BCA statement on peer to peer training

[aricooperdavis]

@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.

 

[Ian Adams]

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)!

Josh,

For clarity, I am asking you these questions because you are the OP, the BCA Insurance officer and the Horse's mouth.

As such, I don't want to rely on other people's interpretation(s) of your post(s) but would rather have clarity directly from yourself.

Thank you.

Ian

 

[badger]

Andrew completely agree with you, the document is stating you don't need NGB qualifications, that there is courses if you so wish to partake run, by clubs, regions, checc.
If you put yourself forward to lead novices then one would hope you are competent, have plenty of caving experience and are able understand duty of care.
Not sure why people are making mountains.

 

[ttxela2]

Not sure why people are making mountains.

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.

I think the degree of sarcasm in this thread to those asking questions - questioning their level of reading comprehension for example, is rather unhelpful.

I am entirely comfortable with the fact that I have a duty of care to anyone I offer to take on a trip and must bear some responsibility if something goes wrong because I did something irresponsible or daft.

However my question was related to the clubs responsibilities. I am no longer a club official but my interest was piqued by the responsibilities I may have borne in the past and perhaps not fully considered with regard to an open diary where any member can arrange a trip.

I would hope my reading comprehension is reasonable, I left school with a cycling proficiency badge and a certificate for coming 3rd in the egg and spoon race, so looking at the statement "Within recreational caving clubs have a responsibility to check that leaders of novices on their trips are suitably competent" I think it's entirely reasonable to seek further clarification on what checks I should perhaps have been making, if any?

 

[mikem]

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?)

 

[Standard Unit of Tom]

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?)

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:

Self sufficiency - would you go on this trip with them yourself and feel confident that you wouldn't need to look behind you to make sure they're keeping up, need to talk them through any SRT or ladder climbing, help with them with climbs and such

Soft skills - people can be self sufficient but lack the soft skills needed to "lead", checking in on people who may be cold or tired, asking if they need help with anything, ensuring they feel confident and happy with SRT etc

Most definitely within a club you need to have people you feel happy with them "leading" there are people who go caving once in a blue moon at university due to factors such as being part of other clubs, tough courses or personal issues. And as such don't have the experience to go caving by themselves and need us to "lead them" whether that is something as simple as being the one who navigates or belaying them up a ladder pitch

Competency is very hard to measure and comes with a level of blind trust and experience of letting people lead when maybe they might not be ready. However I can say it's very easy to measure incompetency, for instance after hearing of a person leading an SRT trip rigging and clipping their cowstails (only point of attachment) on the downrope then refusing to accepted any feedback and stating nothing was wrong, I would never let them lead a club trip

 

[mikem]

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

 

[hyweldavies]

To put it beyond all doubt. This is not being driven by the insurers wanting competency proof.

That's something at least.

Nevertheless my rather strident put point is that it is very dodgy for the national body to even hint leaders should be in any way vetted by club committees.

"M'lud, the national body stated .... and the caving club committee knowingly allowed all and sundry x to do such and such"

In (British) scuba diving the boat skippers' position is that they are responsible for driving the boas, but in no way whatsoever managing the divers. A glorified taxi so to speak. In my view, a club, managed by its committee is to allow like minded people to cave together

For a certain Welsh cave it is stressed that the wardens are there to watch over conservation and show people the way and so on but are not per se "leaders" in the mountain guide type role

None of this absolved anyone of their normal duty of care, which is likely greater if it's an expert-beginner but let's not collectively make things more onerous for clubs to operate.

University clubs have been under a lot of pressure from their student unions / university authorities in some cases making them unviable.

 

[andrewmcleod]

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

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.

 

[mikem]

The statement as written suggests that those are the only ways of improving, rather than alternatives.

& if the club are putting someone forward to be a leader then the committee do have some responsibility towards ensuring they are fit for purpose.

 

[Oceanrower]

Snip.
“which should be in no way controversial in any way shape or form”

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

 

[mikem]

... this thread goes round in circles over and over again.

 

[badger]

I actually think the last lot of responses have been much better in constructive points to clarify, rather than the initial knee jerk reaction. I think as a club committee you would have a duty of care and an organised club trip the leaders should have a shown competency and ability. If you decide to let someone who you knew not to have the ability then I think you have failed in your duty of care. Club members organising personal trips is down to individuals to cave with whom they wish to. With open diary they are not necessarily club trips, could be that I just ask if anyone is interested as I am of to X. As opposed to a club 2 and Saturday trips being organised behalf of the club.
I don't think the language has changed, more that someone has put pen to paper. And I don't believe that there was anything in the statement that should not already being done.

 

[asheshouse]

Way back, 1970’s, two of us who were then in 6th form at school persuaded a teacher to take us on a caving weekend. getting the teacher involved meant we Had access to a minibus which he would drive. The two of us were the only ones with caving “experience”, which amounted to a few trips with Venture Scouts to Derbyshire (P8) and Scotland. We chose to go to Mendip and spent Saturday in Burrington Combe, followed by a Swildons on Sunday. Great trip and no mishaps.

 

[Cantclimbtom]

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.

While I'm unconnected to university caving, do you realise how much of a can of worms your comment opens?

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?

This mirrors the descent that climbing in places like US has suffered where in some circumstances people now need a belayers' certificate to tick the box that they have a belay qualification for insurance tickbox reasons.

 

[cap n chris]

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?

I'm absolutely certain that BCA fundamentally would never do that; the insurers on the other hand...