Adventurous Activities Licensing Service
- Thread starter bograt
- Start date
Gollum
Member
HSE did listen to reason and thats why we still operate on single ropes. If a cave is flooding then if your on single or double ropes with a group you fcuked up.
There are many cave leaders who are actually paddlers, climbers or walkers and don't make the right choices on the day but luckily they are not allowed to take children underground without a licence and so have to operate under a licence holder
I would personally like to see the licence cover adults also so we can get rid of the cowboys within the industry
There are many cave leaders who are actually paddlers, climbers or walkers and don't make the right choices on the day but luckily they are not allowed to take children underground without a licence and so have to operate under a licence holder
I would personally like to see the licence cover adults also so we can get rid of the cowboys within the industry
r_walklate@hotmail.com
New member
It's easy to use the phrase 'cowboy'. How many incidents, near misses, deaths have been caused by people with qualifications? How many times do you go out and see 'bad practice'? Maybe the industry needs more regulation other than AALS?
cap n chris
Well-known member
r_walklate said:
Loads of times. Weekly.
Rarely by qualified cavers.
However, it's one of the joys and rewards of living in a free society that adults, parents/families can engage in pretty much whatever they see fit, however they wish and without hindrance. This freedom extends to them being able to go down a wet cave wearing jeans and t-shirts, illuminating their way with a cigarette lighter. It also extends to them being able to engage the services of a cowboy if that's what they wish to do. Plenty of people get lead into caves by people who have no leadership training or ability to design something suitable and adequately planned and equipped for a non-caving punter. "I've got a mate who'll take you caving for less money than that commercial outfit...". Adventure or misadventure. There's no law against it and long may this continue.
Be careful what you wish for - the Law of Unintended Consequences could end with such legislation having a serious effect on caving clubs.
No. The LoUC means even fewer professionals would bother to offer caving, resulting in an even greater number of cowboy trips. You might end up finding that the only person who would offer to take anyone underground would be an amateur, all the professionals having long since given up bothering because of the fiendishly expensive bureaucracy involved. The only way you'd know if they were any good at running a trip for you would be once you're underground and if they haven't got a clue how to deal with commonplace difficulties affecting novices the last place you'd want to find that out is an hour into a cave.
AALA became AALS when it was transferred to the HSE & they did keep the same staff in place.Rhys said:
The website also tells you when a licence is required...
http://www.hse.gov.uk/aala/public-information.htm
Mike
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Gollum said:
If a cave is floodING as opposed to floodED then surely a technique which significantly slows you down becomes hazardous in itself.
Yes, the HSE did listen to reason eventually - but I know people who were involved in the campaign to persuade them they'd come up with a bad idea and I have at least some idea of the huge amount of unnecessary hassle they had to face.
Re your last sentence - perish the thought of caving ever becoming a serious "industry". I have heard it said (and please understand that I take no personal stance on this - and with absolutely no disrespect to Gollum) that some people use the word "cowboys" when they actually mean "competition". Before anyone shoots me down please remember this is not necessarily my view; I just go caving, so I have no vested interest in this issue. All I know is that when this extra layer of hassle was imposed on cavers the extortionate costs which were allegedly necessary closed down a number of one person / part time operations which were excellent, experienced and very safe providers. Is that really a good thing?
Burt
New member
With regards to the AALS regulating "cowboy" operators, I'm very much in favour of continuing some form of license system.
Most of my Mendip -based colleagues can think of at least one such operator (no names!!!) with whom we would not entrust a paper bag.
I myself have had the misfortune to do my outdoor apprenticeship with an outfit, long since dissolved, which, had the AALA system been in place at the time, would have been closed down. Inappropriate group sizes, terrible kit, no foul weather plans - even being stopped by the plod because the minibus wasn't taxed or MOT'd! - I certainly learned how not to do it!
Whatever you think of the AALS, it is a level of regulation which requires a certain standard. Look at what has happened in the press over the last few months and see what effect "self-regulation" has - none.
The reason why the regulations do not cover adults is that adults are supposed to be able to make an informed decision about what, as an individual, you should and should not do. Under 18s are not considered to be able to do this; it being one of the reasons they cannot vote, join the army etc.
Most of my Mendip -based colleagues can think of at least one such operator (no names!!!) with whom we would not entrust a paper bag.
I myself have had the misfortune to do my outdoor apprenticeship with an outfit, long since dissolved, which, had the AALA system been in place at the time, would have been closed down. Inappropriate group sizes, terrible kit, no foul weather plans - even being stopped by the plod because the minibus wasn't taxed or MOT'd! - I certainly learned how not to do it!
Whatever you think of the AALS, it is a level of regulation which requires a certain standard. Look at what has happened in the press over the last few months and see what effect "self-regulation" has - none.
The reason why the regulations do not cover adults is that adults are supposed to be able to make an informed decision about what, as an individual, you should and should not do. Under 18s are not considered to be able to do this; it being one of the reasons they cannot vote, join the army etc.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I think I'd have to agree Burt that what you describe does have all the hallmarks of spurs and a ten gallon hat.
Where I disagree is that it has to be so extortionately expensive. There must be more efficient ways which don't discriminate against the small but often highly competent operator. Sorry I feel so strongly about this but I saw what it did to certain friends of mine.
Where I disagree is that it has to be so extortionately expensive. There must be more efficient ways which don't discriminate against the small but often highly competent operator. Sorry I feel so strongly about this but I saw what it did to certain friends of mine.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Burt said:
Regarding caving, would you think it might be acceptable if something along these lines was established?:-
Have an online database of valid LCMLA & CIC award holders, by region and name (similar to the AALA database) which also includes a checklist for valid First Aid certification, professional insurance and RAs?
BCA's Training Administrators could surely do something along these lines for W A Y less ?money than the AALA scheme and it could provide a useful "Bona Fides" register of potentially suitable caving providers for anyone contemplating organising a professionally led trip.
It wouldn't have to be a carbon copy of the AALA scheme but definitely something more than just a voluntary code - it could even include a peer-review karma-type scoring tally to keep providers on their toes!
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Sounds great Chris. The only problem might be persuading the office wallahs to give up their cushy jobs. Such things tend to be self perpetuating. It's a pity what you suggest wasn't in place already before the government wanted to be seen to "do something" after that tragic accident in Lyme Bay.
ian.p
Active member
[quote
Quote
The "expenses" idea does not work - any exchange of monies whatsoever brings the activity provision within licensing and the law.
I think you are wrong hear Hammy i voulenteer with a couple of non AALA registered childrens organisations one of which takes over 3000 children a year camping,canoing, cycling and caving we pay staff expenses and i dont beleive this has ever caused a problem.
Well that's what I was told by the licensing inspector when I had a licensing inspection for my own business a few years ago. I'm not the expert though - maybe you should clarify it with the Service. I'd be interested to know your findings.
][/quote]
Had a conversation with a knowledgable freind about this. We dont have any trouble paying reasnable expenses partly because are voulenteers are members of the membership based organisation for which they are leading (membership clubs/organisations along with schools are exempted from AALS licenesing). It is more dificult where the leader is an external individual and paying "expenses" beyond anything clearly justafiable I.E petrol money would see you the wrong side of the regulations but i would be very suprised if a tenner towards fuel caused a problem in any case the sums involved for this sort of expense for a one off trip for someone who is not a comercial individual would be so small that realisticly nobodys going to notice anyway. But i agree using expenses as a back door route towards paying an instructer is not viable.
Quote
The "expenses" idea does not work - any exchange of monies whatsoever brings the activity provision within licensing and the law.
I think you are wrong hear Hammy i voulenteer with a couple of non AALA registered childrens organisations one of which takes over 3000 children a year camping,canoing, cycling and caving we pay staff expenses and i dont beleive this has ever caused a problem.
Well that's what I was told by the licensing inspector when I had a licensing inspection for my own business a few years ago. I'm not the expert though - maybe you should clarify it with the Service. I'd be interested to know your findings.
][/quote]
Had a conversation with a knowledgable freind about this. We dont have any trouble paying reasnable expenses partly because are voulenteers are members of the membership based organisation for which they are leading (membership clubs/organisations along with schools are exempted from AALS licenesing). It is more dificult where the leader is an external individual and paying "expenses" beyond anything clearly justafiable I.E petrol money would see you the wrong side of the regulations but i would be very suprised if a tenner towards fuel caused a problem in any case the sums involved for this sort of expense for a one off trip for someone who is not a comercial individual would be so small that realisticly nobodys going to notice anyway. But i agree using expenses as a back door route towards paying an instructer is not viable.
cap n chris
Well-known member
stu said:
Er, no. Since caving NGB awards (unlike climbing, for example) are subject to periodic revalidation* I wouldn't think it's necessary for any visit at all, providing the NGB award and online registration was sufficiently adequate to prove that you're up to speed on your subject of expertise. Probably ?20. As I'm not a provider of canoeing (Mendip's famous for its white water rapids, not) etc. I'll leave those activities to sort themselves out** rather than muddying the water (see what I did there?) by trying to invent a replacement for something which exists. A tautology.
Put another way. Perhaps the time has come for NGB awards to actually be recognised and trusted (rather than pooh-poohed) as bona fides in their own right that they serve to show the public punter that someone has been taught and subsequently tested as to whether they know their craft. Isn't that what an NGB award is for after all?
* A Gold Standard in its own right, definitely when compared to MLTUK.
** Or, in the case of the BCU, to continue to not sort themselves out.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
Rhys said:
Indeed - the workers often end up devoting a lot of time to justifying their own existence at the expense of - er - actually doing work. I saw too much of this when I was in the world of education. The ones who progressed were the ones who had the patter. I remember being subjected to various forms of "appraisal"; it always annoyed me because having to think about it took my concentration off what I thought I was really there for.
There's a lot of truth in that old cartoon which ended with the line:
"Meetings - the practical alternative to work."
graham
New member
This is getting really rather far off topic, but, Pitlamp, the reason that the staff work like that is that the politicians (increasingly so since 1980) insist on micro-managing the work of all public employees on the grounds of 'accountability.'
Having started that process, they unable to roll it back without poliotical opponents accusing them of all sorts.
It's all nonsense, but then that's politics, in this country at least.
Having started that process, they unable to roll it back without poliotical opponents accusing them of all sorts.
It's all nonsense, but then that's politics, in this country at least.
