Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Descent 305 - Pre-order is open!!
Our August/September issue has a publication date of 2 August, and it is a special summer bumper issue full of stories of exploration and wonder from the underground world.
I think (but I don't know for certain, because they were never interested in talking to me) that the MREW cover provides a certain amount of personal injury cover which would pay out to a rescuer in the event that they were injured on a rescue.
This covers a different risk to the third party liability cover which would pay out in the event that the rescuers injured someone else and which is part of the BCA membership insurance contribution.
I don't know if the police policy includes any personal injury cover.
Generally I would expect personal injury cover to be optional and a matter of individual choice. Lack of it is certainly not a reason to be excluding people from participating in rescues.
The ability to co-opt people with specialist skills into a cave rescue team when required is essential. Cave rescue is not all about shiny bits of rope hardware.
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.
As far as I know CRO had a meeting around the 16th of February to iron out the cavers list and the issues in this thread. I don't know what the result of this meeting was, as I wasn't at it.
Also forgive me if i'm wrong, but I got the impression that the cave rescue members of Swaledale(or it could have been UWFRA) were also CRO, as then they could train with CRO and meet this new insurance thing, but get called out to their local shouts.
During the fatal Curtain Pot rescue in June last year it was pointed out to those of us on the cavers list that we weren't insured. We all continued regardless. Before and since then CRO have been working hard to find a solution to the issue which they now seem to have done. However for some other rescue organisations to comply they will have to make far bigger changes to their structures I reckon.
I think I was once told (so treat this with skepticism) that the police _pay_ for some element of the insurance, but it is provided by a private insurance company via MREW. Some of this definitely relates to personal accident rather than liability cover; some teams have decided it is not acceptable to have people carrying out potentially dangerous rescues without personal accident cover and that is a point of view I understand. While individual cavers might not care, it's a team decision to accept help or not.
During the fatal Curtain Pot rescue in June last year it was pointed out to those of us on the cavers list that we weren't insured. We all continued regardless. Before and since then CRO have been working hard to find a solution to the issue which they now seem to have done. However for some other rescue organisations to comply they will have to make far bigger changes to their structures I reckon.
Good point, I forgot that was said and could have answered my own question. I assumed for that shout I would be insured because I am with UWFRA anyway (not like it would have made a difference to me), but as it's a different team's shout. I must admit I am not 100% sure how the insurance works in that situation, I would go out on a limb and say 99% chance I was insured being a full team member, although a different team.
CRO last June were telling ordinary cavers that they were not insured on the Curtain Pot incident.
SMWCRT have now said ordinary cavers are not insured on incidents
MCR have said no change to the status quo.
So my question is what is the status quo for incidents where MCR is involved?