Dear all, recently came across a cave rescue team's report on a rescue practice. It mentions that a rock was capped in a vertical passage during a rescue PRACTICE to aid evacuation of a pretend casualty. The nature of the cave in question is such that in a real rescue an alternative, easier route (which exists) would be more likely to be used. The cave has been altered in that one of the natural restrictions imposed by the cave has now been changed for a hypothetical situation which given the relative lack of traffic the cave receives, seems very unlikely to occur. Am I alone in thinking this is well out of order? What gives them the right to change it as they see fit? Should caves be altered by rescue teams to aid hypothetical rescue scenarios?
Cave rescue vs cave conservation
- Thread starter stumpy
- Start date
menacer
Well-known member
Chill out Stumpy, the nhs wastes hundreds of 1000s of pounds a year on hypothetical computer models that makes ambulances burn loads of fuel driving around counties 24/7 because it believes there "MAY" be an accident or call from that location..
A lil bit of ole rock seems no different to the old arguement of "well i can fit" so why should we bang it larger for you...bottom line no-one can prevent it, it cant be policed.
Where do you draw the line, stop capping/banging into caves altogether ??
A lil bit of ole rock seems no different to the old arguement of "well i can fit" so why should we bang it larger for you...bottom line no-one can prevent it, it cant be policed.
Where do you draw the line, stop capping/banging into caves altogether ??
cap n chris
Well-known member
[devils advocate]
Assuming you have all the available information to make an informed decision about the rights/wrongs of this particular course of action....
what sanctions/outcome could/would result for whom, by whom, to whom?
[/devils advocate]
Assuming you have all the available information to make an informed decision about the rights/wrongs of this particular course of action....
what sanctions/outcome could/would result for whom, by whom, to whom?
[/devils advocate]
SamT
Moderator
On first glance, in principal, it definitely seems out of order to me. CRO's (IMHO) should not be capping sections of cave to 'practice'.
I lot of things need to be taken into consideration first though, a lot of detail is missing, such as which cave, the nature of the cave, the nature of the passage that was capped
e.g. is it in some shit hole corner of a shit hole cave that nobody in their right mind would consider going for a trip that lacked any speleological interest what so ever. If so (although I doubt it), it may be considered a worth while exercise
However, I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. Where will they go next time to 'practice' now that this section of cave has been 'done' , and next year, and the year after etc etc.
I am positive that this is a C.R. technique that does not need CROs to practice on a regular basis (unlike rigging/hauling/first aid/stretchering) for the following reasons..
a: its going to be a pretty extreme situation that requires capping (OK, most serious cave rescues could be considered extreme) but you get my drift.
b: I'm positive that most CRO's have folks attending that are well versed in capping etc.
c: each site for capping varies radically, and thus 'practising' on one section of cave is pointless
If CRO's want their members to practice capping, send them to a dig FFS. Or do it in a quarry or some such.
and that's relevant to this debate because.... :-\
Thin end of a wedge Carmen, the thin end.
So by that argument - you would condone the capping of every squeeze and constriction in all caves to facility the passing of all humans, say up to 30 stone.
There are ethics in existence and these should be reinforced.
Capping sections of cave for 'practice' be it for rescue or not is (IMO) just not on since it can be done elsewhere without permanently altering sections of natural cave.
I lot of things need to be taken into consideration first though, a lot of detail is missing, such as which cave, the nature of the cave, the nature of the passage that was capped
e.g. is it in some shit hole corner of a shit hole cave that nobody in their right mind would consider going for a trip that lacked any speleological interest what so ever. If so (although I doubt it), it may be considered a worth while exercise
However, I feel it sets a dangerous precedent. Where will they go next time to 'practice' now that this section of cave has been 'done' , and next year, and the year after etc etc.
I am positive that this is a C.R. technique that does not need CROs to practice on a regular basis (unlike rigging/hauling/first aid/stretchering) for the following reasons..
a: its going to be a pretty extreme situation that requires capping (OK, most serious cave rescues could be considered extreme) but you get my drift.
b: I'm positive that most CRO's have folks attending that are well versed in capping etc.
c: each site for capping varies radically, and thus 'practising' on one section of cave is pointless
If CRO's want their members to practice capping, send them to a dig FFS. Or do it in a quarry or some such.
menacer said:
and that's relevant to this debate because.... :-\
Thin end of a wedge Carmen, the thin end.
So by that argument - you would condone the capping of every squeeze and constriction in all caves to facility the passing of all humans, say up to 30 stone.
Of course not and you know it. We all know the lines between conservation/preservation and the requirement to explore and push new cave.
There are ethics in existence and these should be reinforced.
Capping sections of cave for 'practice' be it for rescue or not is (IMO) just not on since it can be done elsewhere without permanently altering sections of natural cave.
langcliffe
Well-known member
There were so many rescues down a certain hole in the Dales, that one section was enlarged to allow a casualty to bypass a rather technical section. I wasn't keen on the idea at the time, but it was proved several times over to have been a worthwhile decision.
langcliffe
Well-known member
I phrased it poorly - the rock was actually removed as the result of experience from rescues.SamT said:
Andy Sparrow
Active member
SamT said:
I reckon it's fine so long as the 30 stone caver does the capping themselves.
As Rhys said we need the facts.
Whilst I agree that training should seek to minimise damage, it is important for all members of a rescue team to have experience of all the techniques with which they may be involved. Suppose the skinniest guy on the team is the only one that can get to the casualty but has never done any capping when a cap would make the difference.
After all, just passing through the cave changes it, after that it is just a debate about degree
Whilst I agree that training should seek to minimise damage, it is important for all members of a rescue team to have experience of all the techniques with which they may be involved. Suppose the skinniest guy on the team is the only one that can get to the casualty but has never done any capping when a cap would make the difference.
After all, just passing through the cave changes it, after that it is just a debate about degree
SamT
Moderator
khakipuce said:
Yeah, Nobody is arguing against that. The point being that the skinny guy can get his experience of capping, without a CRO staging a rescue and capping a section of passage in a cave, just for practice. a CRO can send skinny guy to a dig to do some capping (which would kill two birds with one stone) or e.g. a quarry.
Absolutely, and are we not all agreed that the ethos we try to stick to is that we try, under all circumstances, and where practicable, to minimise the impact we inflict on caves.
a CRO capping a section of cave, purely as an exercise in practising a rescue technique does not conform to that general ethos.
Similar threads
