Hello,
Trying to find out the answer to a question and been having a bit of trouble! Nobody I’ve asked seems to know the answer.
Does the ATC act under the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority (AALA)? I know not every individual Squadron has a license but does HQAC have a license and we are all covered under that?
I know all instructors have to be qualified etc, but I’m unsure as to whether we actually have a license?
If anyone knows anything I would really appreciate the help!
Thanks.
I’ve never heard this and I imagine did they have it HQAC would on the lists and crowing about it.
If they are this where you’ll find them
http://www.aals.org.uk/aals/provider_search.php
Thanks.
Yeah I took a look at that already but they weren’t on it. I was wondering if they maybe had a military equivalent to the license or something like that.
I’m hoping someone here will know!
IIRC, we don’t have one because we don’t need one - we fall under “Non-Licensed Provider” or something similar. We provide activities free of charge to members of our club. We don’t charge members of the club to do these activities (per se!), nor do we charge members of the public to come and do our activities.
HOWEVER, much of the information in the ACATIs is derived from good practice gleaned from the AALA. We are also gradually implementing more and more practices from this area to ensure we are whiter than white - auditing AT stores, WATTOs inspecting kit/equipment etc.
There are also, embedded within our regulations, significantly more (and higher) levels of governance and failsafes. Having worked with a AALA licenced Local Authority outdoor pursuits team, I was surprised at the standards relative to our own - and given that they are paid professionals within the industry, it was a big wake up call!
Editted to add: http://www.hse.gov.uk/aala/are-you-a.htm
Agree with Batfink - we don’t need a license as we aren’t a commercial provider.
Those are the words I was looking for!
Thank you!
That clears things up a bit.
[quote=“Batfink” post=3007]
There are also, embedded within our regulations, significantly more (and higher) levels of governance and failsafes. Having worked with a AALA licenced Local Authority outdoor pursuits team, I was surprised at the standards relative to our own - and given that they are paid professionals within the industry, it was a big wake up call![/quote]
Out of interest, in what way?
I agree that a lot of the best practice stuff should become mandatory in the ATC. We don’t really have any current regulations on the maintenance of AT equipment. I suppose we mainly rely on those with the NGBs managing equipment appropriately.
I wonder how many ATC squadrons dunk-test their buoyancy aids, or are using out-of-date climbing helmets or harnesses?
[quote=“redowling” post=3031]
Out of interest, in what way?[/quote]
If you think our communications is bad, you should see there’s!
Risk assessments? Always generic - no risk assessments carried out specific to route. Whilst out paddling, I caused a drama by asking if the leader (or anybody else in the group) had ever run a specific river we were about to paddle river before and there were blank faces across the staff team - despite us having a bus full of kids tagging on behind us. They hadn’t even checked the EA river levels before leaving.
Training of DofE groups is another area I’ve seen corners cut and half measures - whilst not necessarily bad practice, I wouldn’t referred to it as good. And all this whilst they are taking money off the little people (£15 per day long “training course” for DofE!).
Things that we’d probably do to ensure that we were ticking all the boxes as part of us covering our own bottoms seemed entirely alien to them.
[quote=“redowling” post=3031]We don’t really have any current regulations on the maintenance of AT equipment. I suppose we mainly rely on those with the NGBs managing equipment appropriately.
I wonder how many ATC squadrons dunk-test their buoyancy aids, or are using out-of-date climbing helmets or harnesses?[/quote]
IIRC, North Region were subjected to an AT Kit log grilling last year (maybe the year before) in which any squadron owned kit was to be logged and inspected. We certainly keep a log of all our AT kit and have maintained a healthy “trickle” feed replacement system over the last 10 years to ensure no massive expenditure hits the squadron funds.
Personally I think the NGB qualified staff should be ensuring the equipment is maintained and replaced appropriately. It is, afterall, their ■■■■ in the mincer when the bad stuff goes down!
[quote=“Batfink” post=3032][quote=“redowling” post=3031]
Out of interest, in what way?[/quote]
If you think our communications is bad, you should see there’s!
Risk assessments? Always generic - no risk assessments carried out specific to route. Whilst out paddling, I caused a drama by asking if the leader (or anybody else in the group) had ever run a specific river we were about to paddle river before and there were blank faces across the staff team - despite us having a bus full of kids tagging on behind us. They hadn’t even checked the EA river levels before leaving.
Training of DofE groups is another area I’ve seen corners cut and half measures - whilst not necessarily bad practice, I wouldn’t referred to it as good. And all this whilst they are taking money off the little people (£15 per day long “training course” for DofE!).
Things that we’d probably do to ensure that we were ticking all the boxes as part of us covering our own bottoms seemed entirely alien to them.
[quote=“redowling” post=3031]We don’t really have any current regulations on the maintenance of AT equipment. I suppose we mainly rely on those with the NGBs managing equipment appropriately.
I wonder how many ATC squadrons dunk-test their buoyancy aids, or are using out-of-date climbing helmets or harnesses?[/quote]
IIRC, North Region were subjected to an AT Kit log grilling last year (maybe the year before) in which any squadron owned kit was to be logged and inspected. We certainly keep a log of all our AT kit and have maintained a healthy “trickle” feed replacement system over the last 10 years to ensure no massive expenditure hits the squadron funds.
Personally I think the NGB qualified staff should be ensuring the equipment is maintained and replaced appropriately. It is, afterall, their ■■■■ in the mincer when the bad stuff goes down![/quote]
We do the same for kit replacement, and it is the appropriately qualified person’s responsibility - howoever I think this should be backed up with some regulations in the ACATIs.
We have harness/rope logs and a replacement plan to change everything over when required. I do need to sort out a big bin and a weight to do dunk testing with our new paddling gear in the future though!