[Closed] safety technology, non-acceptance and culpability

how would it still be an expedition?

may as well fit them with reins...

because they are still under my duty of care, I don't want a missing group on my conscience. Besides there are DofE providers out there that walk with their groups so they don't get lost!! thats totally against the ethos of the DofE but its done becuase of internal redtape and risk assessments done by some idiot in a shirt and tie.

We were refused funding at first by the powers that be because it was deemed too expensive to run. We then had one of the moments I mentioned above which could have been a lot worse had we not found the group by chance huddled behind a stone wall crying and completely lost in dense fog.

If one of those girls were to have died and we didn't have this technology that could have located them in minutes because it was deemed too expensive, would anyone be culpable given this technology is out there?

the group were obviously inadequately trained and should not have been doing the expedition without accompanyment

I would suggest that you review the way that you train the kids, they sould know what to do in the circumstances and be adequately equipped to cope if they get lost. (ie put the tent up and get a brew on and wait for daylight/ good visibility for example)

the sugested training or DofE should be regarded as a minimum not the maximum, if the group needs more they should do more. The failure is on the part of the person who assessed the group as being competant to be in wild country by themselves

and yes I have done DofE and trained groups for Gold Expeditions

can safety technology be refused acceptance on the grounds of cost even though it can save time, money and ultimately lives?

Well without getting into specifics about this sort of application the simple answer from an industrial standpoint is yes. As much as everyone would like to say that there is no limit on the amount of money that can be spent to save lives, the simple fact is that it's just not realistic. The question isn't "will this make things safer" rather "how much safer will things be and is it reasonable to spend X on such a saftey improvement". For instance an expensive GPS system might not be appropriate due to cost and complexity but a mobile phone would be appropriate.

if it went the coroner and they ask questions about the technology could they find my school negligent or similar for not implimenting a tried and tested technology?

Well I suppose it's possible, although if there were a proper assessment made of the tech (and yes cost would have to be a consideration) rather than it just being dismissed out of hand then that would afford some protection.

In the eyes of the HSE you should do what is 'reasonably practicable'. This means cost can be a consideration and just because it exists you don't need to use it.

What you do need to demonstrate is that you have considered all potential hazards and mitigated their possible risks by putting in place robust procedures to deal with every eventuality.

The kids getting lost is highly likely and potentially fatal, therefore whatever you had in place must be appropriate but not necessarily 'state of the art'.

No, however if they were to die you'd probably be responsible for sending them out into fog that they weren't experienced enough to navigate through.

[b]The kids getting lost is highly likely and potentially fatal[/b], therefore whatever you had in place must be appropriate but not necessarily 'state of the art'.

sorry but adequate training should give them the skill set to survive the situation in relative comfort. A fatality should only be a tragic accident, not a result of getting lost in fog and huddling behind a wall not knowing what to do. The point is they should know what to do (all members, not just the most experienced)

the group were obviously inadequately trained and should not have been doing the expedition without accompanyment

I know a number of providers who have experienced the same scenario. the simple fact of the matter is that you cannot train for all eventualities. and these are children not adults and they don't always do the most rational thing when things go wrong regardless of the quality of the training.

from a leaders point of view knowing where your group is at any given time is invaluable. we don't have this system to puppy walk them.

In the eyes of the HSE there isn't such a thing as an accident. Everything is preventable. You just need to show that you did everything that was reasonably practicable to prevent it happening.

If they kids have been trained, but failed to follow the training then they are at fault, they could have prevented it happening. As for the group leader, they would need to demonstrate they have provided adequate training and that the kids understood it.

No, however if they were to die you'd probably be responsible for sending them out into fog that they weren't experienced enough to navigate through

fYI the weather forecast was wrong and the weather turned without warning. so, if you don't know the in's and outs of my particular case then please don't pass judgement. all I ask is an answer to a particular question(s)

Jeees! No one died and I am asking a relevant question to an actual problem with refual to provide funding for something that can potentially save lives

group were obviously inadequately trained and should have been doing more [b]training[/b] with accompanyment

fixed it for you

you cannot train for all eventualities.

but you try and train responses to general circumstances, such as: getting lost, party member developing hypothermia (if they don't know the symptoms they shouldn't be unaccompanied etc) etc

from a leaders point of view knowing where your group is at any given time is invaluable. we don't have this system to puppy walk them.

yes you work hard and try and "meet" them at "random" points, or observe if visibility good. Just means you need to move fast and are arguably at more risk soloing to the meet than the group.

1) "reasonably practicable" does not mean without cash limits
2) a properly equipped group will not die because they were lost ( unless its winter or they fall off a cliff) - they might have an uncomfortable night somewhere

Ultimately these decisions have to be made and someone has to justify why they made them. You could have a helicopter following them at all times - would that be practicable of cost effective? Its the person who makes the decision that has to answer for it. So if your boss refuses the bit of kit then you are not responsible for something that that bit of kit might have prevented.

I would say a mobile phone is enough.

I am a great believer in active safety - avoiding accidents not passive safety - mitigating accidents when they occur

Jeees! No one died and I am asking a relevant question to an actual problem with refual to provide funding for something that can potentially save lives

more likely to cost lives as it will act as a crutch to send inadequately trained kids into wild country, "they must be safe we know what GR they are at" 50m difference in the right areas means your kids are in trouble

fYI the weather forecast was wrong and the weather turned without warning

not questioning this aspect, weather changes and forecasts are forecasts not cast iron predicitions, the groups training should have enabled tem to cope as envisaged by the award

the weather forecast was wrong and the weather turned without warning

then they have the escape route to either get them to lower ground or to an easier route to navigate - road etc.

These kids were not properly trained. I did DofE and had similar circumstances several times as a kid - but we were well trained and knew what to do and how to do it. Fog does not stop a compass working - it means you use a different technique and / or go to the escape route. Look at why this situation arose - inability to use map and compass in fog. Can that be mitigated at minimum cost? Yes - training - not buying technology.

Also I am not clear how the tracker actually improves safety? It does not stop them getting lost. It does not stop them making bad decisions. it just means you can get a helicopter to them more easily. Howeve3r If they have a mobile then this actually makes no difference. You up hone them up when they are late checking in and then use whistles, lights flares to locate tehm

I think its probably a security blanket for you rather than a safety aid for them.

You know we used to manage all this before mobile phones and gps

Aye TJ, you are right. we did cope without all this technology but now there is this technology is it reasonably practicable to ignore its benefits to safety?

Its all about what is reasonable.

From waht you say I see very little benefit to teh [i]trainees[/i] from it - just a security blanket to the [i]trainers[/i]

However if you ask for it and the boss says no then its not your responsibility.

I think the tracker is unnecessary. a mobile will do fine

I think the tracker is unnecessary. [b]adequate training[/b] will do fine

mobile phone are a destraction to them and they inevitably fail due to lack of signal or battery life. the device is small and they forget about it because they can't do anything with it it uses GPS and satellite frequencies to track them so doesn't rely on GSM.

You keep ignoring the near no cost option of ensuring they are trained correctly to deal with what is essentially British weather.

I also read this:

[url= http://www.dofe.org/media/viewfile.aspx?filetype=4&filepath=Expeditions%20-%20pdfs%20only/GREEN%20FORM%20MARCH%202010.doc ]DofE Green Form[/url]

which quite clearly directs you to provide full details of bad weather and emergency routes to higher authority. If the kids haven't got that or know how to act upon that, their training is lacking. Technology does not substitute for a lack of training to use the information you must provide to take them out.

You talk of being "refused funding". A spot tracker is €150 and the subscriptions are hardly expensive - if it is such an important issue to you then have a whip-round or buy one yourself.

Back in the day when I did my DOE, if mobile phones existed they were far from mobile, I remember a discussion about carrying an army style backpack radio to address a similar concern - what if someone got hurt/lost etc (on a practice excercise someone had got injured and been carried quite a long way). The conclusion was that it was not only impractical but also too expensive and would only bring a marginal benefit - just as a SPOT tracker will. We were "checking in" in some way every few miles. With a well planned and documented route then the rescue services would have a great starting point, and (in their terms) a tiny search area. E.g. - must be within 1.5 hrs walk of X,Y where they were last seen. Were last ween heading North, Were expected to head North for 2 miles then turn East.

An important point here was that is was OUR decision as DOE participants to explain to the Assessors before the trip what we were planning and how we expected to deal with various scenarios.

I agree mobile phones on a DOE expedition would probably be a bad idea in general but it might be considered "normal" practice to carry one as an emergency aid on the sort of trip they do. It would be quite feasible to equip them with a cheap mobile that is barred to only allow certain numbers. For a few tens of pounds you can probably get one which will let you track a GPS position as well (assuming there is signal). As with the checkpoint approach even if you know where they were and when you last "tracked" them then they can't really be that far. As I recall our parents were appraised of the sort of things we were being expected to do, and if none of them is kicking up a fuss saying "what about trackers" then its not totally your issue.

I'm sure there is a suggested kit list in the DOE manual in which case there is a "defence" as an assessor that you checked the recommended list.

Finally those who say "you asked your boss and he didn't provide the funds/equipment - so its not your problem" are on dodgy ground. If you'd asked him for tents and he said no would you tell them to do with out. He is simply saying the resource isn't there. You are making the decision to go in the absence of the equipment.

I think that highclimber has an unrealistic attitude to risk and has no idea what "reasonably practicable" means. To be brutally honest I wouldn't have anything to do with a DofE group any more as from what I can see lots of people have no idea about risk and how to consider it and mitigate if required in a manner that is reasonably practicable.