In December 2014 there was much discussion within the UK instructional and guiding community following the Fatal Accident Inquiry Determination into the tragic death of Graham Paterson on the Isle of Skye.
Sheriff Principal Derek CW Pyle made the following recommendations under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976:
1. Consideration should be given by Scottish Government and relevant stakeholders to discovering a means, whether statutory or otherwise, to ensure that mountain guides in Scotland are properly qualified and equipped to provide a commercial guiding service for adults.
2. The relevant authorities should inform the public of the importance for amateur climbers and hill walkers of at least two members of any party being fully equipped to deal with the possibility of an accident occurring to the leading member of the party.
The full determination can be viewed here at: https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=ba0fbba6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 (note the terms “mountain guide” is used generically in the document, rather than representing the qualification).
Personally I have no desire to dwell on the events of this tragic case particularly within a small mountaineering community. As ever it is important that we apply the lessons learnt from these incident’s to ensure our own safety as well as that of our clients.
Immediately after the determination (which in itself is less that specific), there was much discussion about the second recommendation and whether parties should be equipped with a multitude of technical devices to summon help. As usual views were polarised, mine included, as the recommendations for satellite phones, EPIRB’s, Spot Locator devices etc were championed on social media networks and in personal communication.
As usual ‘technology’ and tangible advances in equipment were pushed to the front of the discussion rather than considering the ethos of what Mountaineering Instructors and Mountain Guides are trying to achieve.
Firstly, we should and in many cases do, foster self reliance within groups regardless of whether we operate at 1:1 or on a much larger ratio. This simply means ensuring that members of the party are adequately equipped for the venture, have some situational awareness as to their location and the plan for the day, combined with a brief to summon help if required. All of these issues are well engrained in the Mountain Training UK Awards at all levels, for those who have chosen to undertake them.
Secondly, the choice of communication to summon help should be carefully considered on a needs based assessment. To do so those working in the mountains and amateur mountaineers should understand how to summon help and the timescales with which that resource can be sought. Finally, it’s worth considering whether one way communication e.g. Flares, EPIRB, Spot Locator or two way communication is more useful e.g. VHF Radio, mobile phone or satellite phone.
In discussing the panacea of “tech” many have failed to acknowledge the the first recommendation of statutory regulation.
The recommendation of statutory (or other) regulation of mountain guiding activities in Scotland is a radical departure from the current status quo in the UK as a whole. Currently, activity leadership in the hills and mountains of the UK is unregulated with the exception of those under 18.
Within the European Union the UK is one of the few countries which chooses not to regulate these activities. However, arguably we are in a way very good at self regulation within the industry, with a proven pathway to demonstrating competence as defined by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
The HSE acknowledge four ways to demonstrate competence: to hold a qualification, to hold an equivalent qualification (e.g from within the EU), to have received training by a suitable advisor (i.e. in house/organisation) or have significant experience. As such many people do the obvious thing and use the Mountain Training UK Awards as an obvious way to demonstrate competence by proxy.
The challenges with this complicated system is that it sadly isn’t very transparent for a client hiring somebody to take them into the mountains. While it should be encouraged that people ask questions when entering into a service agreement, the whole point of the instructional and guiding community is that individuals shouldn’t necessarily need to take the full responsibility of the enterprise?
Sadly, Mr Paterson didn’t hold a substantive Mountain Training UK qualification but had started the process registering for the Summer Mountain Leader Award. It should be noted however, that there was no legal requirement for him to do so.
As for statutory regulation, Sheriff Principal Derek Pyle made the stark observation that mountain guides should be properly qualified and equipped to provide services to adults. Critically, Mountain Training UK also issued a Briefing Note for its Providers and Association members regarding this Fatal Accident Inquiry – Skye.
This makes interesting reading and makes particular reference to the terms ‘Guide’, ‘Instructor’ and ‘Leader’ all of which relate to very specific qualifications. These titles are not legally protected and are frequently abused or simply ignored due to lack or understanding or apathy.
As instructors and guides perhaps we can be more transparent about how we use those terms, and those associated with them. e.g. Aspirant MIA, Aspirant MIC. Particularly, when they do not represent a position within the MTUK framework. Note: The names MIA and MIC have now been replaced by the MCI and WMCI respectively.
That’s one small thing that we can do as individuals to make our industry more transparent. If we can’t regulate ourselves effectively then somebody will probably do it for us.