To all CNCC member clubs - a suggested way forward for the CNCC.

[ianball11]

Hey Ian, that was my idea about having all DIMs in a club called DIM get your own lol.

Alex, I do apologise! 
:-[

 

[dunc]

It would take someone with time and knowledge to set up but the simplest method would surely be to have an online booking system (most people have internet these days via PC/phone etc) similar to those concert ticket sites where you can reserve before finalising your request. This could also be used by the permit-secs if they receive a request by phone/email for example - if they didn't receive many requests roles could be combined. Last minute-on-the-day permits could be gained, permits could be given up (that obviously requires people to be honest and revisit the site to cancel etc). The shops mentioned above have internet access, so could be asked to check availability/issue a permit. It could be based on a BCRA style login (for online publications) - the club is given login details every year if fees paid - no need to register, just pay your subs. 

Anyway, back to reality, requested a permit earlier today, received reply with permit in about an hour. Archaic out-of-date system?  :doubt:

 

[Bob Mehew]

Wouldn't the long term solution be issuing permits automatically where they are available by smartphone or to a PC.

Yes but whilst I know much of the software is already written for much of what I propose, your suggestion would require someone developing it.  It may well be simple but at the moment I don't have any ideas who might be prepared to do it.  So in my book it is something to do down the line.  My underlying argument is getting something done for (nearly) now not several years down the line.  But do prove me wrong.  Can I suggest any suggestion of a way forward is checked against a criteria of can someone see how it can be done in moderate detail and if so, do they have people in mind who have the capability to do it.

My preference would be for a SGM for several reasons, all member clubs get a vote, so the decision has the full authority of the members, it could be held at the earliest possible date - before any committee meeting and long before the next AGM and also the meeting could be much more focussed.

An SGM needs 10 clubs so go find them.  Then you have 8 weeks to the meeting, say late May.  Who is going to get off their arse to get one club to start the ball rolling and then write to the others to get the signatures?

I'm not clear why CIM's need to be included? Can't they already get permits through their clubs as all BCA clubs are automatically viewed as Associate members of CNCC and all club members have to be CIM's? Is it so they can apply as individuals rather than through the club?

I include CIMs because the only notional difference between them and DIMs is that they don't take the publications.  I mention them because it is something BCA is going to have to make a decision on.  If I had not, then it could be argued that we overlooked them.  By mentioning them we cannot overlook them, even if we put off doing anything for them for a year or two more.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

I think all this needs to be kept in proportion. As I noted in the other thread there are 5 permits per day for Casterton and 3 for Leck so a fancy short notice, on-demand system will probably just tell you that Sat/Sun are always booked well in advance.

 

[martinm]

I think all this needs to be kept in proportion. As I noted in the other thread there are 5 permits per day for Casterton and 3 for Leck so a fancy short notice, on-demand system will probably just tell you that Sat/Sun are always booked well in advance.

Out of interest, (sorry I'm not massively familiar with the permit system for these fells), but how many cavers are covered under each permit, they're for clubs, I presume? How many entrances can those cavers go down? (Eg:- If there were 9 cavers, they could split into 3 groups and go down different entrances?)

Point me to somewhere that contains this info if it's already published. (CNCC web site, maybe?)

Soz, Mel.

 

[Bob Mehew]

I think all this needs to be kept in proportion. As I noted in the other thread there are 5 permits per day for Casterton and 3 for Leck so a fancy short notice, on-demand system will probably just tell you that Sat/Sun are always booked well in advance.

fair point but what may escalate is the number of requests for week day permits and also want them on a very short term demand basis.  To plan for just one person to do all of this 24/7/365 seems stupid.  The more automated one gets, the less people you need.

Out of interest, (sorry I'm not massively familiar with the permit system for these fells), but how many cavers are covered under each permit, they're for clubs, I presume? How many entrances can those cavers go down? (Eg:- If there were 9 cavers, they could split into 3 groups and go down different entrances?)

Point me to somewhere that contains this info if it's already published. (CNCC web site, maybe?)

There are over 260 caves listed on the CNCC web site of which over 100 require permits.  (3 of this 100 are of the "all other caves in this region" so cover many more.)  As I understand it, the permit is cave specific.  Not sure about caver number limits but don't think so.  If your underlying idea is to let people get down any cave, then I am not sure if that would work, especially not for diggers.

 

[ianball11]

http://www.cncc.org.uk/about/access-agreements.php

 

[martinm]

http://www.cncc.org.uk/about/access-agreements.php

Thanx for the link Ian. Blimey, it's complicated up there isn't it?  :-\  Lots of room for 'interpretation' though.

What constitutes digging, how would they know if it was underground? What constitutes 'blasting' or explosives? HE or just capping? How would they know about it? What exactly constitutes a 'NOVICE'?

novice cavers are not permitted into the Easgill system and that the system is not used for training cavers in caving techniques (other than the techniques used by experienced cavers e.g. photography, surveying, and conservation.  So no 'commercial cavers' then!

Member clubs of what? Copy of meets list to be sent to...

The council is to supply a list of member clubs and monthly list to owner.... (Is that happening when that list can't be published on the web site or made know to us?)

That page really needs clarifying. None of my business though. Love the Dales, but glad I cave in the Peak mostly, much simpler down here, phew....

Regards, Mel.

 

[cap n chris]

IIRC no-one actually knows what a Novice is, but everyone kinda has an idea of what they think one is.

 

[Jenny P]

The council is to supply a list of member clubs and monthly list to owner.... (Is that happening when that list can't be published on the web site or made know to us?)

In fact isn't such a list already available on the web?  BCA publishes a list of its member clubs on its website, which is updated as new clubs join, and all CNCC's clubs must be members of BCA in order to be insured and thus eligible to apply for permits.

It would make sense for clubs which cave in the north to apply to become Full Member Clubs of CNCC (in which case they could have a vote and a say at CNCC meetings) and for all other BCA member clubs to be regarded as Associate Members of CNCC so that they could apply for permits but would not expect to have a vote/say at CNCC meetings.

Maybe this is a little simplistic but it would work insofar as it applies to the clubs/permits situation. 

The position of individual BCA members applying for permits is another matter which probably needs more thought.  Whatever is eventually decided must be acceptable to the landowners who allow access on their land.

 

[Jenny P]

Maybe I should have qualified the above by saying "...  clubs which cave primarily in the north ..." as there are clubs whose members may not live in the north but who do all or most of their caving in the Dales, Cumbria, etc.

 

[Badlad]

I don't really want to keep pointing out CNCC double standards and failings, especially as this thread is attempting to look forward, but people should be aware of certain facts.

Many CNCC full member clubs are not members of BCA and therefore, presumably do not have PL insurance.  Examples include clubs who are members of the CNCC committee and those of many of the officers; Denthouse SS (chairman), Gritstone Club (conservation officer), CNCC technical group (Treasurer), Lancashire Underground group (Leck fell Permit secretary and committee member), Northumbrian Speleological Group (committee member), and a number of others including the St Helens Caving Club who deemed it necessary to make a complaint against the Earby Pothole Club for allegedly caving without a permit.  I do wonder if any of these clubs get permits without insurance especially as the treasurer has confirmed on UKC that clubs need PL insurance as part of the access agreement with the landowner - or do they?

 

[graham]

IIRC no-one actually knows what a Novice is, but everyone kinda has an idea of what they think one is.

Because it is best not to be too prescriptive over such things.

There are a number of useful 'rules of thumb' however, concerning both experience and attitude.

 

[exsumper]

IIRC no-one actually knows what a Novice is, but everyone kinda has an idea of what they think one is.

Why not buy a dictionary?  I find mine incredibly useful!  The meanings of all words explained in a clear and concise fashion!








I so hope I've got all the spelling right 

 

[martinm]

I do wonder if any of these clubs get permits without insurance especially as the treasurer has confirmed on UKC that clubs need PL insurance as part of the access agreement with the landowner - or do they?

I don't see any mention of BCA or PL Insurance in any of the access agreements on that cncc web site page. It really needs updating. Again, none of my business though, just saying.....  :-\

 

[Bob Mehew]

all CNCC's clubs must be members of BCA in order to be insured and thus eligible to apply for permits.

Sorry Jenny that is wrong in two parts.  As I recall some other regions have clubs which are members of the RCC but not BCA.  The point was debated back in 2003 prior to BCA formation and it was accepted as I recall, one's region (not CNCC) insisted that this was a red line for them and had to be.  So we (and you were in on that discussion) accepted it.  So CNCC do not need to insist on all its members becoming members of BCA.  But I will admit to being more than surprised by how many CNCC full member clubs that I have become aware off are not BCA members.  It seems to me the irony of this point is the region who wanted this dispensation has I think only one non BCA member club whilst CNCC has probably more than ten.

Not all clubs who are members of BCA are insured since they don't take out CIM membership for their members.  We set up CIM status in order to get around several problems (to discuss them would be off theme) but in essence to provide insurance to clubs who wanted it by demanding all their members were CIMs (as mmilner points out from the summary notes on CNCC's web pages).

I think you will find that many of the CNCC access agreements only require 'insurance' to cover the land owner being sued by the caver (I paraphrase) rather than for individual cavers.  (Which is why we created an Access Controlling Body status in BCA.)  So as I understand it, clubs don't need 'insurance' themselves for a fair number of the CNCC access agreements.  I would expect that is also true for some of DCA's access agreements.

I do wonder if any of these clubs get permits without insurance especially as the treasurer has confirmed on UKC that clubs need PL insurance as part of the access agreement with the landowner - or do they?

My expectation is for many agreements the CNCC Treasure was inaccurate (I will be diplomatic) in his statement as mmilner points out.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I do wonder if any of these clubs get permits without insurance especially as the treasurer has confirmed on UKC that clubs need PL insurance as part of the access agreement with the landowner - or do they?

I don't see any mention of BCA or PL Insurance in any of the access agreements on that cncc web site page. It really needs updating. Again, none of my business though, just saying.....  :-\

The access agreement on the website is only a very brief summary. Last year I asked the Secretary/Access Officer/Training Officer for a copy of the full Leck Fell access agreement and he told me that he was not allowed to let me see it. They refer to it constantly but it appears to be yet another one of the things they keep secret.

 

[Cave Mapper]

Here's a really simple suggestion that would solve a few problems:

- Make all BCA member clubs eligible for permits, irrespective of whether they are CNCC members (provided they have PL insurance of course). This would be an immediate improvement on the current system because the BCA has clear rules about what a club is, and it publishes its member list.

I can't see why this wouldn't work, but I guess some might worry that the place would be overrun by southerners.

Anyway, if for whatever reason that suggestion is not a goer, then here's another even simpler suggestion to close the loophole:

- Make BCA membership and PL insurance a requirement for any club requesting a permit.

Surely that one is a no-brainer?

It would of course mean that several of the clubs that currently form the committee wouldn't be eligible for permits until they joined the BCA. It might prompt them to join, which would be a good thing. Unless of course they don't go caving, in which case they probably shouldn't be on the committee.

 

[damian]

Here's a really simple suggestion that would solve a few problems:

- Make all BCA member clubs eligible for permits, irrespective of whether they are CNCC members (provided they have PL insurance of course). This would be an immediate improvement on the current system because the BCA has clear rules about what a club is, and it publishes its member list.

They already are (and have been since BCA's inception).

 

[Cave Mapper]

They already are (and have been since BCA's inception).

OK, I didn't realise that. My second suggestion is still valid though - and still a no-brainer?