Cave Rescue Procedures (continued)

[hyweldavies]

I have to say, the "insurance" argument seems totally specious. Few of us have personal injury insurance whilst caving, or daily life for that matter, so being on a rescue suddenly requiring insurance is silly. Take the logic to an extreme and you couldn't assist an injured party you happen to come across because you aren't insured. Or if the rescue team as a whole wasn't covered by police insurance we'd still carry on doing rescues wouldn't we ?

I should stress I am not commenting on this or any other incident, and specifically not commenting on whether people should or should not jump the gun, which you may or may not decide to do for all sorts of perfectly good reasons, but insurance really should not even be a consideration

 

[mikem]

It has to be a consideration for a "professional" team. As an individual you can do pretty much what you like, but if anyone causes harm & they aren't following recognised best practice then they can be sued

 

[hyweldavies]

It has to be a consideration for a "professional" team. As an individual you can do pretty much what you like, but if anyone causes harm & they aren't following recognised best practice then they can be sued

That's 3rd party insurance: wouldn't that be covered by BCA insurance which a good many of us have anyway - or is rescue excluded specifically? Which I doubt else you'd lose cover if you helped someone which would be rather awful

In any case someone going to someone else's aid would be unlikely to be successfully sued unless they had done something utterly egregious. I think the legal outcome is that it would be against "policy" for a volunteer rescuer to be liable to a victim for not rescuing them properly.

 

[Bob Mehew]

I have to say, the "insurance" argument seems totally specious.

You miss the point of insurance for team members. Yes it covers injury or death whilst on the rescue. Given they deliberately go out when a normal party would cancell, the risk is much higher and would not be covered by an ordinary policy.

 

[hyweldavies]

You miss the point of insurance for team members. Yes it covers injury or death whilst on the rescue. Given they deliberately go out when a normal party would cancell, the risk is much higher and would not be covered by an ordinary policy.

Is going on a rescue really more dangerous than a sporting trip - maybe digging, doing an exciting lead climb, a solo trip maybe ? Seems a bit of a stretch. And if it really is that much more dangerous, a serious rethink may be in order rather than address the seemingly known risk by getting insurance. By the way I really doubt it's more dangerous particularly and all the rescues I've been involved in (foot soldier role) seemed safely and competently carried out but think your logic could get you in a load of bother if it were true

I'm not saying personal injury insurance is per se "a bad thing" but let's not have the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Ian Ball]

Yes

 

[Steve Clark]

Some rescues are clearly more dangerous than a sporting trip. Dangerous for the rescuer personally and also the potential to injure or further injure someone else in the process. You only have to look at the flowers tied to the tree above Rowten Pot to know how serious it can be.

 

[ian.p]

Hywel the problem you have is that rescue teams rely on people taking responsibility for making horrible decisions. Often those decisions involve picking the least worst option and given the situation started of being a cock up there's always scope for it to get worse. There are lots of people who are wiling to make decisions when the risks only effect them however the people you generally want making the most important decisions are generally older grizzled experienced types. Those sorts of people often have families and some of them even have houses and a lot of them aren't too stoked about the idea of having to explain to there families why they don't have a house any more because they picked the wrong worst option or even the right worst option but the legal fees proving that still lost the house.
Without insurance rescue teams will rapidly run out of experienced decision makers.

We do also need other agencies to work with us and they generally expect us to be above bored and insured.

Lastly keep in mind that whilst cavers rescue cavers, cave rescue teams also rescue the general public and the general public can be a nightmare.

 

[ZombieCake]

Cave rescuers have been killed on rescues - have a read of 'Race Against Time'.

 

[ian.p]

Hywel the problem you have is that rescue teams rely on people taking responsibility for making horrible decisions. Often those decisions involve picking the least worst option and given the situation started of being a cock up there's always scope for it to get worse. There are lots of people who are wiling to make decisions when the risks only effect them however the people you generally want making the most important decisions are generally older grizzled experienced types. Those sorts of people often have families and some of them even have houses and a lot of them aren't too stoked about the idea of having to explain to there families why they don't have a house any more because they picked the wrong worst option or even the right worst option but the legal fees proving that still lost the house.
Without insurance rescue teams will rapidly run out of experienced decision makers.

We do also need other agencies to work with us and they generally expect us to be above bored and insured.

Lastly keep in mind that whilst cavers rescue cavers, cave rescue teams also rescue the general public and the general public can be a nightmare.

Actually when I say there's lots of people who are prepared to make those sorts of decisions in the Dales there really aren't and we desperately need more cavers to join the rescue teams (CRO, UWFRA and Swaledale MRT)

 

[Fulk]

ZombieCake:

Cave rescuers have been killed on rescues - have a read of 'Race Against Time'.

I note that you use the plural here; I can only think of one person who died on a rescue (in the UK) – do you know differently?

 

[ZombieCake]

ZombieCake:

I note that you use the plural here; I can only think of one person who died on a rescue (in the UK) – do you know differently?

No, not in the UK as far as I know

 

[Samouse1]

Actually when I say there's lots of people who are prepared to make those sorts of decisions in the Dales there really aren't and we desperately need more cavers to join the rescue teams (CRO, UWFRA and Swaledale MRT)

If only the teams actually accepted the cavers willing to join them…. But that’s another kettle of fish

 

[JoshW]

If only the teams actually accepted the cavers willing to join them…. But that’s another kettle of fish

I was just about to kinda make this point. If the teams are that desperate, their response to offers to help could be a little more on-brand with that…

 

[Tim Pickering]

For parties of more than 2 or 3, a serious incident may well be reported long before the callout time. In that case, I would expect the whole process of instigating a rescue to happen sooner than it did in this case. I’m sure we would all agree that the system needs fixing if that did not happen.

In other cases it obviously may not be possible to confirm the presence or absence of a serious incident. I’m certainly not suggesting that there should be no rescue in such a case. I’m simply trying to keep this particular incident in perspective. Cavers were overdue, and a successful rescue was initiated. Did it take an hour longer than some of us would have liked? It seems so. I am pragmatic enough to not be surprised by the time taken.

Making assumptions about the reasons for a missed call-out time could have fatal consequences. I can think of a myriad of situations whereby a party of more than three may miss a call-out due to a time critical incident (rockfall, rigging failure, flooding etc). No argument that the majority of missed call-out times are due to getting lost, exhaustion or just underestimating the time needed to complete a trip but there's always the chance that might not be the case, so in my opinion, every missed call-out should be treated as a potential threat to life. Although, thankfully, this incident was reasonably uneventful, it has served to highlight an issue regarding the handling of the initial call.

 

[ian.p]

If only the teams actually accepted the cavers willing to join them…. But that’s another kettle of fish

That kettle of fish does rather resemble a wall to bang one’s head against

 

[Ed]

Rescue teams aren't individuals. They are official organisations and therefore have to operate within a legal frame work.

As such they have a legally enforced duty of care to members and others.

This not only requires the OK from the statutory agency (police) to act and their insurance etc, but also equipment meeting the regs.. LOLER etc and appropriate risk assessment

 

[wellyjen]

It has to be a consideration for a "professional" team. As an individual you can do pretty much what you like, but if anyone causes harm & they aren't following recognised best practice then they can be sued

If only the teams actually accepted the cavers willing to join them…. But that’s another kettle of fish

In order to follow best practice and get insurance cover these days the teams have to demonstrate that team members are properly trained, which requires more commitment from prospective and current members than used to be the case. Keeping up your training takes time and effort, which only a subset of the caving population are willing and able to take. The days of co-opting cavers that happen to be in the area for a shout are over. There are more cases now of trained rescuers from other teams being called in to give the numbers needed on a big shout, or where specialists are needed.
There are accident insurance policies that pay out regardless if a rescuer is injured/killed during a shout. There are also liability insurance policies that can kick in should the team prove to have been negligent and a party makes a claim. That claim could come from a team member that has had a rock dropped on their head during a shout, a journalist that falls down an unprotected shaft to get a photo, or any one else in and around the incident. The team officers and members are at personal unlimited financial risk from a liability claim, which can run in to multi-millions, so proper insurance is essential.Think of the costs of round the clock care for quadriplegia for a young, high earning person, with a family, for life, as a high side example.
Reading a couple of pages on the BCRC web site will answer a lot of the questions that have come up here on how cave rescue is organised and its relationship with the police forces around the UK.
https://www.caverescue.org.uk/about-cave-rescue/
https://www.caverescue.org.uk/about-cave-rescue/how-cave-rescue-works/
The problems with 999 call centre handlers, police forces and getting to the right team are described and some advice on how to minimise them are given.

 

[aricooperdavis]

If only the teams actually accepted the cavers willing to join them…. But that’s another kettle of fish

I think a significant issue here is the overlap between mountain and cave rescue teams.

They're different disciplines, but because MREW is a larger and more proscriptive organisation most teams that do both will require their members be trained and assessed for surface SAR work, whilst underground work is more "optional".

This is a big turn off for cavers who understandably don't want to jump through those hoops to prove their competence at skills unrelated to cave rescue. It's also an issue for the teams, who end up not actually doing all that much selection or training for cave rescue, as they need to train for the work they do the most of.

 

[andrewmcleod]

There's a lot of overlap - the basics of rescue rigging is the same between surface and underground work, the basics of casualty care is the same between surface and underground (same qualification anyway - MREW Casualty Care).

Looking at the incident statistics from their Rescue 23 publication, CRO had:
2022: 108 incidents (8 cave)
2021: 98 incidents (4 cave)
2020: 100 incidents (6 cave)
2019: 109 incidents (6 cave)
2018: 74 incidents (5 cave)

You can see how it doesn't make a lot of sense for the mixed teams to have a members in the main team who _only_ do underground rescues which are less than 10% of all callouts (in CRO's case at least). I'm not sure about the 'proscriptive' part with MREW (and I think all the cave teams except Scotland of course are also MREW teams?). I don't think underground work is seen 'optional' - either a team has that capability, or they don't. Equally some teams have a swift-water rescue capability - some don't.

There is also a massive variation in the amount and type of training cave rescue teams do (even just looking at the pure cave teams). I remember Devon used to do one evening training per month which is fairly standard I would guess? Some only do a few trainings a year although typically all-day I'd guess. To join some surface teams you will have to do six months of introductory training before even going on callouts; some surface teams you probably have to be a super-powered outdoor hero (Llanberis had 300 callouts last year and they only had 56 members who managed 8,000 hours of rescuing between them) and others it's probably quite easy to join.

As with all things, it all depends