BBC News - Scout leaders accept responsibility for teen’s Great Orme death
This story I think highlights why we have such strict rules on risk assessments, mandatory qualifications, activity approval etc. It seems like a catalogue of errors from the scouts (ignoring the alleged behaviour of the poor lad) leading to them running an activity without proper planning, approval, qualifications or staffing.
So whilst I think HQAC have put in a highly inefficient way which increases the admin burden, I think this justifies the principle behind it.
I don’t think anyone here has ever really questioned the principles behind it, but more how it’s done.
When I work with vulnerable children & adults, but need to complete less training less frequently than where I volunteer for only 4-5 hours/week, it suggests that the risk mitigation is perhaps a little over-egged and overcautious in the voluntary area.
One of the issues is that - in my view - inefficient processes, poorly designed mandatory training, and excessive admin leads people to cut corners, making it ultimately less safe.
We could have twice the mandatory training and admin burden it all comes down to how we act on the day.
I have seen RAs (both in the RAFAC and elsewhere) where they hold no water with regards what control measures are actually adopted on the day/at the time of the activity.
What matters most is the actions of the people in charge, with responsibilty and the authority to make changes/a difference.
A RA could be as water tight as anyone could hope for but if it isn’t followed then what is the point?
That appears to be almost the case here. It suggests a planned activity (climbing Snowdon) was done properly and the correct decision made to cancel that based on the weather - this implies correct approach to the activity by the staff/leaders.
there is a suggestion that there was no RA for the alternative plan - but if there had been would the outcome have been much different?
The Staff clearly understood “risks” else why change the plan?
it would appear the biggest element of failure here is group management, firstly in allowing three members of the groups to fall behind then allowing the Scout in question to go “off script” and take their own route.
An RA i feel is there to ensure all the relevant points are considered, understood and a plan in place to control what is necessary (ie the control measures) - it doesn’t stop accidents happening if the RA isn’t followed.
my point being this too me is a failure of the leaders attitude more than it is a failure of admin.
We have such a mishmash of mandatory training For CFAV, ranging from several hour long unskippable/speedup-able Hot and Cold Injury lessons obviously designed for the actual military, through to fire training comprising of “download this PowerPoint”.
Really feels like a bit of a bodge. The length and inability to speed up the hot and cold Injury lessons made them feel like a chore, which isn’t ideal. I’m pretty sure most people I know spent half the training scrolling on their phone or doing other things, completely defeating the point.
HQ need to have a look at this bodge job, and design new training sessions that actually deliver and assess the content we need to know in our roles as CFAVs in a way that actually works for us.
My impression was that was more RA’s and events/camps, not mandatory training per se. But I suppose if the above is being looked at, revisiting certain training packages might be on the table?
From what I read on the BBC News post, it looks like Lesson No1 we can all learn from this is ‘Always have an experienced back marker when leading a group.’ The activity leader shouldn’t have let the group separate in the first place, with walkers dropping off the rear of the group. In fact the boy who died could have been nominated to carry out that duty: at least he would have kept in touch with the group leader then.
I’ve been happy to let group members go ahead, when you know they’re reasonably switched on and it’s fine weather. After all, a walking programme for young people has to teach them the self-reliance needed to complete a DoE expedition. It’s common sense to keep people together in grotty weather, of course.
The alternative route chosen that day sounds more hazardous than doing the main tourist route up Snowdon: at least the latter has no steep ground near the path running alongside the railway.
Lesson No2 would be ‘Always have a safe low level walking route planned, recce’d and written up in the programme.’ Now that global warming is really starting to kick in across all areas of the UK, the weather is by default going to be ‘windy with heavy rain,’ with the occasional month long heatwave and drought from now onwards. Wet places in the world have been getting wetter, and hot places have been getting dryer.
Of course, one can always apply Lesson No3: ‘Bin the whole activity if it’s going to be a mug’s game, and stay at home.’
There’s old mountaineers, and bold mountaineers, but no old & bold mountaineers.
I’ve always hated high winds and heavy rain as weather conditions: the only thing I’ve ever learnt from going out in high winds and heavy rain is not to go out in high winds and heavy rain, but I knew that before I ever went out in high winds and heavy rain in my whole life.
FYI i believe the preferred term is “climate change” - global warming suggests everything gets hotter which is misleading. the rising global temperatures is causing “climate change” which influences more extremes of all temperatures and weather types
I know, Steve. I prefer to use the 20th Century term rather than the current euphemistic one for what’s happening to the climate: the latter doesn’t describe whether the underlying temperature is rising or falling. Also, the ‘extreme weather’ that the BBC News and various national rail companies fill their nappies about is today’s ‘normal weather’ that we just have to deal with, as far as I’m concerned. Especially relating to exped planning.
Back to topic, that’s why you have environmental conditions training, just a pity some of it is based on a severe lack of science and knowledge, and has been admitted it would not stand as a defence in a Coroners Court.
Surely, bad or possibly dangerous training is worse than no training in some cases.
