I think this applies just as much to those of us doing the approving as it does to those making the submissions. As others have stated I’ve had to deal with a number of WATTO’s over the years who won’t even look at a short notice application because it doesn’t meet the timescales, despite the fact there might be a very good reason for a short notice submission.
I also know a RATTO who refused to authorise an out of season expedition training session for Cadets who were travelling somewhere in the Summer where the conditions would be similar to a UK winter. (It took HQAC to get involved to resolve that).
We not only need to be making sure we are consistent across the country, but we also need to make sure that we are really looking at applications, not just running through a tick sheet of does it have a, b & c. (Although that’s also important)
Does the AT world have an annual conference for all the WATTO’s, Deputies and the RATTO’s in the same way that DofE does? (Being new in post no one has mentioned one?!)Ig would seem to me an ideal way to insure standardisation across the Corps and also to share best practice and build relationships as the DofE one does.
Absolutely agreed - I think some standardised training for WATTOs would be good (particularly for those that don’t actually hold many qualifications)
No, only the National AT panel which is only RATTOs. I have a mind to start up an annual conference over this way for all AT instructors / WATTOs that want to attend, held out of one of the centres, to include standardisation / updates / workshops.
I think that’s where an annual conference getting us all together would be really good, hell even the WO’s have a conference. It could be run more as a CPD event, depending on what the format is we could even get it counted as a point towards MTA CPD.
From where I sit we seem to going through a lot of personnel changes (1 RATTO retired, another only clinging on as Region didn’t want either of the applicants for the role, certainly in my region 2 or 3 of the 6 WATTO’s are changing or have changed this year).
it’s got 6 heuristic traps (as @redowling mentioned), and although they focus on winter sports they’re all relevant to any AT activity. I use this resource whenever I instruct on any form of LLA/HML/ML course
This case is especially sad as there were so many opportunities to do things differently and more safely. Definitely one for all instructors to be aware of and understand.
Reading linked articles, the leaders seem to be found culpable by the inquest for ‘unlawful killing by gross negligence manslaughter’. However the investigating police officer gave evidence that the case ‘did not meet the threshold for criminal charges to be brought.’ I assume that’s a difference in coroner’s court vs criminal court evidence standards.
There’ll be some worried woggles about at the moment.
I can’t imagine that those directly involved weren’t already feeling pretty shoddy about this, but it must be a whole lot worse right now. To add on to the “unlawful” finding that even if you cooperated in good faith that you may get dragged for an honest omission or incorrect recollection should another be found to have been purposefully dishonest…
6 years of torment for the family and those involved, and it’s probably not even over. That must be hell.
Presumably some section(s) of HSAWA? It’s pretty all-encompassing in its vagueness (vague as to mean lacking specificity on how the requirements should be met and lack of scenario or sector-based stipulation).
Would one of our learned friends or modern-day Peelers be able to clarify whether this finding can be added to the existing case to potentially sway things back towards potential charges (for the death, not the perversion of justice)? Is it likely not “in the public interest” to go after the volunteer leader at this stage, or perhaps have enough weight to go for perm staff in addition or instead?