cap n chris
Well-known member
A panel of peers. As in many other realms?
Local Cave Leader Training For Scout Leaders
- Thread starter idriswilliams
- Start date
nearlywhite
Active member
This is a rather worrying thread and the implications being made are that you need commercial qualifications to do a recreational activity. The fact is, you don't.
Given these are volunteers, there is no need for them to have to go through the additional bureaucracy and payment required if there is a system that works. Just because they have peer assessment does not render the whole system invalid - my day job uses peer assessment all the time and that's good enough to continue as a doctor. So far no one has articulated anything to show that the current system isn't fit for purpose - merely that it isn't a commercial system.
I would strongly encourage that before bandying around accusations that you ask Scout Cave Leaders about the training.
Given these are volunteers, there is no need for them to have to go through the additional bureaucracy and payment required if there is a system that works. Just because they have peer assessment does not render the whole system invalid - my day job uses peer assessment all the time and that's good enough to continue as a doctor. So far no one has articulated anything to show that the current system isn't fit for purpose - merely that it isn't a commercial system.
I would strongly encourage that before bandying around accusations that you ask Scout Cave Leaders about the training.
cap n chris
Well-known member
nearlywhite said:
LCMLA is not a commercial qualification. It is an award administered and issued by the National Governing Body for Caving in the UK, the BCA. It is an entry level award frequently undertaken by people wishing to lead groups of under 18s underground, and provides a bona fide for competence. It is not commercial. It is also not onerous to achieve for anyone interested and active in caving (even marginally so), not expensive and not particularly difficult.
nearlywhite
Active member
That is correct, I was referring to the suggestion that higher level qualifications need be brought into the mix. There appeared to me to be the suggestion that everyone need be 'signed off' by a CIC for recreational caving. I don't think this is true if you have good in-house training.
You might not necessarily want everyone to go through something extra that will cost >?50, plus petrol, plus accommodation, plus lost time. Expensive is an opinion. There's also getting on a course at a convenient date. There are plenty of valid reasons for this all to be arranged in-house. As you said it is not too onerous, perhaps it is not valued as a good enough stand alone 'bona fide for competence' to lead scouts.
You might not necessarily want everyone to go through something extra that will cost >?50, plus petrol, plus accommodation, plus lost time. Expensive is an opinion. There's also getting on a course at a convenient date. There are plenty of valid reasons for this all to be arranged in-house. As you said it is not too onerous, perhaps it is not valued as a good enough stand alone 'bona fide for competence' to lead scouts.
cap n chris
Well-known member
nearlywhite said:
Not yet. One eyewateringly huge claim on BCA insurance or a media backlash following a high profile rescue resulting in landowners or insurer(s) seeking reassurances of competency and it might yet come to pass though.
bograt
Active member
Up here in DCA land, we are fortunate in having a very pro-active training officer who regularly runs courses for club members involved in training, although not carrying any official qualifications, they are eye openers for what is 'accepted procedure' and perceived 'best practice', as well as confidence boosting.
Maybe something to be considered by other regions and the Scout Association?.
Maybe something to be considered by other regions and the Scout Association?.
nearlywhite
Active member
Cap'n Chris said:
I think we all might struggle to get re-insured. Something like that sounds like it would more readily end commercial caving than recreational.
I also think it's more likely to blow over. People will read the sad headline 'Person dies taking risk. Lots of money spent' and move on. Like they did in Germany
cap n chris
Well-known member
More readily end club caving, is what I think you meant. Instructed caving isn't insured via BCA.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Didn't know that (learn something new every day); another reason for club caving to be more humble than it is and to realise it does not represent the vast majority of caving which takes place in this country.
Ship-badger
Member
Gollum said:
Why would a Scout assessment allow you to do this?
bograt
Active member
Not sure if Masson comes within the PICA mines inspection remit, maybe someone can clarify?, its all to do with professionals earning money to take folks down old mines...
Something the Scouts don't have to worry about, since they are all volunteers, and do not gain financially by their endeavours.
Something the Scouts don't have to worry about, since they are all volunteers, and do not gain financially by their endeavours.
badger
Active member
cannot speak for mason mine or that area situation, our area 1, the assessor has to have a mine module (not sure in what they had to do for this) in turn all cave leaders had to be assessed for the mines, 2, our underground system has to have an annual inspection from a mines engineer and an approved route issued, this we have to stick too, even though we could provide a much more interesting route
the approved route and annual inspection as I understand is something that the commercial side of being underground have to do, TSA have fallen in line with this procedure.
the approved route and annual inspection as I understand is something that the commercial side of being underground have to do, TSA have fallen in line with this procedure.
I would personally like to see The Scout Association's activity authorisation scheme assessed by the correct NGB qualified people, this fact alone would give it a lot more credibility. It would be unrealistic to expect all "instructors" to hold NGB awards. "Site specific" authorisation (given by a suitability qualified person) for certain activities is a very useful system.
Guiding UK run an activity scheme which seems to hold its credentials to the "outside world" and allows Guides to access activities (although the numbers are not as large as Scouts)
TSA produce some very good assessment "checklists" which are designed to be used by the assessors to give points to be checked depending on the level of permit requested. Other than these checklists (which are only guidelines) it is left up to each Scout "County" to decide how they want to carry out the assessment.
For example; Our County has 3 cave assessors (Two level2 & one CIC), we have agreed a system which follows the BCA scheme. Log book, home paper, Personal skills day, and then group day. The 2 days require separate assessors and cannot be "your mate".
However, Scout permits can be given by any County and used anywhere, so if somebody didn't like our system they could potentially "shop" around until they found a system that they did like !!
First Aid: A permit holder (other than T2 hill walking) is not required to hold ANY first aid qualification, the rules state that somebody in the activity group must hold a First aid qualification suitable to the activity. Again this kind of issue does not help give the scheme credidibillity. (We put on very cheap 16 hour first aid courses for permit holders : Carrot rather than stick)
Funding: TSA provide funding for NGBs , but only for people who will use that qualification to be a County assessor (for minimum of 2 years) They will pay half of any training and assessment costs (including accommodation if this is included in the course fee, as per Plas Y Brenin), also a good mileage allowance incurred in getting to the courses.
BCA refund the LCLMA registration fee to voluntary leaders.
There is also funding available for attending a Scout "permit assessment".
The Scout system is far from perfect, and is very vulnerable to local "variations". At one end of the scale, it can be very close if not the same as the NGB system, at the other end it could just be a mate signing off another mate (no evidence of this happening, just a possibility of the the system).
With the money available, the correct NGB qualified people who would be willing to assess who are "Scout friendly" then the Scouts could do a lot better. Using Guiding UK as a starter ?
One of the main issues is the shear number of activities that the permit scheme covers, the obvious cave, climb, walking are common, but any scheme has to manage all the other activities: paracending, hovercraft, Scuba diving, Coaststeering, mountain biking, surfing, ballooning, hang gliding, Zorbing and many many more !
All I can do for now is make sure any activities / assessments I am involved with are as close to the NGB route as possible, whilst still working within Scout rules. :halo:
Ian
Guiding UK run an activity scheme which seems to hold its credentials to the "outside world" and allows Guides to access activities (although the numbers are not as large as Scouts)
TSA produce some very good assessment "checklists" which are designed to be used by the assessors to give points to be checked depending on the level of permit requested. Other than these checklists (which are only guidelines) it is left up to each Scout "County" to decide how they want to carry out the assessment.
For example; Our County has 3 cave assessors (Two level2 & one CIC), we have agreed a system which follows the BCA scheme. Log book, home paper, Personal skills day, and then group day. The 2 days require separate assessors and cannot be "your mate".
However, Scout permits can be given by any County and used anywhere, so if somebody didn't like our system they could potentially "shop" around until they found a system that they did like !!
First Aid: A permit holder (other than T2 hill walking) is not required to hold ANY first aid qualification, the rules state that somebody in the activity group must hold a First aid qualification suitable to the activity. Again this kind of issue does not help give the scheme credidibillity. (We put on very cheap 16 hour first aid courses for permit holders : Carrot rather than stick)
Funding: TSA provide funding for NGBs , but only for people who will use that qualification to be a County assessor (for minimum of 2 years) They will pay half of any training and assessment costs (including accommodation if this is included in the course fee, as per Plas Y Brenin), also a good mileage allowance incurred in getting to the courses.
BCA refund the LCLMA registration fee to voluntary leaders.
There is also funding available for attending a Scout "permit assessment".
The Scout system is far from perfect, and is very vulnerable to local "variations". At one end of the scale, it can be very close if not the same as the NGB system, at the other end it could just be a mate signing off another mate (no evidence of this happening, just a possibility of the the system).
With the money available, the correct NGB qualified people who would be willing to assess who are "Scout friendly" then the Scouts could do a lot better. Using Guiding UK as a starter ?
One of the main issues is the shear number of activities that the permit scheme covers, the obvious cave, climb, walking are common, but any scheme has to manage all the other activities: paracending, hovercraft, Scuba diving, Coaststeering, mountain biking, surfing, ballooning, hang gliding, Zorbing and many many more !
All I can do for now is make sure any activities / assessments I am involved with are as close to the NGB route as possible, whilst still working within Scout rules. :halo:
Ian
Pete K
Well-known member
In reply to Bograt.....
Masson Mine is not inspected on behalf of PICA. I believe that since the landowner is unknown or permission not obtainable, we could not use the inspection anyway.
The Scouts have organised their own inspection as is their right. I'd love to speak to someone who can put PICA in touch with the owner as we may have demand to bring it into our inspection scheme.
Masson Mine is not inspected on behalf of PICA. I believe that since the landowner is unknown or permission not obtainable, we could not use the inspection anyway.
The Scouts have organised their own inspection as is their right. I'd love to speak to someone who can put PICA in touch with the owner as we may have demand to bring it into our inspection scheme.
BCA Chair
Member
Pete K said:
For info: http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=training:voluntary_youth_sector_grants
