and some krabs but add an I'D or rig, the new Maestro, rescucender, rigging plates, ASAPs etc and the average caver is going to be pretty baffled. Obviously not all of those bits of kit are in common or any use at the moment, but the kit is only going to get more specialised and different from 'standard' caving kit.

Most Mendip rescues don't require much hauling, it's the numbers to get a stretcher along awkward passages...