WARNING LOOSE BOLTS IN RHINO RIFT

[Peter Burgess]

I would like it to be this simple, and in the vast majority of cases it would be. But there are a significant number of cavers out there who have a higher opinion of their capabilities than is justifiable, and a few of them are just congenital liars, or incapable of admitting their limitations.

 

[Bob Mehew]

I will apologise if necessary, but have any of the persons above who have commented on the proposal to test the competence of prospective installers read paras 57 to 60 in the discussion document?  You will find in there some detail on this point.  The suggestion is to use part of the CIC scheme, namely Part 6.4.4 which can be read at http://british-caving.org.uk/?page=7 .  As I said before we can't hide behind simple words like "suitable", these days there is a need to spell things out.

 

[cap n chris]

Yes, I've read it. Fine by me. Probably won't be fine by other people, mind you!

 

[graham]

Haven't read it, Bob, but you are giving the response that I expected. I trust that airing it here will cause those interested (i.e. everyone who ever hangs from a P-hanger) to think about it.

 

[damian]

If, OTOH, they've been to loads of places, loads of regions, doing some complex multi pitch rigging trips then they're probably sufficiently up to speed to be considered for the role. Therefore the stipulation regarding competence can be resolved with a simple conversation. Seems workable to me or is this not "official" enough?

The problem I see with this approch is that you may have done a lot of rigging but not actually understand the concepts of safe rigging. So long as you can "join the dots" with a rope and some maillons, you might think you can rig.

I, therefore, think there does need to be a more formal test of people's abilities and the logical one for this is the CIC test, as suggested in the document.

 

[whitelackington]

That sir is BOLLOCKS

 

[graham]

Why?

 

[whitelackington]

The last thing we need on Mendip is ridiculously involved rules, woven it would seem for the benefit of people who make their living from testing people!
What we need on Mendip is a very simple system that does not involve too much regulation and interference from people in other areas.
If we go down the tunnel of over regulation our hiatus will return and the scheme will be dead!

 

[graham]

How can we separate what happens on Mendip from what happens elsewhere in UK caving?

How can we otherwise satisfy the insurers and other interested bodies?

 

[Stu]

Well one test for checking SRT competence could simply be "Are you competent at SRT, where have you been; did you do the rigging?". If the person says, "Er, I'm OK at SRT I suppose; I've been to Singing River Mine and Manor Farm on a club trip following someone else who rigged it" then the answer is clearly "Not good enough". If, OTOH, they've been to loads of places, loads of regions, doing some complex multi pitch rigging trips then they're probably sufficiently up to speed to be considered for the role. Therefore the stipulation regarding competence can be resolved with a simple conversation. Seems workable to me or is this not "official" enough?

I'd say this approach wouldn't be robust or rigorous enough. Pete has already pointed out some peoples ability to "embellish". I don't think it needs to be as stringent though as to go the whole CIC route; or if others think it does, why not draw a pool up from the ranks of CIC holders anyway? 

 

[graham]

...why not draw a pool up from the ranks of CIC holders anyway? 

Partially because that was not the intent of the CIC nor of those holding it and partially because the majority of those who place and inspect bolts are not interested in gaining that sort of formal qualification.

 

[Stu]

...why not draw a pool up from the ranks of CIC holders anyway? 

Partially because that was not the intent of the CIC nor of those holding it and partially because the majority of those who place and inspect bolts are not interested in gaining that sort of formal qualification.

Quite agree, but if (big if), it's deemed that the CIC mirrors the requirements of what is considered suitable, why not go that route first? At worst we know they aren't interested, at best it may be less of a financial burden to BCA or whoever, or allows that pot of money to train more bolters.

If I'm reading it right, Bob isn't suggesting people have to be CIC trained/assessed but they should go through some form of check, of which the CIC syllabus seems a reasonable standard.

 

[Hammy]

....the majority of those who place and inspect bolts are not interested in gaining that sort of formal qualification.

I think you might find that the majority of those who place and inspect bolts already have that qualification.....

 

[graham]

....the majority of those who place and inspect bolts are not interested in gaining that sort of formal qualification.

I think you might find that the majority of those who place and inspect bolts already have that qualification.....

I have my doubts about that.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Ah, at last a bit of a debate.

Records indicate that most of the anchor placers are not CICs. 

The proposal is not to require an installer to gain all of the CIC competencies, just to demonstrate to a CIC (or possibly a similarly competent person) that one is competent to a standard which is taken from the CIC handbook. 

For what it is worth, it has occurred to me that a totally different approach would be for BCA to step back and just produce information on different anchor systems and not try to provide some control over the installation of anchors.  No prior competence demanded, no insurance cover, no problems about one region not having enough work to keep skills fresh and so forth.  I am NOT supporting it, just offering it as an alternative "out of the box" thought.  (And no doubt I will be  :spank: for suggesting it.)  But please note that the current scheme does not stop anyone from placing their own anchors.  So a region could decide to not participate in the scheme.

But before any one enthusiastically supports this idea, beware that placing anchors for others to use is not as simple as it might seem.  I have heard of one august group who decided on an anchor location, placed it and then found some while later the anchor (plus rock in which it was paced) at the bottom of the pitch.  I have also heard of three anchors being placed and two pulling out on being tested.  And as many of you are aware, how many people come to a pitch head and say "what on earth does one do with all these anchors?" (or in terms less polite).

One of the reasons for the consultation is to seek differing views, get a debate, identify improvements and possibly come to a consensus or at least a majority view on a way forward.  Speaking personally, I am not wedded to maintaining the scheme, just improving it to make it fit for another 10 years; even if that might actually mean taking an apparently backward step in some areas.  Oh dear  :spank:

 

[damian]

For what it is worth, it has occurred to me that a totally different approach would be for BCA to step back and just produce information on different anchor systems and not try to provide some control over the installation of anchors.  No prior competence demanded, no insurance cover, no problems about one region not having enough work to keep skills fresh and so forth.  I am NOT supporting it, just offering it as an alternative "out of the box" thought.  (And no doubt I will be  :spank: for suggesting it.)  But please note that the current scheme does not stop anyone from placing their own anchors.  So a region could decide to not participate in the scheme.

Please, no!
It would be a massive backward step to go to a situation where nobody can be sure of who has placed anchors because they are all of different types. At least with P-bolts you know they have been placed officially using a reasonably well-trialled technique. As we all know, a bolt can appear perfectly solid from the surface, and actually be comparatively weak ... and of course there are plenty of people who don't check the anchors they use anyway, so they'd better be put in properly!

 

[cap n chris]

Email excerpt from CSCC Bolting Coordinator:

I read the UKforum, I even tried to sign up, but it did not seem to send
me an Activation Email to allow me to send mail??? Just tried again,
still not working, and I do have the spam filter turned off. But to be
honest all I wanted to do was say we would be doing a pull test on all
of them on Monday, and will let everyone know the results.

 

[graham]

Must be a board fault 'cos 'e knows a thing or two about these 'ere computing thingys.

 

[andysnook]

Must be a board fault 'cos 'e knows a thing or two about these 'ere computing thingys.

Indeed it seems to be.  If anyone wants to read my tediously technical attempt at an explanation read below

(I also mentioned it here http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php/topic,3239.0.html so i think admin may have been informed just in case)

In my case at least - it was due to my mailserver's anti-spam measures.  For example, if it receives an email from someone@ibetthisrubbishdomaindoesntexist.com it will see if the domain exists, which it doesnt, therefore rejects the email as spam.

When i tried to sign up for this board it sent the signup email from www.avatarweb.ltd.uk

Having searched for this domain in the appropriate places and it's not even registered.  So, quite rightly, my mailserver rejected it.

I managed to workaround the problem by falsifying a entry for this domain on the servers in our office !

I suspect this is the problem most people are getting - but i could be wrong...

 

[cap n chris]

Hmm. Impressive.

Still a bit geeky.

Geeks are good, though; they make complexiticiness work. My computer's constructed of balsa and paperclips but it was touched by a Geek and sprang to life.