Queen Scout Expeditions
Stephen Rainsbury
about their QSA Expedition.
Physically we are the furthest county in the UK from Wild Country which
makes getting there for practice hikes a right pain and expensive. They want
to look at the "Exploration" alternative, has anybody else tried this?
If nothing else its going to be terrain 0 so we don't need anybody with
authorisation to train them
--
Stephen Rainsbury
ADC(Scouts) Gillingham Kent
ESL Agathoid Explorer Scout Unit
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens" - Jimi Hendrix
Eddie Langdown
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
news:77Zrg.98624$wl.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
I heard a presentation by a leader from Lambeth who told us how his Venture
Scouts had done a canal boat trip for their QSA. I was gob-smacked... but he
explained that these particular young people had never done conventional
scouting, joining late and that the challenge of arranging it, booking the
boat, working together to do it was like climbing Everest for them......
and it was the challenge that was inportant.
The following year my Ventures canoed down the Thames from Letchlade to
Tower bridge, 10 days, no adult input or support, a hot-potch of old touring
boats, they got themselves a 'radio boat' to accompany them for the tidal
bit, I think they were trespassing for most of their sites ( especially in
Windsor Great Park). It wouldn't fit into the DofE Gold in any way... but
we all there cheering them under Tower bridge. It was the challenge. Real
Queen's Scout stuff.
I can't ses why ANYTHING shouldn't be acceptable for QSA..... bikes, water
skis, motor bikes, mopeds, it is the challenge of preparation, planning,
stickability, and teamwork; going beyond what they have ever done before.
This is not, and need not be DofE Gold.
Be imaginative and go for it!
Eddie Langdown GSL 16th Bermondsey, London
http://bermondseyscout.co.uk/
MatSav
news:77Zrg.98624$wl.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>about their QSA Expedition.
>
> Physically we are the furthest county in the UK from Wild Country which
> makes getting there for practice hikes a right pain and expensive. They
> want to look at the "Exploration" alternative, has anybody else tried
> this?
When I earned my QSA it was "peer-assessed" by the Executive Council of my
Venture Scout Unit, to see if I had met the personal challenges. Is this
still the case? (For medical reasons, I couldn't complete the 5-day
expedition, although I had completed the training - and I was allowed to
present on two shorter hikes that weren't in "wild country".)
The requirement is to "complete a five day and four night residential
project in an unfamiliar environment with people who are not known. This
project should be environmental work, activity based, service to others or
personal training". LOTS of opportunities here, not least of which is
attending a one-week Adult Training Course at Gilwell to satisfy the latter
requirement. For other options, try the British Trust for Conservation
Volunteers. Camp sites are ALWAYS looking for suitably qualified Summer
volunteers (e.g. kayak instructors at Longridge). As you say, travel from
Kent to Wales or other wild country is difficult - but surely there may be
suitable activities just across "La Manche" to meet either the exploration
or expedition requirement? Part of the challenge would be finding those
opportunities!
--
MatSav
Peter Sheppard
> project in an unfamiliar environment with people who are not known. This
> project should be environmental work, activity based, service to others or
> personal training". LOTS of opportunities here, not least of which is
> attending a one-week Adult Training Course at Gilwell to satisfy the
> latter requirement. For other options, try the British Trust for
> Conservation Volunteers. Camp sites are ALWAYS looking for suitably
> qualified Summer volunteers (e.g. kayak instructors at Longridge).
Yes, that's the Residential part, but just above it on the ScoutBase list
is..
"complete a four day and three night expedition in open or adventurous
country by foot, cycle, horse, canoe, boat or dinghy. The expedition should
involve careful preparation, training, responsibility and review"
MatSav
news:4hcnqnF...@individual.net...
"MatSav" wrote...
>> The requirement is to "complete a five day and four night residential
>> project ...
>
> Yes, that's the Residential part, but just above it on the ScoutBase list
> is..
>
> "complete a four day and three night expedition in open or adventurous
> country by foot, cycle, horse, canoe, boat or dinghy. The expedition
> should involve careful preparation, training, responsibility and review"
My mistake. I misread the requirements. These are two separate challenges,
aren't they - not "options".
--
MatSav
Stephen Rainsbury
in message news:irWdnXdtIYt0Ri3Z...@pipex.net...
> "Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> When I earned my QSA it was "peer-assessed" by the Executive Council of my
> Venture Scout Unit, to see if I had met the personal challenges. Is this
> still the case?
Nope if its QSA then its down to me, or the DESC if he isn't in hibernation
at the time :-)
> (For medical reasons, I couldn't complete the 5-day expedition, although I
> had completed the training - and I was allowed to present on two shorter
> hikes that weren't in "wild country".)
> The requirement is to "complete a five day and four night residential
> project in an unfamiliar environment with people who are not known. This
> project should be environmental work, activity based, service to others or
> personal training".
Err thats the Residential Project, not the expedition which is three nights
and four days in largely unihabited country.
For residential project mine will be hopefully going to Uganda next year.
Stephen Rainsbury
news:4hcnqnF...@individual.net...
> "complete a four day and three night expedition in open or adventurous
> country by foot, cycle, horse, canoe, boat or dinghy. The expedition
> should involve careful preparation, training, responsibility and review"
If its just QSA then I don't have problem, but they want to get Gold DofE
too, which has its own rules most of which seem to be aimed at people who
have not been in scouting for 12 years already.
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> I have quite long discussion the other night with some of our Networkers
> about their QSA Expedition.
>
> Physically we are the furthest county in the UK from Wild Country which
> makes getting there for practice hikes a right pain and expensive.
C'est la vie!
With proper planning, good support and a little help, there's no reason why
the distance from WC should be an insurmountable problem. You're looking at
a couple of practice hikes and then the expedition. Even those groups that
live close to WC often choose to do the expedition further away.
If you really want to do it...
> They want
> to look at the "Exploration" alternative, has anybody else tried this?
Eh? What's this?
IIRC there is no Exploration alternative.
The requirement - one of the 5 QSA challenges - is: to complete a four day
and three night expedition in open or adventurous country by foot, cycle,
horse, canoe, boat or dinghy. The expedition should involve careful
preparation, training, responsibility and review.
'Exploring' is part of the expedition.
What is meant by 'open or adventurous country'? Well there's no precise
definition, however, for expeditions on foot, on horseback, and by bike this
is normally understood to be WC remote from habitation where the particular
environment makes more demands on those taking part than they've previously
experienced for similar activities in previous awards. For mot candidates
that will mean an expedition to the Highlands & Islands of Scotland,
Southern Uplands of Scotland, Lake District, Peak District, Pennines, NYM,
Wales, or Dartmoor. However, one could consider coastal areas and estuaries
of marsh and fen that are reasonably remote from habitation. If one
considered a mix of travelling, some part on foot the other on water, then
there are parts of lowland Britain which might be of acceptable standard.
For expeditions on water then its rivers and inland waterways, coastal
estuaries, or lakes in rural areas.
How far do you have to travel? Well that sort of depends on what the purpose
of the expedition is. Is the purpose to complete a 'journey'? If so then
distance is a major factor and one would expect something in the order of 50
or 60 miles on foot with most of a day's activity being 'journeying' (i.e.
walking!) with some 'exploring' bits along the way. Is the purpose to
complete an exploration? If so then then one would accept a lower
'journeying' distance, maybe 30 miles, but with more time in the day devoted
to 'exploring'.
This is my view of what an expedition should be. It doesn't actually say
what is the precise definition of an expedition!
So can you find somewhere reasonably close to you, but still unfamiliar and
remote(ish) from habitation, where there's ample opportunity for an
'exploring project' slant to the expedition (2-3 hours work maybe a day) and
opportunity to cover a journey of say minimum 30 miles?
I think you'll be pushed to find somewhere suitable.
>
> If nothing else its going to be terrain 0 so we don't need anybody with
> authorisation to train them
>
That's okay because the requirements do not say that it has to be done in T1
or T2 areas!
However, the most appropriate country for the expedition - open and
adventurous - is that which has large areas of T1 and/or T2.
Also note that you don't need someone with an MHM authorisation to train
them! But you do need someone with an appropriate authorisation when you go
out into T1 and/or T2 areas for the expedition and practice hikes.
GAGS
GAGS
"Eddie Langdown" <the3...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4cSdnZWPy8s...@bt.com...
>
> I heard a presentation by a leader from Lambeth who told us how his
Venture
> Scouts had done a canal boat trip for their QSA. I was gob-smacked... but
he
> explained that these particular young people had never done conventional
> scouting, joining late and that the challenge of arranging it, booking the
> boat, working together to do it was like climbing Everest for them......
> and it was the challenge that was inportant.
That is okay as regards the requirements for the challenge.
> The following year my Ventures canoed down the Thames from Letchlade to
> Tower bridge, 10 days, no adult input or support, a hot-potch of old
touring
> boats, they got themselves a 'radio boat' to accompany them for the tidal
> bit, I think they were trespassing for most of their sites ( especially in
> Windsor Great Park).
So too is this.
> It wouldn't fit into the DofE Gold in any way...
Er... yes it probably would!
> but
> we all there cheering them under Tower bridge. It was the challenge. Real
> Queen's Scout stuff.
>
> I can't ses why ANYTHING shouldn't be acceptable for QSA..... bikes,
They're okay!
> water skis, motor bikes, mopeds,
They're not!
The expedition must be by foot, cycle, horse, canoe, boat or dinghy.
> it is the challenge of preparation, planning,
> stickability, and teamwork; going beyond what they have ever done before.
The expedition should involve careful preparation, training, responsibility
and review.
> This is not, and need not be DofE Gold.
It's one of the QSA challenges - nothing to do with DofE!
>
> Be imaginative and go for it!
Of course!
GAGS
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> "Peter Sheppard" <use...@petersheppard.com> wrote in message
> news:4hcnqnF...@individual.net...
>
> > "complete a four day and three night expedition in open or adventurous
> > country by foot, cycle, horse, canoe, boat or dinghy. The expedition
> > should involve careful preparation, training, responsibility and review"
>
> If its just QSA then I don't have problem,
Er... then why did you imply you had a problem in your opening post.
You do have a problem (according to you) because you are quite remote from
open and adventurous country if you're considering an expedition on foot.
Certainly the requirements do not say 'in T1 and/or T2 areas' but most 'open
and adventurous country' in Britain
of an acceptable standard for the challenge is in T1 and/or T2 areas.
The fact that you're not near such country is sadly for you a fact of life
(and geography)!
> but they want to get Gold DofE
> too,
You will find that the requirement standards of both the QSA expedition
challenge and the DofE Gold expedition are reasonably similar. Those in the
DofE award are more prescriptive and explicit, those in the QSA are not
prescriptive but implicit.
The only major differences of any note are in the organisation and
administration. For example, there is no DofE requirement for
supervisors/leaders to hold a specific authorisation while in scouting for
activities in T1 and/or T2 there is. (While DofE WC is not the same as
Scouting's T1 and T2 it's reasonably similar.) For scouting the expedition
is locally organised and administered, however, for DofE any expedition in
WC needs to be approved through a WC panel.
If you want to count an expedition for both the QSA expedition challenge and
the DofE Gold expedition section then you must meet all the requirements of
both organisations. That's largely two bits of admin to do!
> which has its own rules most of which seem to be aimed at people who
> have not been in scouting for 12 years already.
In what way?
GAGS
chris.5th
Our venture unit didn't do wild walking. I had done a bit... but the 3
girls that i was doing it with had not done much walking at all before.
Our expedition was around the chilterns. No... not wild. We could buy
ice crams from newsagents etc. But we still had to walk alot, carry
our gear, plan (and plan and plan) do practice walks and practice
overnight stays. We had to write letters to famrs to find places to
stay etc etc/
It was a major challenge. It took lots of effort. And I am still (9
years later) very proud of myself.
So don't think that a QSA expedition must be a cross-Scotland trek...
it should be challenging... and there should be a sense of real
achievement at the end of it.
GAGS
"chris.5th" <chri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152525160....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Our venture unit didn't do wild walking.
Wild walking! Did they just put one foot in front of the other? :-)
> I had done a bit... but the 3
> girls that i was doing it with had not done much walking at all before.
So if they didn't do walking, what did they do before? Crawl? :-)
(Sorry! Yes I'm reaching for it.)
> Our expedition was around the chilterns. No... not wild. We could buy
> ice crams from newsagents etc.
Ice crams sound.......
> But we still had to walk alot, carry
> our gear, plan (and plan and plan) do practice walks and practice
> overnight stays. We had to write letters to famrs to find places to
> stay etc etc/
>
> It was a major challenge. It took lots of effort. And I am still (9
> years later) very proud of myself.
>
> So don't think that a QSA expedition must be a cross-Scotland trek...
A cross-Scotland trek is not suitable for a QSA expedition challenge, nor
for that matter would it be suitable for a DofE Gold expedition.
> it should be challenging... and there should be a sense of real
> achievement at the end of it.
Of course!
While an expedition in non-wild country should not be ruled out and might
well be suitable for some groups at this level the vast majority of groups
should be looking at doing the challenge in a wild country area, which is
much more likely to meet the requirement of it being done in open and
adventurous country.
Right now I've reached the hanger I'll get me coat on now! :-)
GAGS
Alan Dicey
>
> A cross-Scotland trek is not suitable for a QSA expedition challenge, nor
> for that matter would it be suitable for a DofE Gold expedition.
>
Can you explain why? Bear in mind that if you are successful in your
argument I will have to hand in my Queens Scout Award.
Eddie Langdown
"Alan Dicey" <al...@removethis.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44b2b8c9$0$69380$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
I,m looking forward to this one!
Eddie
GAGS
"Alan Dicey" <al...@removethis.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44b2b8c9$0$69380$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> >
> > A cross-Scotland trek is not suitable for a QSA expedition challenge,
nor
> > for that matter would it be suitable for a DofE Gold expedition.
> >
>
> Can you explain why?
Very happy to oblige!
Let's remember the context here. A poster (chris5th) was discussing the
suitability of a certain type of terrain for an expedition at this level and
their argument (quite correctly) was that it doesn't necessarily have to be
'wild country' and a case could be made in some circumstances for it to be
in non-wild country that was sufficiently open and adventurous - a challenge
suited for particular participants.
He remarked: 'So don't think that a QSA expedition must be a cross-Scotland
trek...' Furthermore, he could just as easily have said: 'So don't think
that a QSA expedition must be a cross-Himalaya trek...' Etc. What he was
intimating (tell me if I'm wrong chris!) was that a QSA expedition doesn't
have to be some sooper-dooper, back-breaking, out of this world challenge
reserved for super-humans. (Or some such like thought!)
And he's quite correct.
The point I was making merely supported his assertion by saying that a
'cross-Scotland trek' is not suitable for a QSA or DofE Gold expedition.
What did I mean by a cross-Scotland trek? Did a mean a trek in Scotland? No.
Did I mean a trek across part of Scotland? No. Did I mean a trek across
Scotland from one coast to another of about 50-60 miles? No.
I meant a trek 'across' Scotland something like Glasgow to Inverness via
Loch Lomond, Glencoe, Ben Nevis, and the Cairngorms taking in all the high
peaks along the way! That sort of trek 'across' Scotland is definitely not
suitable for a QSA or DofE Gold expedition.
Equally, completing one of the LDP's such as the Pennine Way again also is
not suitable (neither does it meet the aims, principles and requirements of
either award).
And you could just simply take the fact that one is not going to complete
these treks in the allotted time! Doing something like 80 miles in the four
days is bloody good going; doing 80 miles over big mountains and hills with
a full pack in that time would be a considerable feat. (IIRC, the record for
running the PW is only just under 3 days and we're talking top-class
fell-runners!)
(Furthermore, walking 80 miles down the motorway also won't get you either
award!)
'Across' in the context here meant a considerable distance with a
considerable number of mountains in between!
>Bear in mind that if you are successful in your
> argument
Well was I?
> I will have to hand in my Queens Scout Award.
Er...don't think so. What I meant by 'cross-Scotland' was not likely to be
what you meant or what you did.
What the QSA expedition and DofE gold expedition are looking for is
candidates taking on an achievable, suitable challenge. They don't demand
super-human feats, in fact both will frown upon super-human feats being the
norm or the expectation.
GAGS
Stephen Rainsbury
news:44b19...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> With proper planning, good support and a little help, there's no reason
> why
> the distance from WC should be an insurmountable problem. You're looking
> at
> a couple of practice hikes and then the expedition. Even those groups that
> live close to WC often choose to do the expedition further away.
> If you really want to do it...
Fo use to get kids to WC areas we have to hire a minibus for 4-5 days, its
too far for parents, too expensive and awkward by train, possible by bus but
local connections can be a problem as many small buses kick up about
rucksacks!
The other pain is that none of us are T0 trained its just to far and the
cost mounts up to get the 22 (?) days sorted out, so we end up having to pay
somebody local, even if only expenses and again teh price adds up.
>> They want
>> to look at the "Exploration" alternative, has anybody else tried this?
>
> Eh? What's this?
>
> IIRC there is no Exploration alternative.
I was referring to this bit:
"Wild Country, remote from habitation which is unfamiliar to the
Participants. The environment should make more demands on Participants than
that used at Silver level. Remote estuaries, marshes, fens and coastal areas
may provide an appropriate environment for an Expedition with the emphasis
on exploring rather than journeying, but must still be remote from
habitation."
> How far do you have to travel?
It says "At least 8 hours during the daytime"
> I think you'll be pushed to find somewhere suitable.
They are considering some ancient trackway across Norfolk, which will
involve the use of canoes at one point,
> However, the most appropriate country for the expedition - open and
> adventurous - is that which has large areas of T1 and/or T2.
> Also note that you don't need someone with an MHM authorisation to train
> them! But you do need someone with an appropriate authorisation when you
> go
> out into T1 and/or T2 areas for the expedition and practice hikes.
Which brings me back to the creeping cost element. To be honest we can get
to France cheaper and I am looking round there for somewhere suitable.
Stephen Rainsbury
news:44b19...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>> which has its own rules most of which seem to be aimed at people who
>> have not been in scouting for 12 years already.
>
> In what way?
The DofE is supposed to be about commitment, but somebody who has made it
from Beavers to Network has already demonstrated that in trumps, yet still
they are bound to the average of 1 hour a week for skills, physical and
service.
At the moment I have 4 lads who are out Thursdays for Unit meetings, Mondays
for Beavers, Alternate Tuesdays for trampolining and the other Tuesdays on a
shooting course. All of this requires parents support and some have said
"enough!" I am not taking him out three nights a week, I have other kids who
need my time too!
No where can I find a similar requirement for the CSA or QSA, in fact it
doesn't even stipulate how many hours!
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/badges/explorer-tqsa.htm
Alan Dicey
>>>
>>> A cross-Scotland trek is not suitable for a QSA expedition
>>> challenge, nor for that matter would it be suitable for a DofE Gold
>>> expedition.
I wrote
>> Can you explain why?
GAGS wrote:
> Very happy to oblige!
I'll just interject here with the definitions I am working with and a
description of my QSA expedition.
Current requirements for QSA expedition:
Complete a four day and three night expedition in open or adventurous
country by foot, cycle, horse, canoe, boat or dinghy. The expedition
should involve careful preparation, training, responsibility and review
Requirements for a QSA expedition in 1969:
Exploration - 5-day expedition
Take a leading part in a five-day expedition. The expedition should
consist of 4-8 members, who select two or more pre-arranged tasks of
their own choosing. It may be carried out on foot (50 miles in wild
country), by canoe, on horseback, etc. There is a complete choice in
the method of presenting your report (e.g. verbally, by tape, on film,
written, etc.)
In my case the expedition was undertaken during a Scout summer camp by
Inverasdale, on the West side of Loch Ewe. I was born and brought up in
Sunderland, so the journey was half as long as it would be from Kent,
and we did it by train.
The expedition was from Stac Pollaidh back to the campsite, taking in
the ascent of Beinn Dearg (the Munro near Ullapool,not any of the many
other Red Hills in the Highlands). The two tasks were the ascents of
Stac Pollaidh and Beinn Dearg. My leading part was Navigator - I chose
the route and did all the route-finding on the ground.
We presented a typed report with photographs, which I still have my copy
of. All this was in 1969. I think this falls under the
generally-accepted description of a "cross-Scotland trek"
> Let's remember the context here. A poster (chris5th) was discussing
> the suitability of a certain type of terrain for an expedition at this
> level and their argument (quite correctly) was that it doesn't
> necessarily have to be 'wild country' and a case could be made in some
> circumstances for it to be in non-wild country that was sufficiently
> open and adventurous - a challenge suited for particular participants.
As you can see above, that requirement has been relaxed since my day.
(Cue Four Yorkshiremen sketch)
> He remarked: 'So don't think that a QSA expedition must be a
> cross-Scotland trek...' Furthermore, he could just as easily have
> said: 'So don't think that a QSA expedition must be a cross-Himalaya
> trek...' Etc. What he was intimating (tell me if I'm wrong chris!) was
> that a QSA expedition doesn't have to be some sooper-dooper,
> back-breaking, out of this world challenge reserved for super-humans.
I would interpret the ellipsis at the end of chris5th's statement "So
don't think that a QSA expedition must be a cross-Scotland trek..." to
indicate the omission of words to the effect "but it can be." to
complete the sentence. A cross-Scotland trek can easily be planned to
fit within the current QSA requirements - Ullapool to Bonar Bridge, for
instance.
> What did I mean by a cross-Scotland trek? Did a mean a trek in
> Scotland? No. Did I mean a trek across part of Scotland? No. Did I
> mean a trek across Scotland from one coast to another of about 50-60
> miles? No.
> I meant a trek 'across' Scotland something like Glasgow to Inverness
> via Loch Lomond, Glencoe, Ben Nevis, and the Cairngorms taking in all
> the high peaks along the way!
You have taken an extreme interpretation of the phrase. This is not
reasonable without some additional qualification of the bare statement
"A cross-Scotland trek is not suitable for a QSA expedition challenge"
on your part.
I agree that an "up, down and around Scotland" expedition exceeds the
QSA requirements :-)
<snip>
> 'Across' in the context here meant a considerable distance with a
> considerable number of mountains in between!
We appear to use different dictionaries :-)
>>Bear in mind that if you are successful in your argument
> Well was I?
No, we have agreed to disagree about the value assigned to
"cross-Scotland" by an average reader.
>> I will have to hand in my Queens Scout Award.
> Er...don't think so. What I meant by 'cross-Scotland' was not likely
> to be what you meant or what you did.
:-)
Neil Williams
> Fo use to get kids to WC areas we have to hire a minibus for 4-5 days, its
> too far for parents, too expensive and awkward by train
It may be a bit of a challenge, but it's not impossible, and if you're
talking under 16s with over-16 supervision a Family Railcard can make
it quite cheap. If you're more sensitive about price than travel time,
consider Megabus (from London) or National Express.
> The other pain is that none of us are T0 trained its just to far and the
> cost mounts up to get the 22 (?) days sorted out, so we end up having to pay
> somebody local, even if only expenses and again teh price adds up.
There is plenty of suitably wild country that isn't in T1 or T2. My
QSA expedition took place in the North York Moors, which is far more
isolated than any of the Lakes. There's the Anglesey coastal path, as
another example. You don't have to go up Big Hills (tm).
So far as travel went, we did Thirsk to Scarborough - to fit with the
trains!
> Which brings me back to the creeping cost element. To be honest we can get
> to France cheaper and I am looking round there for somewhere suitable.
Sounds good. My sister did hers in the Republic of Ireland.
Neil
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
> news:44b19...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> >
> > With proper planning, good support and a little help, there's no reason
> > why
> > the distance from WC should be an insurmountable problem.
> snip
> Fo use to get kids to WC areas we have to hire a minibus for 4-5 days, its
> too far for parents, too expensive and awkward by train, possible by bus
but
> local connections can be a problem as many small buses kick up about
> rucksacks!
As I said: If you really want to do it...these sort of things can be
overcome.
>
> The other pain is that none of us are T0 trained
I think you mean MHM authorised! If we had to have training for T0 we'd be
well up whatsit creek without a paddle!
Now that I would accept as a major hurdle.
> its just to far
Nah!
> and the
> cost mounts up to get the 22 (?) days sorted out,
It's only money! :-)
> so we end up having to pay
> somebody local, even if only expenses and again teh price adds up.
We're not talking Łk's!
>
> >> They want
> >> to look at the "Exploration" alternative, has anybody else tried this?
> >
> > Eh? What's this?
> >
> > IIRC there is no Exploration alternative.
>
> I was referring to this bit:
>
> "Wild Country, remote from habitation which is unfamiliar to the
> Participants. The environment should make more demands on Participants
than
> that used at Silver level. Remote estuaries, marshes, fens and coastal
areas
> may provide an appropriate environment for an Expedition with the emphasis
> on exploring rather than journeying, but must still be remote from
> habitation."
It's all Expedition! There is no Exploration alternative. As I said, in
every expedition there is a balance between journeying and exploring. What
you are referring to here is an expedition which has a larger exploring
element compared to the journeying element. Every expedition should be about
jorneying and discovering.
>
> > How far do you have to travel?
>
> It says "At least 8 hours during the daytime"
No. It's 8 hours 'work' on the purpose of the expedition. If it's an
expedition that focuses more on journeying then it means that a team might
be expected to do maybe a minimum of 6-8h walking and 0-2h 'exploring'. If
it's an expedition that focuses more on exploring then it means that a team
might be expected to do maybe a minimum of 4-6h walking and 2-4h
'exploring'.
>
> > I think you'll be pushed to find somewhere suitable.
>
> They are considering some ancient trackway across Norfolk, which will
> involve the use of canoes at one point,
Yes if you have a mixed expedition - on foot and on water - then you could
find places in non-wild country which can sufficiently meet the open and
adventurous requirement.
Be aware that merely following an established LDP (long distance footpath)
such as the Peddar's Way/Norfolk Coast Path (or large sections of a LDP) may
not be sufficient to meet the requirement of the environment making the
expected demands on participants.
>
> > However, the most appropriate country for the expedition - open and
> > adventurous - is that which has large areas of T1 and/or T2.
>
> > Also note that you don't need someone with an MHM authorisation to train
> > them! But you do need someone with an appropriate authorisation when you
> > go
> > out into T1 and/or T2 areas for the expedition and practice hikes.
>
> Which brings me back to the creeping cost element.
But we're not talking Łk's! Cost isn't an insurmountable problem.
> To be honest we can get
> to France cheaper and I am looking round there for somewhere suitable.
You have to go a bit further S than Calais to find open and adventurous
country! And the further you go the more it'll cost...
Cost can't be ignored, but if you keep on being fixated with cost you'll end
up worrying about doing anything that takes you 10 yards from the front
door.
You could wait a few million years for global tectonics to bring the
mountains nearer to you or you nearer the mountains! :-)
>
I'll get me coat!
GAGS
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
> news:44b19...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> >> which has its own rules most of which seem to be aimed at people who
> >> have not been in scouting for 12 years already.
> >
> > In what way?
>
> The DofE is supposed to be about commitment, but somebody who has made it
> from Beavers to Network has already demonstrated that in trumps, yet still
> they are bound to the average of 1 hour a week for skills, physical and
> service.
That's what it says you have to do for the award. If people don't want to do
it then...
>
> At the moment I have 4 lads who are out Thursdays for Unit meetings,
Mondays
> for Beavers, Alternate Tuesdays for trampolining and the other Tuesdays on
a
> shooting course. All of this requires parents support and some have said
> "enough!" I am not taking him out three nights a week, I have other kids
who
> need my time too!
Well the participants are just going to have to sort it out with their mums
and dads!
I didn't have a personal taxi service on call when I was their age.
If they really want to do it and they need parental support then they'll do
it and find it.
>
> No where can I find a similar requirement for the CSA or QSA, in fact it
> doesn't even stipulate how many hours!
>
> http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/badges/explorer-tqsa.htm
>
But you're not going to get these awards by turning up for an hour once in a
while!
GAGS
Stephen Rainsbury
news:1152626148.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Stephen Rainsbury wrote:
>
> It may be a bit of a challenge, but it's not impossible, and if you're
> talking under 16s with over-16 supervision a Family Railcard can make
> it quite cheap. If you're more sensitive about price than travel time,
> consider Megabus (from London) or National Express.
They all have to be over 16 to sign up for DofE Gold.
I tend to avoid National express for expeditons the last two times we used
them I had a run in with teh driver because we had rucksacks not suitcases,
one even told us to unpack them into rubbish sacks and put them in a
differrent compartment to the bags!!??!! I never understood that and still
don't but the bloody complaints and moaning, I almost walked.
> There is plenty of suitably wild country that isn't in T1 or T2. My
> QSA expedition took place in the North York Moors, which is far more
> isolated than any of the Lakes. There's the Anglesey coastal path, as
> another example. You don't have to go up Big Hills (tm).
MIne too, is the moors really T0? Thats interesting :-)
> So far as travel went, we did Thirsk to Scarborough - to fit with the
> trains!
We did a circular route from Helmsley Scout Center.
Neil Williams
> They all have to be over 16 to sign up for DofE Gold.
Good point.
> I tend to avoid National express for expeditons the last two times we used
> them I had a run in with teh driver because we had rucksacks not suitcases,
> one even told us to unpack them into rubbish sacks and put them in a
> differrent compartment to the bags!!??!! I never understood that and still
> don't but the bloody complaints and moaning, I almost walked.
That's just odd, given that students, young tourists and the likes (who
you'd think would be more likely to have rucksacks than suitcases) are
a major part of NatEx's customer base. I would just put it down to
coach drivers in a bad mood...
> MIne too, is the moors really T0? Thats interesting :-)
A brief look at the map suggests that a large amount of it is, subject
to the distance from a road that can take an ambulance stipulation. It
goes up and down (with the valleys running north-south, unfortunately
for our route!) rather than having high peaks.
Neil
Eddie Langdown
>> QSA expedition took place in the North York Moors, which is far more
>> isolated than any of the Lakes. There's the Anglesey coastal path, as
>> another example. You don't have to go up Big Hills (tm).
>
> MIne too, is the moors really T0? Thats interesting :-)
>
>> So far as travel went, we did Thirsk to Scarborough - to fit with the
>> trains!
>
> We did a circular route from Helmsley Scout Center.
>
>
> --
> Stephen Rainsbury
> ADC(Scouts) Gillingham Kent
> ESL Agathoid Explorer Scout Unit
> "Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens" - Jimi Hendrix
I just can't see this need for hills and moors!
Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Sommerset have miles of rolling and almost
totally deserted countryside.
What 'villages' there are void of any approachable habbitation, i would
think it very suitable for QS or DofE Gold, far more demanding in terms
'wilderness' and self reliance than much of the tourist- infested Lakes and
Dales.
But once again the scouting lemmings all climb aboard the busses North, or
West and babble-on about T1 & T2.
And Stephen might have a point; I don't know Northern France very well, but
the few times I have been driving through there, i can't say i have seen
much habitation! Probably really challenging for many Young People doing
DofE Gold or QSA, especially if they had to work-out all their own logistics
& travel, but, oh dear, no big hills! So it can't really be challenging can
it?
Stephen Rainsbury
> I think you mean MHM authorised! If we had to have training for T0 we'd be
> well up whatsit creek without a paddle!
I can never remember TLAs or which way round T0/T2 go :-)
>> so we end up having to pay
>> somebody local, even if only expenses and again teh price adds up.
>
> We're not talking £k's!
Its not the money but the cost on my already strained marriage :-)
> Yes if you have a mixed expedition - on foot and on water - then you could
> find places in non-wild country which can sufficiently meet the open and
> adventurous requirement.
>
> Be aware that merely following an established LDP (long distance footpath)
> such as the Peddar's Way/Norfolk Coast Path (or large sections of a LDP)
> may
> not be sufficient to meet the requirement of the environment making the
> expected demands on participants.
Its not maked on the OS map, they will have to piece it together from books
and aerial photographs. In fact working it out and walking it is the purpose
of the expedtion.
Two of them have been researching it today and now they want to know if they
can take a day off in the middle to build a coracle!!! I have absolutly no
idea but it would seem to be in the spirit of the idea. Th eother option is
they build it at site on day -1 and somebody drops it off for them at the
right place.
> But we're not talking £k's! Cost isn't an insurmountable problem.
Agreed, finnacially we are not badly off, its been hard work but we have
enough kit now that we havn't had to borrow anything for 6 months :-) (We
can put 16 people out on expedtion, or 20 on a standing camp, and a base
camp complete with group catering and IT :-) Its amazing what people don't
use and will give you if you ask :-)
Our biggest commitment next year is that 4 of the 5 people from our district
jambo contingent are in our unit. The original deal was that their groups
would pay 33% and the district would pay another 33% however their groups
haven't seen them for a couple of years and we are going to have to pick up
the tab, ie around £1200!
We have a couple of fundraisers booked but so far we have only made just
over £100.
>> To be honest we can get
>> to France cheaper and I am looking round there for somewhere suitable.
>
> You have to go a bit further S than Calais to find open and adventurous
> country! And the further you go the more it'll cost...
Its all adventurous, none of them speak french :-)
> Cost can't be ignored, but if you keep on being fixated with cost you'll
> end
> up worrying about doing anything that takes you 10 yards from the front
> door.
Its all a matter of balancing the finances. 4 Doing QSA, anther 4 on the
Jambo, plus we are looking at getting some canoe and diving kit next year.
We wil get the money somehow but its not going to be easy and if we can save
on one area then there will be more for others.
> You could wait a few million years for global tectonics to bring the
> mountains nearer to you or you nearer the mountains! :-)
They never came down this far south, even in the Ice Age.
Stephen Rainsbury
> But you're not going to get these awards by turning up for an hour once in
> a
> while!
I don't know why not, the schools do :-)
Stephen Rainsbury
> That's just odd, given that students, young tourists and the likes (who
> you'd think would be more likely to have rucksacks than suitcases) are
> a major part of NatEx's customer base. I would just put it down to
> coach drivers in a bad mood...
Yes, we really need our own bus now :-)
> to the distance from a road that can take an ambulance stipulation. It
> goes up and down (with the valleys running north-south, unfortunately
> for our route!) rather than having high peaks.
I really loved it up there :-)
Stephen Rainsbury
> I just can't see this need for hills and moors!
> Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Sommerset have miles of rolling and
> almost totally deserted countryside.
> What 'villages' there are void of any approachable habbitation, i would
> think it very suitable for QS or DofE Gold, far more demanding in terms
> 'wilderness' and self reliance than much of the tourist- infested Lakes
> and Dales.
Thats roughly what I was thinking.
> But once again the scouting lemmings all climb aboard the busses North, or
> West and babble-on about T1 & T2.
I wasn't going to put it quite like that. :-)
GAGS
> Stephen Rainsbury wrote:
>
>
> > MIne too, is the moors really T0? Thats interesting :-)
>
> A brief look at the map suggests that a large amount of it is,
An even briefer look at a map of Snowdonia or the Lake District will tell
you that they too have large amounts of T0!
> subject
> to the distance from a road that can take an ambulance stipulation.
It's that distance from a road that's important when considering somewhere
to be 'open'.
If one's choosing the NYM for an expedition then one's going to have to
travel to a fair degree on parts of the moors away from the roads and in
many of these instances that's going to put you in T1.
You can't really do an expedition in the NYM wholly in T0 because in doing
so you'll fail to a significant degree to meet the requirement of open and
adventurous country; expeditions (DofE Gold and QSA) there will have to
cover a large degree of T1 terrain.
Same applies to Snowdonia and the Lakes, but there you're also likely to hit
upon T2 terrain.
GAGS
Neil Williams
> You can't really do an expedition in the NYM wholly in T0 because in doing
> so you'll fail to a significant degree to meet the requirement of open and
> adventurous country; expeditions (DofE Gold and QSA) there will have to
> cover a large degree of T1 terrain.
Is there a definition of open and adventurous country? I don't think
the presence of a road would necessarily fail this; if it did you could
count out a good amount of the Lakes and Peaks.
Several operating authorities run various DoE expeditions in the
mid-Bucks area using our county campsite at Braid Wood as one night.
Bucks is a lot more rural than many would think - but it does have many
(minor) roads. I don't think they are necessarily in the wrong by
doing so, so long as the route is chosen carefully.
Neil
GAGS
> GAGS wrote:
>
> > You can't really do an expedition in the NYM wholly in T0 because in
doing
> > so you'll fail to a significant degree to meet the requirement of open
and
> > adventurous country; expeditions (DofE Gold and QSA) there will have to
> > cover a large degree of T1 terrain.
>
> Is there a definition of open and adventurous country?
A precise definition? No.
However, open and adventurous are adjectives that describe a terrain that is
unbounded and one which contains elements of risk; wild country, but not
necessarily wilderness, I believe is a better description of the country and
terrain that is envisaged. That type of country is to be found in places
such as Dartmoor, Snowdonia, Mid-Wales, Brecon Beacons & Black Mountains,
Peak District, Dales and Pennines, Lake District, Cheviots, the Southern
Uplands, and the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. It does not describe the
vast amount of country south and east of the Tees-Exe line.
> I don't think
> the presence of a road would necessarily fail this;
I would agree.
> if it did you could
> count out a good amount of the Lakes and Peaks.
True they are not without roads!
However, they contain large tracts of countryside that have little or no
roads; countryside over which the full range of skills expected of QSA (or
DofE Gold) award candidates can be shown.
You are not going to be able to demonstrate a wide range of those skills if
you keep largely to T0 areas. We're not talking about height here! (Though
much open and adventurous country is at some height.) We're also talking
about remoteness.
>
> Several operating authorities run various DoE expeditions in the
> mid-Bucks area using our county campsite at Braid Wood as one night.
No problem with that.
> Bucks is a lot more rural than many would think
So too are a lot of counties in SE Britain!
> - but it does have many
> (minor) roads.
And so too does wild country.
> I don't think they are necessarily in the wrong by
> doing so, so long as the route is chosen carefully.
>
But I very much doubt that they are running DofE Gold expeditions in Bucks!
DofE expeditions, just like Scouting expeditions, are progressive. The
challenge of the terrain and the higher level of skills demanded increases
from Bronze to Silver to Gold, just the same as it does in the various CS
awards to the QSA.
If you do a Bronze expedition in Bucks and then do a Gold in the same
area/countryside/terrain the level of skills that is demanded is not going
to greatly vary between the two. If one completes Bronze (or Scouting
equivalent) then one should reasonably expect to be able to complete Gold
(or Scouting equivalent) without any greatly enhanced level of skill with
the exception of physcially being able to walk further.
I think you would find it very difficult to plot a route for a Gold/QSA
expedition in Bucks that would demand a higher and wider range of skills to
be demonstrated than the equivalent in say Snowdonia or the Lakes or in any
of the conventionally accepted wild country areas.
GAGS
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> to the distance from a road that can take an ambulance stipulation. It
The road bit is NOT a stipulation.
The requirements of that part of the definition are met if you are;
within 30 minutes travelling time from a road which can take an
ordinary road-going ambulance
OR
a building which is occupied (such as a farm)
OR
another means of summoning help (such as a telephone box);
Do the rules specifically exclude a mobile phone (assuming your within
reception) as "another means of summoning help" ?
Alan Dicey
>
> Do the rules specifically exclude a mobile phone (assuming your within
> reception) as "another means of summoning help" ?
>
You can't rely on a mobile phone as there is no way to predict where the
reception is going to drop out. Carry one (switched off to preserve the
batteries) as an extra safety accessory, but never rely on it.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> reception is going to drop out.
Accepted, so when it drops out go back.
Alan Dicey
cellphone signal bar, and your route would be defined by the areas of
cellphone reception, which is ridiculous. Add to that the fact that the
battery would give up pretty soon (as reception gets marginal, the phone
increases the signal power) making your emergency contact device useless.
Neil Williams
> The road bit is NOT a stipulation.
Yes it is - it's just one of the 3 ;)
> The requirements of that part of the definition are met if you are;
>
> within 30 minutes travelling time from a road which can take an
> ordinary road-going ambulance
>
> OR
>
> a building which is occupied (such as a farm)
>
> OR
>
> another means of summoning help (such as a telephone box);
OK, now can someone explain me this... most rural roads, even
single-track ones, can take an ordinary road-going ambulance. However,
if you're in the middle of nowhere, without a working mobile phone
you'd have a job summoning one, and a car may well not pass for hours.
Given that, what's the logic in #1 on its own, if neither #2 or #3 is
the case? Surely a more logical approach would be #1 AND (#2 OR #3)?
Neil
GAGS
There are 3 parts to the definition of T0.
All parts must be satisfied. Parts 1 and 3 are concerned with below 500m and
no scrambling respectively.
Part 2 is concerned with the means of summoning help. It says exactly what
SP said! In each of its clauses it's OR not AND!
You're correct in arguing that a vehicle may well not pass for hours,
however, in part 2 the definition is not written with thoughts of somehow
defining what is a safe area and what is not; it simply demarcates an area.
The 3 clauses identify where you are likely to get help, not where you may
get help.
A car is not likely to pass you at all if there isn't a road!
A car may not pass you on the road. The building may not be occupied (note,
not deserted). The phone may be out of order.
Think about it. How can you be sure that a car will pass? You can't be sure
of that on any road in the country! Can you be sure that the building will
be occupied? No! (Are you going to ask the occupants to remain at home while
you're out on your walk?) Can you be sure that the phone is working? No! So
if it was AND then we can't be sure of anywhere in the country and therefore
all of the country must be defined as T0. That's nonsense!
While the definitions of T0 appear to be concerned with demarcating in terms
of safety, they are not. They simply define an area. That's all.
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152771910.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The 3rd clause is a 'catch-all' type of clause. In most cases it's going to
be understood to be a telephone box (the other thing it could be is a
railway line), but you never know it could be a manned radio relay station
(even though you don't often find someone sitting permanently in the middle
of a field with a radio) or maybe a carrier-pigeon post (though I haven't
seen any of these around much!) or some such like!
No the rules don't specifically exclude this being a mobile phone, however,
one would have to also ensure that it was manned, it had a continuous power
supply, and it could receive and transmit at all times. That can't be
guaranteed. (Though neither I suppose can one guarantee that a
carrier-pigeon will know its way home and that its owner will be in when and
if it arrives!)
If everyone carried a mobile phone, could ensure it had power, and could
ensure it would always be able to transmit and receive, then it would mean
that everywhere in the country below 500m, non-scrambling terain, would be
T0.
Anyhow, this clause is all about defining an area on a map, it's not about
safety per se.
Certainly the rule has been constructed with the thought of safety and risk
in mind, but in the end it is just about defining an area by simple means.
GAGS
GAGS
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> cellphone signal bar, and your route would be defined by the areas of
> cellphone reception, which is ridiculous. Add to that the fact that the
> battery would give up pretty soon (as reception gets marginal, the phone
> increases the signal power) making your emergency contact device useless.
You might think its ridiculous, but that is how the rules in POR have
been written.
If people want to stay close to the road then fine, they do that.
If you want to travel further afield, and still stay within the rules,
why should leaders not use the rules as they are written ?
As long as you are no more than 30 mins travelling time away fron the
last point when you had mobile reception (the means of summoning help)
then you are within that part of the rules for T0. Check reception
every 25 mins or so you should be OK.
If you have a favourite walk that you know (from past experience) is
always no more that 30 mins out of reception range, then its T0
assuming the height and scrambling bits are met.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> of safety, they are not. They simply define an area. That's all.
I think the meaning behind the T0 definition would be a lot clearer if
it did not make referance to an ambulance. In terms of defining an area
then what is so special about an ambulance ?
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> ensure it would always be able to transmit and receive, then it would mean
> that everywhere in the country below 500m, non-scrambling terain, would be
> T0.
I dont think you need to be able to guarantee 100% that the mobile will
always work, for the same reason that you cant guarantee 100% that
buildings will be occupied or that telephone kiosks on the map are
still there and working or that the road is curently accessible by the
fabled ambulance.
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152824972.9...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Impractical. One person would have to keep their eye permanently on the
> > cellphone signal bar, and your route would be defined by the areas of
> > cellphone reception, which is ridiculous. Add to that the fact that the
> > battery would give up pretty soon (as reception gets marginal, the phone
> > increases the signal power) making your emergency contact device
useless.
>
> You might think its ridiculous, but that is how the rules in POR have
> been written.
No! That is the way how you have interpreted the rules.
You are suggesting that the definitions of terrain are flexible to some
degree and that the defined area can somehow change according to how you
arrange your communications.
The definitions of terrain have got nothing to do with safety! They simply
are a method to enable you to draw a line on a map which demarcates terrain
into 0, 1 or 2. That's all.
They don't change because mobile phone reception changes or because you can
arrange it so that the reception doesn't change.
>
> If people want to stay close to the road then fine, they do that.
>
> If you want to travel further afield, and still stay within the rules,
> why should leaders not use the rules as they are written ?
You are interpreting them in the wrong way!
>
> As long as you are no more than 30 mins travelling time away fron the
> last point when you had mobile reception (the means of summoning help)
> then you are within that part of the rules for T0. Check reception
> every 25 mins or so you should be OK.
No! This last clause was written to define a point on a map where there is
likely to be a fixed means of communicating with someone else. That point
does not change because the mobile phone reception changes.
Your interpretation is far too literal.
>
> If you have a favourite walk that you know (from past experience) is
> always no more that 30 mins out of reception range, then its T0
> assuming the height and scrambling bits are met.
No! Because it was within reception range in the past doesn't necessarily
mean it is now.
>
The terrains are not defined according to the mobile phone
reception/transmission coverage one may or may not have.
You are reading far too much into this!
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152825946....@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The ambulance bit simply defines the type of road.
It means all motorways, A-class, B-class, and C-class roads.
It also means a large number of unclassified roads, however, it doesn't mean
unclassified roads that are principally service roads for particular types
of service vehicle.
For example, the road going over the Wrynose and Hardknott passes in the
Lake District is an unclassified road that is capable of taking an ordinary
road-going ambulance.
Within 30 min walking distance of this type of road is T0.
A service road going off into the hills - maybe to a quarry or to a
reservoir or transmitter mast - is an unclassified road but it may not be
capable of taking an ordinary road-going ambulance. It may require a
specialist vehicle to travel it.
This type of road cannot be used to define T0.
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152826351.8...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The clauses are simply used to define areas of terrain.
The reception/transmission area of a mobile is not used to define terrain.
If it was used then it would mean that terrain areas would vary according to
reception.
Sure you can't guarantee that a car will pass-by on a road. Sure you can't
guarantee that the occupants of a farmhouse will be at home. Sure you can't
guarantee that a telephone kiosk will have a phone that is working. However,
the likelihood is that these places will afford someone a good chance of
communicating with the emergency services if needs be and that the emergency
services will be able to reach these points quite easily without having to
resort to special measures such as using special rescue teams or specialist
rescue vehicles.
>
All the rules are trying to do here is simply define places on a map.
They're not trying to define whether they are 'safe' places or not.
Before we had these fairly precise definitions of terrain we used to work
using wild country areas such as the Lake District, Peak District,
Snowdonia, etc. (Just like the DofE still does.) Go hiking in any of these
areas and you needed authorisation (now permit) support.
So let's take a 'for example' and see how this works.
Does a hike around the town of Ambleside require authorisation (under the
very old schemes)? Amazingly, yes! Why? Because, simply, then it was
classified in a wild country area. That's ridiculous. Okay so it depended on
how you defined a hike. The old rules were not trying to capture a walk
around town, but litterally that's how they could be interpreted (and were!)
They were confusing, and more importantly, they also stopped a lot of people
going into these areas to follow pursuits which were far removed from being
hillwalking. There was no precise definition of where hillwalking
started/finished, neither was there a precise definition of were walking
around town started/finished!
(In fact according litterally to DofE rules, go walking/hiking anywhere in
the Lakes and you need to clear it with the WC panel first!)
It was worse out of town. Even a walk along say the road to Wasdale Head
technically needed authorisation support! Ridiculously ignoring the fact
that there are no specialist hillwalking skills required and that it's a
popular road during the summer months and also is no problem for an ordinary
road-going ambulance (if one is needed).
The definitions now are much simpler and do not act as a catch-all for
pursuits which are clearly not hillwalking and now allow a wide range of
pursuits, including hiking, in many parts of these WC areas without the need
to go ott with an authorisation/permit.
If you took out a map of the Lakes today then using the terrain definitions
you could quite easily define and mark on it which areas are T0, 1 or 2.
That would not be as easy to do using mobile phone coverage.
Using mobile phone coverage to define areas would likely introduce anomalies
into the terrain definitions.
GAGS
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
Oh dear.
Where is the 'correct' way to interpret the rules defined in POR ?
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
You might say that, but are you interpreting the definition correctly ?
The part in question will to most readers seem to be more about safety
than just defining an area. The definition specifically mentions how
far away (in travelling time) you can be from a normal ambulance, why
use an ambulance in the definition if safety is not the main
consideration. Why not use 'normal road going car'
> The reception/transmission area of a mobile is not used to define terrain.
> If it was used then it would mean that terrain areas would vary according to
> reception.
Well maybe they will, but if thats was not the intention, then the rule
should be an awful lot clearer.
Paul Harris
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk writes
GAGS wrote
>> The reception/transmission area of a mobile is not used to define terrain.
>> If it was used then it would mean that terrain areas would vary according to
>> reception.
>
>Well maybe they will, but if thats was not the intention, then the rule
>should be an awful lot clearer.
>
It would definitely introduce anomalies if areas were defined by mobile
reception as not all mobile phones have the same reception and not all
service providers have the same coverage. Until someone can think of
something better the current definitions seem to be a reasonable working
solution provided that we accept that any advantages gained from having
a mobile phone don't change the rules.
--
Paul Harris
Stephen Rainsbury
news:44b68c26$0$3544$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader01.plus.net...
> stevie...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Impractical. One person would have to keep their eye permanently on the
> cellphone signal bar, and your route would be defined by the areas of
> cellphone reception, which is ridiculous. Add to that the fact that the
> battery would give up pretty soon (as reception gets marginal, the phone
> increases the signal power) making your emergency contact device useless.
Mine carry their phones anyway and so far they haven't had a problem
contacting me on 2 or 3 day expeditions, at least one of them seems to be
able to get a signal.
QSA/Gold DofE is different, they tend to leave them at base camp.
One of the dads works for an oil company and he regularly uses a satellite
phone abroad. They are re-equipping at the moment and he had outline
approval to give us a set, however I have no idea how much these things cost
to run or even how big they are.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> reception as not all mobile phones have the same reception and not all
> service providers have the same coverage. Until someone can think of
> something better the current definitions seem to be a reasonable working
> solution provided that we accept that any advantages gained from having
> a mobile phone don't change the rules.
Mobile phones dont 'change the rules'.
The rule is very clear, as long as you are within 30 mins travelling
time of a means of summoning help, then you are within the rules.
Stephen Rainsbury
>
> The terrains are not defined according to the mobile phone
> reception/transmission coverage one may or may not have.
>
I can see where you are both coming from on this, why should Steven be
wrong? As technology improves and phones move to wireless communication
(while TV moves to cable!) over the next decade then surely we will need
to allow for this.
Mobile phone reception seems to improve with every new model, and batteries
last far longer than they used to, plus the plethora of gadget that allow
you to recharge in the field mean that it could easily become part of the
equation as improvements continue.
We always used to tell them to ring from a farmhouse if there was a problem,
but I can't remember the last time I was summonsed by anything other than a
mobile phone.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> phone abroad. They are re-equipping at the moment and he had outline
> approval to give us a set, however I have no idea how much these things cost
> to run or even how big they are.
Indeed, satellite phones.
Carry one and wherever you are in the UK you will be within 30 mins
travelling time of a means of summoning help.
John Russell
>"GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
>news:44b6f...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>>
>
>> The terrains are not defined according to the mobile phone
>> reception/transmission coverage one may or may not have.
>>
>
>I can see where you are both coming from on this, why should Steven be
>wrong? As technology improves and phones move to wireless communication
>(while TV moves to cable!) over the next decade then surely we will need
>to allow for this.
Well I think GAGS and Stevie are both wrong - and so are you! The terrain
rules are nothing to do with calling for help, they're about being able to
get help to you in reasonable time. Hence a road, a farmhouse (when's the
last time you saw a farmhouse without access?) and a phone box (which are
always accessible so that they can be maintained).
You can sit on your hilltop with a sat phone, or with a mobile that had
reception 30 minutes ago, and expect a helicopter to come and pluck you off
with your twisted angle, but that is not responsible hillgoing.
--
John Russell
CSL 1st Pinhoe Exeter Devon
http://www.pinhoescouts.org.uk/cubs/
Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you care.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> rules are nothing to do with calling for help, they're about being able to
> get help to you in reasonable time. Hence a road, a farmhouse (when's the
> last time you saw a farmhouse without access?) and a phone box (which are
> always accessible so that they can be maintained).
If the definition is about getting help to you in a reasonable time
were true, then all that would be needed is a simple "within 30 mins of
a road".
Why does the definition include 'habitation' and 'phone box' if all
they really mean is road access ?
> You can sit on your hilltop with a sat phone, or with a mobile that had
> reception 30 minutes ago, and expect a helicopter to come and pluck you off
> with your twisted angle, but that is not responsible hillgoing.
Thats rather a different issue, and depends on the circumstances.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
behind the reason for the definition;
1. To define an area
2. Nearness to summoning help
3. How close help can get to you
Who knows who is correct ?
What I dont understand is why some people seem to have a problem with
others using the rule definition as it is written.
Alan Dicey
and try to get at the intent of the Fact Sheet definition rather than
its literal lawyerese interpretation.
( http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs120416.pdf )
From what I can see, the intent is to define three types of terrain for
which expeditions need progressively more skilled leadership.
Authorisation must be gained before the expedition can be approved, so
the terrain must be assessed by examining a map (which will not show
mobile phone coverage). To avoid the assessor having to walk the route
himself, terrain types are defined simply by obvious geographical
features. Can we agree that this makes sense?
As it says in the Fact Sheet, the definitions come from Government
Regulations. In the original legislation, the definition is narrower,
and clearer, using only two parameters, "accessible road" and "refuge".
The presence of a telephone is only referred to as part of the
definition of a refuge, and if the Scout Fact Sheet were reworded to
this effect it would close the potential loophole that you are trying to
open.
THE ACTIVITY CENTRES (YOUNG PERSONS' SAFETY) ACT 1995
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_19950015_en_1.htm
and
THE ADVENTURE ACTIVITIES LICENSING REGULATIONS 1996
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19960772_en_1.htm
In the latter, the relevant definitions are:
*)An "adventure activity" is caving, climbing, trekking or watersports
(all of which are themselves defined in regulation 2)
*)"trekking" means journeying on foot, horse or pedal cycle or ski-ing
over terrain—
(a) which is moorland or more than 600 metres above sea level; and
(b) from which it would take more than 30 minutes travelling
time to reach any accessible road or refuge;
*)"accessible road" means a road which is, at the time in question,
accessible to ambulances which are road-going vehicles not specially
adapted for rugged terrain;
*)"moorland" excludes any woodland or cultivated land;
*)"refuge" means a building which would, in an emergency, provide
shelter and which was, at the time in question, either occupied or
provided with a telephone, or other means of communication, by which
help could be summoned;
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> and try to get at the intent of the Fact Sheet definition rather than
> its literal lawyerese interpretation.
mmm, you mean by quoting the legalise of an Act that does not apply to
Scouts ?
> In the original legislation, the definition is narrower,
> and clearer, using only two parameters, "accessible road" and "refuge".
> The presence of a telephone is only referred to as part of the
> definition of a refuge, and if the Scout Fact Sheet were reworded to
> this effect it would close the potential loophole that you are trying to
> open.
You describe it as a loophole, yet clearly the SA have chosen to do
this and can 'widen' what is defined in the Act, since the Act does not
apply to Scouts.
The SA have chosen to differntiate between a 'refuge' and just a means
of summoning help.
Why did they do that ?
Eddie Langdown
> this and can 'widen' what is defined in the Act, since the Act does not
> apply to Scouts.
>
> The SA have chosen to differntiate between a 'refuge' and just a means
> of summoning help.
>
> Why did they do that ?
This EXACTLY why I so HATE Dof E...
All these rules....
Young people should be able to do a week walking. cycling/ canoeing/ motor
biking, almost anywhere.
It is the preparation, the planning, the adventure, the teamwork and the
evaluation of the thing that matters.
A week walking through Dorset, 3 days in Snowdonia, moped to Paris and
back....
It should all depend on what the young people have done up to then and what
their interests are.
For the young people who hired a Thames cruiser and went for a week's trip,
this was a huge and challenging adventure, fitting all the categories as
regards to planning, routes, menus, funding, teamwork etc etc Why should
this not be considered as equally legitimate as a walk in hills far away
from people, but not too far away from people?
Why should not walking the Thames path for a week, be equal to canoeing
three days along the Wye?
We are making a GCSE out of this originally exciting and innovative scheme.
Eddie Langdown GSL 16th Bermondsey, London
http://bermondseyscout.co.uk/
John Russell
>> Well I think GAGS and Stevie are both wrong - and so are you! The terrain
>> rules are nothing to do with calling for help, they're about being able to
>> get help to you in reasonable time. Hence a road, a farmhouse (when's the
>> last time you saw a farmhouse without access?) and a phone box (which are
>> always accessible so that they can be maintained).
>
>If the definition is about getting help to you in a reasonable time
>were true, then all that would be needed is a simple "within 30 mins of
>a road".
>
>Why does the definition include 'habitation' and 'phone box' if all
>they really mean is road access ?
Oh, I imagine there was a long discussion about the possible permutations of
circumstance, and about the need for clarity, and about being able to define
the areas from a map without having to do a survey, and about the things
people might think up to try to push the boundaries. We could have an
equally long discussion, that would end up in about the same place, but I
can't see what the value of that would be. For what it's worth, I think the
thinking probably went along the lines that the time to get help consists of
the time to call help and the time for help to get to you, or alternatively
the time for you to get to help. Get to a road and wait for a passing car,
could be a long time but once the car passes then it can take you to help in
minutes. Get to a phone box, you have to call out help to come to you, so
less of a wait for something to happen but longer to wait while it does.
Get to a farmhouse and you're in a help or call out situation depending on
circumstances.
>> You can sit on your hilltop with a sat phone, or with a mobile that had
>> reception 30 minutes ago, and expect a helicopter to come and pluck you off
>> with your twisted angle, but that is not responsible hillgoing.
>
>Thats rather a different issue, and depends on the circumstances.
That's _exactly_ the issue, isn't it? If your experience and your party's
training and equipment are such that a twisted ankle on a hilltop is life
threatening and you need a helicopter then you shouldn't be there, you
should stick to T0. If you can cope with a twisted ankle and your party
will be safe for the extended delay of arranging a carry-off then you've
probably got a permit for T1. You're trying to suggest that, without
suitable training and experience to keep your party safe, you should be
allowed into remote areas because you've got the technology to call out a
helicopter if something went wrong. That's irresponsible. Or if that's not
what you're suggesting then what you're saying is just blether.
David Patrick
> The part in question will to most readers seem to be more about safety
> than just defining an area. The definition specifically mentions how
> far away (in travelling time) you can be from a normal ambulance, why
> use an ambulance in the definition if safety is not the main
> consideration. Why not use 'normal road going car'
Possibly because in case of emergency, a 'normal road going car' is just not
going to be good enough. When was the last time you saw a 'normal road going
car' carrying essential life-saving equipment as well as up to two expertly
trained medical practitioners, that was able to transport the patient to a place
of safety?
Yes, there are medivac aircraft, 4x4 ambulances, mountain rescue and so on - but
how common are they? How often do they simply transport you to the nearest
'ambulance suitable road' and then transfer you across?
Bringing this back to an experience for our young members, then for many of
them, simply walking across a field where there are trees between them and a
road is an adventure. And as far as I can tell, the T0, T1 and T2 bandings offer
exactly the opportunity to these members as it still does to those whose idea of
a gentle stroll is scrambling up a rock face with nothing but their finger nails
to hold them to the rock face.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
--
David Patrick
ADC (Communications)
Eastleigh District Scout Council
www.eastleigh-scouts.org.uk
Paul Harris
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk writes
>> It would definitely introduce anomalies if areas were defined by mobile
>> reception as not all mobile phones have the same reception and not all
>> service providers have the same coverage. Until someone can think of
>> something better the current definitions seem to be a reasonable working
>> solution provided that we accept that any advantages gained from having
>> a mobile phone don't change the rules.
>
>Mobile phones dont 'change the rules'.
>
that is not what I understand the rules to mean. I would suggest to you
that the definitions were not written on the basis of where one may or
may not be able to obtain a signal.
>The rule is very clear, as long as you are within 30 mins travelling
>time of a means of summoning help, then you are within the rules.
>
That is your interpretation and if you think that carrying a satellite
phone means that you are safe to go wherever you please then I would
suggest that you not responsible enough to allowed out in WC with yp.
--
Paul Harris
Paul Harris
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk writes
>Indeed, satellite phones.
>
>Carry one and wherever you are in the UK you will be within 30 mins
>travelling time of a means of summoning help.
>
You may be able to summon it but will it be able to get to you unless
you are calling for air support?
--
Paul Harris
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152854064.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > You are interpreting them in the wrong way!
>
> Oh dear.
>
> Where is the 'correct' way to interpret the rules defined in POR ?
>
Because the definitions of terrain talk about things in terms of safety and
risk you immediately jump to the conclusion that safety and risk is what
they're all about.
That is not so!
Safety and risk are used as a basis for formulating the clauses in the
terrain definitions but the clauses do not measure safety and risk, they
measure something quite different.
As an aside let's do a simple bit of astronomy. How long in time is a 'light
year'?
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152855030.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > The clauses are simply used to define areas of terrain.
>
> You might say that, but are you interpreting the definition correctly ?
Yes!
The second clause is simply a measure of a distance from a fixed point.
>
> The part in question will to most readers seem to be more about safety
> than just defining an area.
But it's not!
It is simply a distance measure.
> The definition specifically mentions how
> far away (in travelling time) you can be from a normal ambulance, why
> use an ambulance in the definition if safety is not the main
> consideration. Why not use 'normal road going car'
I'll say again: How long in time is a 'light year'?
>
> > The reception/transmission area of a mobile is not used to define
terrain.
> > If it was used then it would mean that terrain areas would vary
according to
> > reception.
>
> Well maybe they will, but if thats was not the intention, then the rule
> should be an awful lot clearer.
>
The intention of the terrain definitions is to demarcate areas into T0, T1,
and T2. Fixed areas on a map.
We could choose an even simpler definition and demarcation of area by
saying, for example, The Lake District NP is a T2 area, or The Peak District
NP is a T1 area, etc.
Pretty clear ans simple. No problem at this stage. Let's move on.
Hillwalking in T2 requires someone with T2 authorisation to lead and/or
supervise. No problem at this stage. (We want someone with T2 level skills
to lead and/or supervise in this terrain.) Let's move on again.
Now let's take a walk around Derwent Water. It's in T2 (in our 'for
example') because we've defined everywhere in the LDNP as T2. That now means
a party doing this walk needs someone with T2 authorisation. That's
ridiculous! Commonsense tells you that such a walk needs only a competent
leader with a good general knowledge and skill of running general activities
safely. Needing to have someone with T2 level skills is OTT.
(One could take it to the ludicrous extreme and demand a T2 authorised
person for a walk around Ambleside or Keswick!)
Everything looked okay first so why did our 'for example' end up being
ridiculous? Because we chose to demarcate all of the LDNP as T2.
What we really need is flexibility such that we can demarcate those areas we
know are T2 (Scafell Pike, Scafell, Pillar, Great Gable, etc), those areas
we know are T1 (such as a walk over Illgill Head - 'The Screes'), and those
areas we know as T0 (the dales and some low fells).
That's what we get with our actual terrain definitions whereby the high
fells are essentially T2, the low-medium height fells are essentially T1,
and the valleys are essentially T0. A still relatively simple demarcation.
This now 99.9% of the time (nothing's ever perfect!) avoids ludicrous
situations arising (as described above). Plus the demarcation is now based
on activities with leaders of those activities requiring a progressive (and
appropriate) level of skills.
Now how do we go about demarcating those areas? Well we could do so in lots
of ways! We could sit down with a map of the area and very carefully draw
lines all over it marking the areas. Now how easy and practical would that
be? Not very easy at all! (Try doing this for all of the UK!) Or we could
communicate our ideas of the various terrains in a language that should be
better and more easily understood. Hence we talk about '30 mins from a
road', etc.
What measure is the use of the phrase '30 mins from a road' trying to
convey? A time or a distance?
Now someone's going to ask then what type of road? Do we then go into
defining all the various types of 'road' from motorway to green lane? Or do
we give them a simpler idea by saying a road that can convey a road-going
ambulance? This then gives us a picture of what type of 'road' we mean in
our definition; it can include a lot of unclassified roads, but not those
roads which require a specific 'made-for-that-type-of-road' vehicle to
traverse them.
The terrain definitions are all about using simple measures to demarcate
areas. That's all! Those simple measures are described in a language which
hopefully makes it easy for people to understand and visualise the intention
of the definitions.
Comprendez?
(Please someone tell me they understand what I'm saying! This is bloody hard
work you know!)
GAGS
GAGS
"Paul Harris" <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:XGptROa2...@zen50073.zen.co.uk...
Correct. You can't define an area that requires activities to be led and/or
supervised by a suitably trained/authorised leader if the area switches from
being T0 one day to T1 the next day. Etc.
The variablity (and unknowns at times) in the reception/transmission of
mobile phones do not make them a good tool to use in defining/demarcating an
area.
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152864434.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The intention in the definitions is that the 'means of summoning help' is a
fixed point marked on a map. With a fixed point we can draw a boundary and
say up to this is T0, beyond is T1 or up to this is T1, beyond is T2.
The intention in the definitions is not to change the terrain areas simply
because the person in the areas moves. That's what you're doing here with
the argument about using mobile phones.
Each person using a mobile phone would be changing the terrain areas as they
moved and as the capability of their mobile phone 'to summon help' varied as
they moved.
That would lead to confusion!
You could end up with a situation whereby one party could be defined as
being in T1 and another not 10 yards away being defined as being in T0.
Want to run that one past a court if there's an accident and the burden of
responsibility falls on one of the leaders but s/he is the
lower-skilled/inexperienced leader in the 'wrong' terrain (T1) and the other
leader is skilled and authorised but is (according to their mobile status)
in T0. Jeez Louise! The legal nitwits would have a field day!
GAGS
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
news:8jItg.101239$wl.2...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
> news:44b6f...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> >
>
> > The terrains are not defined according to the mobile phone
> > reception/transmission coverage one may or may not have.
> >
>
> I can see where you are both coming from on this, why should Steven be
> wrong?
Because he is wrong!
All that the terrain definitions do is simply demarcate areas. Once we have
clearly demarcated areas we can then say how and by whom hillwalking
activities can be led and/or supervised in those areas. Simply then you
have: If you're in a T2 area you need T2 authorisation; if you're in a T1
area you need T1 authorisation; if you're in a T0 area you don't need
specific authorisation.
The terrain definitions simply define precise bits of terrain that do not
move! Allowing a mobile phone to be used in the definitions would have those
bits of terrain moving for different people, with different equipment, at
different times.
Now considering what you say next...
>As technology improves and phones move to wireless communication
> (while TV moves to cable!) over the next decade then surely we will need
> to allow for this.
>
> Mobile phone reception seems to improve with every new model, and
batteries
> last far longer than they used to, plus the plethora of gadget that allow
> you to recharge in the field mean that it could easily become part of the
> equation as improvements continue.
>
...should not mean that you need to change the defined terrain areas,
however, because their use may mean a reduction in risk it might be
appropriate (in the future) to actually change the nature of the
authorisations needed for each particular terrain, i.e. we might be saying
that in the future because help is much nearer to hand and can be reliably
called on if needed, the leader does not need to have an extensive range of
skills/experience as they needed in the past.
Can you see that the two parts of the argument are linked but separate?
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152870587.7...@35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Well I think GAGS and Stevie are both wrong - and so are you!
No! (Whoever you are as your original post has been dropped by my ns).
Trust me I am right.
> The terrain
> > rules are nothing to do with calling for help, they're about being able
to
> > get help to you in reasonable time.
No!
The terrain definitions are simply demarcations of areas. Nothing more.
> Hence a road, a farmhouse (when's the
> > last time you saw a farmhouse without access?) and a phone box (which
are
> > always accessible so that they can be maintained).
These just define fixed points.
>
> If the definition is about getting help to you in a reasonable time
> were true, then all that would be needed is a simple "within 30 mins of
> a road".
Read my other post about what the '30 mins from a road' means in terms of
the terrain definitions.
>
> Why does the definition include 'habitation' and 'phone box' if all
> they really mean is road access ?
>
> > You can sit on your hilltop with a sat phone, or with a mobile that had
> > reception 30 minutes ago, and expect a helicopter to come and pluck you
off
> > with your twisted angle, but that is not responsible hillgoing.
>
> Thats rather a different issue, and depends on the circumstances.
>
People are really making heavy weather of all of this!
Terrain definitions simply define areas and distances from fixed points.
These are expressed in a language that makes it simple to understand where
these areas are. If people really wanted to we could draw all these areas on
maps, but that would be an astronomical task of astronomical proportions.
Rather than do this on every map for every bit of the country (in what would
be a mass of confusion) we can simply define these areas through three
simply worded clauses. Use all of these clauses and you can tell where T0,
T1, and T2 terrains are.
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152873546.6...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Whats interesting is that there seems to be different interpretations
> behind the reason for the definition;
>
> 1. To define an area
This is the sole interpretation of the terrain definitions.
> 2. Nearness to summoning help
> 3. How close help can get to you
>
> Who knows who is correct ?
I know I am! :-)
>
> What I dont understand is why some people seem to have a problem with
> others using the rule definition as it is written.
>
The intention of 'other means of summoning help' is as a catch-all to
describe a range of fixed locations from where help may be summoned, e.g. a
telephone box.
If there was a mobile phone stuck in a field (i.e. permanently located
there) with a power supply and reception/transmission then that could be a
point to measure your 30 mins from. T0, T1, and T2 don't move with regards
to that point because that point is fixed!
Hypothetically, if you had a chain of fixed mobile phones (with power and
reception/transmission capability) at 30 mins walking distance separation
along your route, then you could use these to define the area as T0 all the
way up to the 500m boundary irrespective of how far away you were from a
road or place of habitation. (Such a permanent array of course does not
exist!)
However, if you have the mobile phone then that mobile phone moves with you
and thus T0, T1 and T2 move with you. Hence T0 and T1 could be anywhere in
the country provided it's not a place above 500m (or 800m for T1) or
somewhere were scrambling is needed.
If that was the case it would effectively make clause 2 of the terrain
definitions largely redundant. So why then is there a clause 2?
You're reading far too much into this!
You're also making me work very hard here! :-)
GAGS
Stephen Rainsbury
Bloody Air Scouts they get all the extra help... oh I see what you mean,
where's me coat?
Its no extra help at all but you can be by the side of an A road and still
get no signal in some areas.
Stephen Rainsbury
> That is your interpretation and if you think that carrying a satellite
> phone means that you are safe to go wherever you please then I would
> suggest that you not responsible enough to allowed out in WC with yp.
It certainly doesn't make you any safer but it makes the whole communication
aspect far less of an issue, much in the same way as a well equipped 4*4
ambulance on standby makes the whole access by roads issue less significant
too.
Stephen Rainsbury
> As an aside let's do a simple bit of astronomy. How long in time is a
> 'light
> year'?
Is this a trick question like Haan Solo said that he "did the Kessel run in
less than twelve parsecs" :-)
Stephen Rainsbury
>If people really wanted to we could draw all these areas on
> maps, but that would be an astronomical task of astronomical proportions.
> Rather than do this on every map for every bit of the country (in what
> would
> be a mass of confusion) we can simply define these areas through three
> simply worded clauses. Use all of these clauses and you can tell where T0,
> T1, and T2 terrains are.
Isn't the point here that he paragraph "another means of summoning help
(such as a telephone box);" ceases to have meaning if the team actually
carries a means of communication?
The other two paragraphs still hold true and I don't think that anybody is
debating this, it is just that as technology advances we may need to
re-examine one of our base definitions, but that day isn't now for most
people.
I certainly wouldn't entertain a satellite phone if it was a donation
including limited line rental, and bearing in mind that this is a 10 year
old set that needs an external battery box and dish setup its not actually
practical either, but will be fine for base camp in remote areas.
Paul Harris
<absolutec...@craplineone.net> writes
>
>
>Comprendez?
>
Yes.
>(Please someone tell me they understand what I'm saying! This is bloody hard
>work you know!)
>
Seems clear enough to me.
--
Paul Harris
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> fixed point marked on a map. With a fixed point we can draw a boundary and
> say up to this is T0, beyond is T1 or up to this is T1, beyond is T2.
Where do the definitions say the intention is to define a 'fixed' point
on the map ?
Consider it as it is written, "another means of summoning help".
If the purpose of the definition is to define a fixed point on a map
then why use 'means' ? To substantiate your assumption should it not
read "another place where help can be summoned" ?
And then there is the use of "another", this suggests that the other
caveats, the road and habitation are also defined because they are
considered to be a 'means' of summoning help.
Perhaps the intention of the definitions is not some hidden meaning
(like defining fixed points on a map) but the rather obvious one that
the words used actually suggest, its all about how far in time you are
away from summoning help and not the physical terain you are in.
Consider a Scout organised large scale event hike, its going to be
easier to organise if you keep all the terrain in T0. If the area you
are in has areas where you are more than the 30mins from fixed points
on a map, roads, habitation etc, by the first part of the definition
your going to be in T1. So you man some check points with
communications (the "other means of summoning help") that are no more
than 30mins apart, the area could now be considerd T0. Is it just
possible that the wording of the definition was specifically chosen to
cover this sort of situation ?
> Want to run that one past a court if there's an accident and the burden of
> responsibility falls on one of the leaders but s/he is the
> lower-skilled/inexperienced leader in the 'wrong' terrain (T1) and the other
> leader is skilled and authorised but is (according to their mobile status)
> in T0. Jeez Louise! The legal nitwits would have a field day!
Only the case if you assume that the definitions are about an attempt
to define fixed areas on a map.
Look at it from the way the definition is actually written (nearness to
a means\method of summoning help) and it should makes sense to any
court.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> including limited line rental, and bearing in mind that this is a 10 year
> old set that needs an external battery box and dish setup its not actually
> practical either, but will be fine for base camp in remote areas.
Quite, why are people not considering that the "another means of
summoning help" is actually there to permit the basecamp situation
where there is communications ?
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> phone means that you are safe to go wherever you please then I would
> suggest that you not responsible enough to allowed out in WC with yp.
In no place have I said it is 'safe' to go where you please just
because you have a sat phone.
It should be possible to have a discussion about what the rules mean,
without casting aspersions as the the suitability of someone to lead
people.
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
And John thinks were are both wrong.
> The intention of 'other means of summoning help' is as a catch-all to
> describe a range of fixed locations from where help may be summoned, e.g. a
> telephone box.
You thin the intention is to define fixed points, but where does the
definitions actually say that ?
> If there was a mobile phone stuck in a field (i.e. permanently located
> there) with a power supply and reception/transmission then that could be a
> point to measure your 30 mins from. T0, T1, and T2 don't move with regards
> to that point because that point is fixed!
So you set up a base camp (mobile home) with mobile phone, generator
etc in the same location.
You say because its not fixed, it does not count as "another means of
summoning help"
> If that was the case it would effectively make clause 2 of the terrain
> definitions largely redundant. So why then is there a clause 2?
When were the terain definitions first used ?
The Act where the idea for the definitions came from was in 1995. So
this idea of nearness to summoning help comes from maybe 12 years ago.
12 years on just about everybody has easy access to mobile phones and
coverage has improved a lot. Maybe if the definitions were written for
modern circumstances they would be different.
> You're reading far too much into this!
Waht me ?
Your the one that is assuming the definitions are about defining fixed
points on a map, my point is that the definitions might mean what they
actually say, no hidden meaning.
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
> news:44b80...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> > As an aside let's do a simple bit of astronomy. How long in time is a
> > 'light
> > year'?
>
> Is this a trick question like Haan Solo said that he "did the Kessel run
in
> less than twelve parsecs" :-)
>
No Steve it's not!
The point I'm making is that a light-year ISN'T a measure of time. It's a
measure of distance! (A light-year is the distance that light travels in one
year.) Now that sometimes really confuses people. Here you have a term that
uses a time (year) but actually is a length. And it's used this way because
light-year actually gives people a better sense of the enormous distance
than if km were used and, most importantly, it's an easier term to
handle/use for this vast distance.
In the same way, '30 mins from a road' conveys a sense/measure of distance.
How do people measure this? Do they literally take out a stop-watch and time
30 mins? If you walk up a steep hill for 30 mins does it take you 30 mins to
walk back down? What if you ran for 30 mins? What if you did it crawling
along at a snail's pace?
If one looks in the FS's that describe the terrain definitions you will see
that the '30 mins' is actually phrased in the terms of a distance that
should be estimated by using Naismith's rule. '30 mins from a road' is the
best way of measuring how far from the road the terrain boundary is because
when people use it they'll take into account the nature of the terrain in
between (uphill, downhill, flat, etc). Saying 2.5 km instead, for example,
does not do this. It could be 2.5 km up a very steep slope which might take
you much longer than 30 mins to cover!
GAGS
GAGS
Cheers Paul!
I thought I was going mad for a moment. :-)
GAGS
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
> news:44b81...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> >If people really wanted to we could draw all these areas on
> > maps, but that would be an astronomical task of astronomical
proportions.
> > Rather than do this on every map for every bit of the country (in what
> > would
> > be a mass of confusion) we can simply define these areas through three
> > simply worded clauses. Use all of these clauses and you can tell where
T0,
> > T1, and T2 terrains are.
>
> Isn't the point here that he paragraph "another means of summoning help
> (such as a telephone box);" ceases to have meaning if the team actually
> carries a means of communication?
Yes to some extent it does! So therefore why use it to describe an area of
terrain?
The definitions of terrain are based on ideas of height and remoteness.
Clause 1 deals with the height aspect. Clause 2 deals with the remoteness
aspect.
There are many areas of WC that deserve to labelled as T1 but would fail to
be so if only Clause 1 were used because they don't meet the terms of the
height clause. Similarly for T1 and T2.
The clauses together recognise that there is a different level of
skill/training/experience required for some types of terrain and that this
would not be recognised if only one or two of the three clauses were used.
>
> The other two paragraphs still hold true and I don't think that anybody is
> debating this, it is just that as technology advances we may need to
> re-examine one of our base definitions, but that day isn't now for most
> people.
That maybe so. But we'll do this through possibly tinkering with the nature
of the authorisation that is required for the different terrains. All the
terrain definitions are trying do is to demarcate the different types of
terrain in the simplest way possible avoiding as many anomalies as possible.
They are just a simple demarcation measure! That's all.
When one starts to talk about safety and risk in these areas one then moves
onto the next level by looking at what is the nature and extent of the
authorisation suitable for each of the terrains.
> I certainly wouldn't entertain a satellite phone if it was a donation
> including limited line rental, and bearing in mind that this is a 10 year
> old set that needs an external battery box and dish setup its not actually
> practical either, but will be fine for base camp in remote areas.
>
:-)
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152944301....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The intention in the definitions is that the 'means of summoning help'
is a
> > fixed point marked on a map. With a fixed point we can draw a boundary
and
> > say up to this is T0, beyond is T1 or up to this is T1, beyond is T2.
>
> Where do the definitions say the intention is to define a 'fixed' point
> on the map ?
It is implicit in the defintions of terrain. All we are trying to do with
these definitions is to define areas on a map. The terrain definitions do
not try to say how we operate in these areas. How we operate in these areas,
moreover what level of skills/training/experience is required, comes with
the level of authorisation/permit.
The terrain defintions merely set out to a define a type of terrain -
essentially an area on a map - to which an appropriate authorisation/permit
can be set against.
The level and range of skills/training/experience required largely depends
on the type of terrain.
How do we define the type of terrain? We could do it by simply stating an
area (as the DofE does so by defining WC areas) or drawing lines on a master
map covering the whole country. The problem we have found with these methods
are that they are too cumbersome or too confusing for some people through
creating a range of anomalies. (See other posts.) We now describe the
terrain using three factors, essentially: height, remoteness, technical
difficulty. Each one of these is addressed in the three clauses defining the
terrain type. Clause 1, terrain height, require just a simple measure and
thus a simple statement. Clause 3, technical difficulty, again is simply
adressed by asking whether scrambling is required. However, Clause 2,
remoteness, is not something that can be described as simply as the other
two. This is described by how far away you are from a certain point and that
point is described in terms of safety factors/considerations.
Why the need to take into account remoteness? Well there are large parts of
the country which most people recognise as wild country or even wilderness
areas where a certain level of skills/training/experience is required above
the general level but would not be defined as such if terrain was simply
based on height and technical difficulty. Large areas of Caithness and
Sutherland, for example, come to mind. The difficulty now is in describing
remoteness in as simple a way as possible and that's what clause 2 tries to
do.
Yes, I do take your point that with the advance of modern communications
there are fewer areas nowadays which are truly remote. However, the
intention of the definitions is not to complicate things by trying to
address this issue (and it would do so by having to take into account things
such as reception/transmission capability, etc) but to simply set them in
terms which should be understood by many.
>
> Consider it as it is written, "another means of summoning help".
>
> If the purpose of the definition is to define a fixed point on a map
> then why use 'means' ? To substantiate your assumption should it not
> read "another place where help can be summoned" ?
Maybe. It's a problem with the choice of language I suppose rather than
meaning. 'Another means' is really trying to identify places which are
fixed, but may not be permanently so, and 'means' other than just a
telephone box, which it gives as an example. Other means could be a railway
line or an unmanned railway station or it could be a set of
communication/relay stations that one has set up in fixed locations '30
mins' apart for the purposes of the activity. Or it could mean something
else. However, what it does not mean is a mobile phone or any communication
system carried by the party because that would mean that the terrain 'moves'
with the party and that is not the intention of the terrain defintions.
>
> And then there is the use of "another", this suggests that the other
> caveats, the road and habitation are also defined because they are
> considered to be a 'means' of summoning help.
Yes.
However, you're reading that the terrain is purely defined in terms of
safety. Safety is a factor in determining how we measure remoteness, but in
the end the measure of remoteness is simply a distance from some defined
point.
>
> Perhaps the intention of the definitions is not some hidden meaning
> (like defining fixed points on a map) but the rather obvious one that
> the words used actually suggest, its all about how far in time you are
> away from summoning help and not the physical terain you are in.
No. All this rule is concerned with is defining types of terrain. It's got
nothing to do with safety in those terrains. It merely uses safety
considerations as a factor in determining the measure (remoteness in this
instance) of the terrain. In the end all we're striving for here is a simple
measure of remoteness, one that is fixed, and therefore easily recognised
nad understood, not something that moves about depending on the equipment
that a party carries/uses. Safety aspects per se are addressed through other
parts of the MHM authorisation/permit rules.
All the terrain definitions are trying to do is to establish three different
types of terrain and where they are. We want those fixed, not moving around
or affected by other, sometimes indistinct, variables.
>
> Consider a Scout organised large scale event hike, its going to be
> easier to organise if you keep all the terrain in T0.
Maybe, but there are lots of other factors to take into account in the
organisation! But essentially, yes.
> If the area you
> are in has areas where you are more than the 30mins from fixed points
> on a map, roads, habitation etc, by the first part of the definition
> your going to be in T1. So you man some check points with
> communications (the "other means of summoning help") that are no more
> than 30mins apart, the area could now be considerd T0. Is it just
> possible that the wording of the definition was specifically chosen to
> cover this sort of situation ?
Yes. Now you've got it! That is what is meant by other means.
But note, by setting up these checkpoints what you have done is set up (for
the duration of the activity) fixed points on your map. Thse points must
stay fixed for the duration of the activity. If any one of them moves then
the second clause could be violated.
This is totally different to what you've been arguing before where each
party carries a means of communication; as the party moves so too does the
fixed points move and thus so too does the terrain (definition).
>
> > Want to run that one past a court if there's an accident and the burden
of
> > responsibility falls on one of the leaders but s/he is the
> > lower-skilled/inexperienced leader in the 'wrong' terrain (T1) and the
other
> > leader is skilled and authorised but is (according to their mobile
status)
> > in T0. Jeez Louise! The legal nitwits would have a field day!
>
> Only the case if you assume that the definitions are about an attempt
> to define fixed areas on a map.
But they are! Trust me!
>
> Look at it from the way the definition is actually written (nearness to
> a means\method of summoning help) and it should makes sense to any
> court.
That would of course be taken into account.
If you have a leader leading a party out in the wilderness of say Caithness
who is miles from anywhere and does not have the required level of
skills/experience/training suitable and appropriate for that type of terrain
(widely understood to be T1 in many places and T2 in others), but
nevertheless says: 'I'm all right Jack because I've got my trusty mobile
phone with me', and an accident occurs, then believe me they would possibly
get caned by a court as reckless. They would want to see the leader relying
on their skills/training/experience not putting some blind faith in their
phone working so that someone else can get them out of a pickle!
>
What we want is leaders with the necessary level of
skills/training/experience that is appropriate for an area. We need to
define those areas so that they can be matched. Areas don't just suddenly
change their terrain status. However, that's what you would be doing if you
allowed a party carrying a mobile phone to continually change the status of
the area because their 'remoteness' kept changing depending on factors
beyond their control.
Wow, you really are making me work very hard on all of this! :-)
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152944758....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
I haven't said that I haven't considered this!
I have been consistent all through this debate.
There is no problem with using a fixed, but temporary, communication point
to define the terrain for a particular event. But you were arguing about
people carrying mobile phones where the definition of the terrain moves with
the people with the phone.
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152946214.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > I know I am! :-)
>
> And John thinks were are both wrong.
>
> > The intention of 'other means of summoning help' is as a catch-all to
> > describe a range of fixed locations from where help may be summoned,
e.g. a
> > telephone box.
>
> You thin the intention is to define fixed points, but where does the
> definitions actually say that ?
It is implicit!
>
> > If there was a mobile phone stuck in a field (i.e. permanently located
> > there) with a power supply and reception/transmission then that could be
a
> > point to measure your 30 mins from. T0, T1, and T2 don't move with
regards
> > to that point because that point is fixed!
>
> So you set up a base camp (mobile home) with mobile phone, generator
> etc in the same location.
Yes that's okay.
>
> You say because its not fixed, it does not count as "another means of
> summoning help"
Where the 'eck have I said that!!? Stop trying to get out of a pickle by
changing what I said. I have been very consistent in what I've said.
>
> > If that was the case it would effectively make clause 2 of the terrain
> > definitions largely redundant. So why then is there a clause 2?
>
> When were the terain definitions first used ?
>
> The Act where the idea for the definitions came from was in 1995. So
> this idea of nearness to summoning help comes from maybe 12 years ago.
> 12 years on just about everybody has easy access to mobile phones and
> coverage has improved a lot. Maybe if the definitions were written for
> modern circumstances they would be different.
Maybe! But they're not!
>
> > You're reading far too much into this!
>
> Waht me ?
Yes you! :-)
>
> Your the one that is assuming the definitions are about defining fixed
> points on a map, my point is that the definitions might mean what they
> actually say, no hidden meaning.
There is no hidden meaning!
I have explained (in very detailed minutae which, because of the number of
times I'm having to repeat them, is now exasperating me!) exactly what the
terrain definitions are all about. They are simply about marking fixed areas
on a map. A party carrying a mobile phone or any other means of
communication can't change those areas as they move around. Those areas can
be changed if there was some relay/chain of fixed and reliable
communications set up, but that relay system does not change as the party
moves around. And the change would only last for so long as the relay system
was in place. And it wouldn't be acceptable if it came up against one of the
other clause boundaries, e.g. exceeding the height limits.
Phew! You really are trying to extract your pound of flesh! :-)
GAGS
John Russell
I think you're wrong, I think there is a major problem with that. What
you're doing is using a temporary communication point to push people further
into remote country when they are not equipped by training or experience to
cope with incidents. (If they were equipped by training and experience to
cope with incidents in remote country then they would have the permit, and
wouldn't need the subterfuge of a 'communication point'.)
You can't guarantee that their best, safest, quickest route out is back to
your temporary point. You can't guarantee that the comms point would be
working**. They can't get out, or help get to them, any quicker. In the
best possible outcome all you've done is ensure that people for whom, by
virtue of their inexperience and lack of suitable training, a twisted ankle
is life threatening, can now call for a helicopter quicker. That's the best
outcome. That's irresponsible.
I think, GAGS, that you've tried so hard to argue your case on 'defining
terrain by reference to time to get to points of communication' that you've
talked yourself into a hole. If you sit back and give this some quiet
reflection before plugging on you will realise that what you're suggesting
about temporary communications points is a disaster waiting to happen.
You're right that the rules are about defining terrain, but I think they're
about defining terrain by time to get to help, or help to get to you, not
about time to get to somewhere you can talk about it.
** We've got a wind monitoring mast in the Highlands, at the site of a
potential wind farm. Data is transferred by GSM (fixed mobile). Sometimes,
for days on end, we have a good strong signal. Then for days on end we have
no signal at all. You can set up your mobile comms point in remote country,
with 5 bars showing on your mobile, but it might not be working when you
need it. And I've used sat phones, and they drop out too for no apparent
reason, and sometimes as in electric storms for apparent reasons.
If you're defining remoteness you've got to define it by something that's
going to be there when you need it, like a road, or habitation, or a big red
telephone box.
--
John Russell
CSL 1st Pinhoe Exeter Devon
http://www.pinhoescouts.org.uk/cubs/
Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you care.
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1152946214.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
snip previous stuff.
Let me try another tack.
Let's say you're going to organise some large scale scouting hike event in
an area which in the main does not rise above 500m, but is classified as T1
because of 'remoteness' factors; places such as large parts of Dartmoor or
the Peak District. (Yes I know not all of these areas are T1, but just stick
with this for the moment!)
According to the rules that would require each of the teams taking part to
be led and/or supervised by someone with a T1 authorisation, as well as
other restrictions, e.g. party size, etc.
Now that is likely to cause a considerable headache - have you got access to
the possibly large number of authorisations/permits, for example, among
other things.
What to do? Well you could petition the district/county/SA to relax the
rules for the event. Which they could do, but likely only to do so if other
support systems were in place. If that happens then the immediate problem is
solved.
Or you could issue every team with a mobile means of communication and then
argue that no team is ever remote and always within 30 mins of summoning
help. The problem here is that as a team moves around the area the
definition of whether it remains in T0 depends on the communication system
it's carrying. If that system fails - simply because reception/transmission
capability is lost - then the terrain immediately becomes T1 (if it's 30
mins away from another means) and the rules have been broken. You cannot be
certain that this won't happen and experience tells you it's likely to
happen to a number of teams for an indeterminate number of times for an
indeterminate time. This is not acceptable and raises the risk factors for
the event. This course of action would be most certainly seen as a way of
fiddling the rules.
Or you could set up a number/grid of fixed communication stations throughout
the area such that each is within 30 mins travelling time of each other.
These stations are fixed and are marked on particpant's maps. (It would be
no different if all these places were inhabited farms, or telephone boxes,
etc.) Now in this instance no one is ever 'remote' (according to the terrain
definition) and as long as the other clauses (height and
technical/scrambling difficulty) are not exceeded then the terrain is T0;
you don't now have take on the other specific aspects of authorisation, etc,
to run the event (though you still may need other aspects of organisational
support). The terrain for the event is T0 for those taking part and for the
duration of the event. Once the event is over it reverts to T1 and for other
non-participants it always stays as T1. This is acceptable and is within the
rules. However, I would say that you're talking of a huge organisational
event here!
Now this sort of thing is rare, certainly not commonplace, and for all
intents and purposes what you or I see as a fixed area, T0, T1, or T2 on a
map now, remains as such and does not change because someone takes a mobile
means of communication with them into those areas.
The terrain defintions are just simply about demarcating areas. That
demarcation is based on height, remoteness, and teechnical difficulty. The
remoteness clause is described in terms of safety considerations (because
it's easy to do so), however, in the end it's simply a measure of distance
from a point. We don't change that distance because of the mobile
communications we may carry because to do so would continually (and
confusingly) change the status of the terrain. We can change it if we
introduce a fixed system of communications into the terrain, in the same way
we'd change the status of terrain on parts of Dartmoor for example if we
built a chain of telephone boxes all over the place! :-)
Does this help with your understanding?
GAGS
Stephen Rainsbury
> we'd change the status of terrain on parts of Dartmoor for example if we
> built a chain of telephone boxes all over the place! :-)
>
> Does this help with your understanding?
No you can't trust phone boxes :-)
A few years back (of 30 years ago) we found one in the middle of Exmoor with
a missing window.
Inside there was a nest of what I think may have been swallows in the roof,
and another unused nest actually encasing the handset. It was probably a
nice cosy little setup for the birdies but we decided against using it in
case the parents cleared off. :-)
I seem to remember an option that was floated around at the time of asking
local DCs to produce map overlays of their districts showing what they
considered to be T0/T1/t2 and to add in local variations like yes you are
only 100m from a phone bit but you have to cross a 200m gorge to get to it!
That's suited us, we are almost terrain -2 round here, stand in the road
long enough and an ambulance will drive past, but I seem to remember one in
Cumberland getting a bit medieval about it. Might have been scouting
magazine?
Stephen Rainsbury
>> Is this a trick question like Haan Solo said that he "did the Kessel run
> in
>> less than twelve parsecs" :-)
>>
>
> No Steve it's not!
>
> The point I'm making is that a light-year ISN'T a measure of time.
There is a deep division in the Star Wars community about this point and
thesis level dissertations have been written about it (No I am not kidding!)
Possibility 1 - The Kessel Run was through a dangerous area or space that
was in constant motion and smugglers prided themselves on how close they
could get without getting killed, thus when he broke the previous record of
12.5 parsecs it was major achievement. The evidence to support this theory
was the expert piloting skills demonstrated as he escaped from Hoth in "The
empire strikes back"
Possibility 2 - He was testing Obiwan to see what he knew about space travel
and as he didn't make a comment about "that's ridiculous" it set the tone
for the rest of the film where Haan looked down his nose at the two Jedi.
Possibility 3 - Haan solo didn't know what he was talking about. A very slim
possibility or he wouldn't have survived that long
Possibility 4 - The script writer didn't know what he was talking about and
it just sounded good. Surely not :-)
Stephen Rainsbury
>> I certainly wouldn't entertain a satellite phone if it was a donation
>> including limited line rental, and bearing in mind that this is a 10 year
>> old set that needs an external battery box and dish setup its not
>> actually
>> practical either, but will be fine for base camp in remote areas.
We tried it last night, its not as big as I thought.
Its a Motorola set about as big a large coffee jar and it does have an
internal battery which can last 20 minutes, the external box is just for
more power, but as the internal one is almost dead then you really need it.
18v? Weird value. oh well.
The dish is like an umbrella and folds up really small just like a
collapsing hand bag one.
We made one call to his Global operations team just to test it and
apparently that would have normally cost us £7!!!!
Interestingly enough there was only one speed-dial button and that was fixed
to "Medivac"
John Russell
The script writers on Star Trek (those who write the story) leave gaps
labelled 'techno babble' where technical stuff goes. Then they have techno
babble writers who go through the script putting in babble that seems to
fit.
GAGS
"Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
> news:44b89...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> >> Is this a trick question like Haan Solo said that he "did the Kessel
run
> > in
> >> less than twelve parsecs" :-)
> >>
> >
> > No Steve it's not!
> >
> > The point I'm making is that a light-year ISN'T a measure of time.
>
> There is a deep division in the Star Wars community about this point and
> thesis level dissertations have been written about it (No I am not
kidding!)
>
> snip the unlikely possibilities
> Possibility 4 - The script writer didn't know what he was talking about
and
> it just sounded good. Surely not :-)
>
Surely yes!
Again it's due to the fact that the unit has a measure of time in its name,
much the same as 'light-year' having 'year' in its name, and makes many
think it's got something to do with time. (A light-year is a measure of
distance not time.)
In fact here the 'sec' bit - an abbreviation of 'second' - isn't even a
measure of time, but a measure of angle.
Parsec, an abbreviation of 'PARallax SECond', is defined as:
the unit of astronomical length based on the distance from Earth at which
stellar (or annular*) parallax is 1 second of arc. It is equivalent to 3.26
light years, or put another way, the distance at which one astronomical unit
(AU) subtends an angle of one second of arc. (1 AU is the mean distance of
the Earth from the Sun.)
* The term annular parallax comes from considering the motion of the earth.
As the earth moves from one end of its orbit around the sun to the other
(i.e. 6 months later as it takes one year - hence annular - for a complete
orbit), stars viewed from earth will appear to move slightly. Half the
inverse of the angle a star appears to move, measured in seconds of arc (one
second of arc is 1/60th of one minute of arc, which in turn is 1/60th of one
degree of arc - a very small angle!) during this motion is the distance to
the star in parsecs.
Forget time; similar to light-year it's simply a measure of distance!
GAGS
GAGS
> GAGS wrote:
>
> >
> ><stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:1152944758....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >> > I certainly wouldn't entertain a satellite phone if it was a donation
> >> > including limited line rental, and bearing in mind that this is a 10
> >year
> >> > old set that needs an external battery box and dish setup its not
> >actually
> >> > practical either, but will be fine for base camp in remote areas.
> >>
> >> Quite, why are people not considering that the "another means of
> >> summoning help" is actually there to permit the basecamp situation
> >> where there is communications ?
> >>
> >
> >I haven't said that I haven't considered this!
> >
> >I have been consistent all through this debate.
> >
> >There is no problem with using a fixed, but temporary, communication point
> >to define the terrain for a particular event. But you were arguing about
> >people carrying mobile phones where the definition of the terrain moves with
> >the people with the phone.
My ns seems to have somehow dropped your posts John. Maybe it's anti
bandwidth police! :-)
What the 'eck let's use up some more bandwidth!
>
> I think you're wrong, I think there is a major problem with that. What
> you're doing is using a temporary communication point to push people further
> into remote country when they are not equipped by training or experience to
> cope with incidents.
No! With fixed communication points it's now not remote country!
Do remember what I said. Quote: There is no problem with using a fixed,
but temporary, communication point to define the terrain for a
particular event. The last four words are important! We're not talking
about a troop hike here. The event will still have to have T1 people in
the organising team, but not to the extent whereby there has to be one
per team taking part.
Furtehrmore, what I'm talking about here is terrain that is defined as
T1 solely by reason of clause 2 in the definitions, i.e. remoteness.
Note: solely! You're removing the remoteness restriction, but not the
height or technical difficulty restrictions.
> (If they were equipped by training and experience to
> cope with incidents in remote country then they would have the permit, and
> wouldn't need the subterfuge of a 'communication point'.)
It's not subterfuge! This is allowing a large scale event to happen in
a controlled terrain whereby each individual team does not have to have
an authorised leader leading them. They will still have to have a set
of skills that is appropriate for the event. This not a case of getting
around the rules. It merely ensures that no team should be at a
'remote' distance by having established checkpoints with comms.
>
> You can't guarantee that their best, safest, quickest route out is back to
> your temporary point.
You can't guarantee that even with an authorised leader! All one can do
is ensure that with the appropriate level of skills they should have
they should be able to navigate to a point marked on their map at which
help is available.
> You can't guarantee that the comms point would be
> working**.
Of course, but help is available at the checkpoint. Furthermore, that
checkpoint can communicate - even if it's not by radio or mobile phone,
etc - with the next one, and so on until the emergency services can be
contacted if they're needed.
I'm talking about the sort of set-up that you see at large scale events
taking place in MHM terrain.
> They can't get out, or help get to them, any quicker. In the
> best possible outcome all you've done is ensure that people for whom, by
> virtue of their inexperience and lack of suitable training, a twisted ankle
> is life threatening, can now call for a helicopter quicker. That's the best
> outcome. That's irresponsible.
You're off on the wrong track here John! Remember the context - which
I'm now having to spell out - in which I'm saying this sort of
relay/checkpoint grid system is used.
We're not talking about a troop/unit hike here!
>
> I think, GAGS, that you've tried so hard to argue your case on 'defining
> terrain by reference to time to get to points of communication' that you've
> talked yourself into a hole.
No I haven't and no I haven't!
I've consistently said that the terrain definitions merely demarcate
areas. The point I made about temporary checkpoints was reserved for
large scale organised events over MHM where the only factor making the
terrain T1 was remoteness. Remove the remoteness and the terrain
becomes T0. The checkpoints are fixed locations and are no different
(for the duration of the event) than a place of habitation or a
telephone box.
It would be no different to going out and buying a shed-load of phone
boxes, putting them in the same locations as the checkpoints (i.e.
within 30 mins distance), and connecting them up to the PTS.
No I'm not digging myself into a hole.
> If you sit back and give this some quiet
> reflection before plugging on you will realise that what you're suggesting
> about temporary communications points is a disaster waiting to happen.
Well you go and tell that to the organisers of many large scale events
that successfully and safely take place in this sort of terrain.
You will have seen - if you've been reading my posts carefully :-) -
that I have consistently interpreted the SA terrain defintions as I
believe they should be interpreted. I have consistently argued against
the use of mobile communications carried by a party walking in a given
terrain to somehow continually change the definition of remoteness so
that they can get around the rules. And, finally, I've been consistent
in saying that only where certain controlled and defined organisational
measures can be put in place for a certain type of event can one
consider redefining an area, by effectively removing the remoteness
factor, for participants in the event for the duration of the event.
>
> You're right that the rules are about defining terrain,
I haven't been talking about the whole range of the MHM rules! I've
only been talking about how we go about defining terrain into three
types.
> but I think they're
> about defining terrain by time to get to help, or help to get to you, not
> about time to get to somewhere you can talk about it.
They simply define terrain into areas based on three factors: height,
remoteness, and technical difficulty (scrambling). There is no 'time'
here.
For the second factor - remoteness - time is used to essentially
determine the distance from a fixed point, i.e how far can I go away
from a fixed point - a road, a farm, a telephone box, etc - without the
terrain changing in classification from T0 to T1 or T1 to T2. If you
look at the FS's it will tell you that for the most likely scenario one
should use a conventional estimation rule - such as Naismith's Rule -
to estimate how far from the fixed point one can go. At that point the
terrain changes classification, irrespective of height or technical
difficulty. (You can use another estimation rule if you wish provided
you can reasonably argue why you should use it.) Thus '30 mins from a
road' essentially means a maximum of 2km (if you use 4kph as
recommended for parties of yp) if the terrain is flat. If there are
uphill stretches then it will be less than this. If it's genetly
downhill then it may be slightly more than this. It's essentially using
a time to measure a distance. 'Which can take a road-going ambulance'
merely seeks to classify the type of road, i.e. essentially all
metalled roads except maybe those which are service roads and require a
special type of vehicle and/or have some form of restricted access.
That's all it's about - defining remoteness as a distance from a
defined fixed point.
Once we have the three types of terrain defined we can then look at the
level of skills/experience/training required which can be matched to
each terrain wiht consideration of a range of other factors such as
safety and risk.
The terrain definitions are simply to do with demarcating terrain.
That's all they aim to do. They do not per se try to define safe or
unsafe terrain!
Safety and risk and lots of other things come in when we consider the
whole range of the MHM rules, not just the terrain defintions. We then
start talking about the appropriate level of skills/training/experience
for a particular terrain and they will be influenced by safety, risk
and technical factors, etc.
>
> If you're defining remoteness you've got to define it by something that's
> going to be there when you need it, like a road, or habitation, or a big red
> telephone box.
>
Of course! Now pray tell me where have I said that something's not
going to be there when you need it!!? A fixed 'communication point' is
no different from a road, a farm, or a big red telephone box. These
points are only going to be available in a large scale well-organised
event.
When I'm talking about setting up a checkpoint/communication
grid/network I'm not talking about a troop getting their GSL to stand
in the middle of nowhere with a mobile phone just so they can go on
their next hike without an authorisation/permit holder to lead and/or
supervise!
Give me some credit will you! :-)
GAGS
Stephen Rainsbury
>
> "Stephen Rainsbury" <ste...@rainsbury.net-spamnet- -> wrote in message
> news:W55ug.101704$wl.2...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> "GAGS" <absolutec...@craplineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:44b89...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>>
>> >> Is this a trick question like Haan Solo said that he "did the Kessel
> run
>> > in
>> >> less than twelve parsecs" :-)
>> >>
>> >
>> > No Steve it's not!
>> >
>> > The point I'm making is that a light-year ISN'T a measure of time.
>>
>> There is a deep division in the Star Wars community about this point and
>> thesis level dissertations have been written about it (No I am not
> kidding!)
>>
>
>> snip the unlikely possibilities
>
>> Possibility 4 - The script writer didn't know what he was talking about
> and
>> it just sounded good. Surely not :-)
>>
>
> Surely yes!
<snip>
I knew thats was Parsec was an abreviation of but didn't realise that it was
that type of second.
A-Level physics was may years ago, however mini-SWMBO DID know what it was,
which isn't bad for a 12 year old. But then she is a member of the School
astronomy club and in the accelerated learning proigramme for Maths and
Science (ie taking 4 GCSEs a year early!!) Plus came head of year for IT
(99% for the whole year including coursework, homework and exams) We are
just a bit smug at the moment. Its also really quite funny at scouts when
somebody refers to "stupid girls" or "Girls can't do anything" because the
other 12 year old girl is Year captain at school and plays Hockey and
Corfball at county level above her age group :-)
> Forget time; similar to light-year it's simply a measure of distance!
So back to the important question, how fast was Haan Solo's Kessel run? On
second thoughts don't bother I am not going to argue with a wookie. :-)
And to end on a sad note, we have a rogues gallery on the wall in the dining
area which has photos of our kids at various ages but nieces and nephews.
Right in the middle we have a framed photo of Chewbacca just to see what
people say. I even hung a black ribbon on the corner for a week when I read
the book in which he died (saving Haan Solos youngest son Anakin), but 'er
indoors said it was tasteless.
Neil Williams
> You may be able to summon it but will it be able to get to you unless
> you are calling for air support?
If you call for it at a remote farmhouse at the end of a long rutted
dirt track that requires a 4x4 to reach it, it might not be doing so
very quickly either. That's why I'm surprised the "road going
ambulance" bit isn't ANDed with the other two ORed.
Neil
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> > on the map ?
>
> It is implicit in the defintions of terrain. All we are trying to do with
> these definitions is to define areas on a map.
Thats just you view, that its implicit. Some of us take a different
view.
Assume you are a new leader, you have no interest in hillwalking or its
history, or any knowledge of the debate about terain definitions. You
just want a walk in the countryside.
So you remember that for T0 you need no activity authorisation. So you
consult POR for what T0 actually means. You read the definition with an
open mind and no historical perspective or prior knowledge of the
subject.
The definition of T0 is clear to the new leader, it tells them in plain
english that your in T0 if your route is within 30mins travelling time
of a means of summoning help (etc).
Would it occur to the new leader that the purpose of the Terrain
definition is to delimt areas on a map ? .......... I doubt it very
much.
Would it occur to the new leader that the purpose of the Terrain
definition is impose safety restrictions ???????
> Safety aspects per se are addressed through other
> parts of the MHM authorisation/permit rules.
That is true, as it applies to T1 and T2, however the new leader
wanting a walk in the countryside is unlikly to read all the MHM
authorisation/permit rules stuff, are they ?
stevie...@yahoo.co.uk
> dirt track that requires a 4x4 to reach it, it might not be doing so
> very quickly either. That's why I'm surprised the "road going
> ambulance" bit isn't ANDed with the other two ORed.
Maybe T0 should be defined
1) Within 30 mins travelling time of a road capable of taking a normal
road going ambulance.
AND
2) Within 30 mins travelling time of a means of summoning help.
To me thats a lot clearer and more reasonable safety wise, but its not
what the current definition says of course.
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153115956.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > > Where do the definitions say the intention is to define a 'fixed'
point
> > > on the map ?
> >
> > It is implicit in the defintions of terrain. All we are trying to do
with
> > these definitions is to define areas on a map.
>
> Thats just you view, that its implicit.
It says in POR, Terrain Zero Definition, Terrain 1 Definition.....!
All these defintions do is define areas (on a map/ground). That's all! The
definitions PER SE have got sod all to do with safety. Safety and risk were
considered factors in writing the definitions, but in the end all the
definitions aim to do is to define an area/distance from some fixed point.
Do not read anything more into the definitions!
> Some of us take a different
> view.
You're view is to read other things into the definitions. There is no need
to!
>
> Assume you are a new leader, you have no interest in hillwalking or its
> history, or any knowledge of the debate about terain definitions. You
> just want a walk in the countryside.
>
> So you remember that for T0 you need no activity authorisation. So you
> consult POR for what T0 actually means. You read the definition with an
> open mind and no historical perspective or prior knowledge of the
> subject.
I would just simply read it!
>
> The definition of T0 is clear to the new leader, it tells them in plain
> english that your in T0 if your route is within 30mins travelling time
> of a means of summoning help (etc).
Of course it does!
>
> Would it occur to the new leader that the purpose of the Terrain
> definition is to delimt areas on a map ? .......... I doubt it very
> much.
Grrr...Look! Say I'm a new leader. I want to go on a walk on a particular
route/path/whatever. If it's across the fields at the bottom of the garden
in sunny High Wycombe it's highly unlikely that I'm going to start looking
at hillwalking regulations! But let's say for the sake of this discussion
the route is in the LDNP and I've been advised by a colleague that I should
check out the regulations concerning MHM activities.
I choose my route and plot it on the map. Let's say my chosen route is from
Wasdale Head via Burnmoor Tarn to Boot in Eskdale.
Now I ask myself if I need a specific permit to walk this route. I find I
don't need one if the route is wholly within T0. Say I don't have a permit
so therefore I need to check. Now I look at the terrain definitions.
I start with T0. Clause 1 says all points on the route must be at less than
500m. I check and find that the average maximum height I will attain is
about 250m. Hence based solely on this clause all parts of the route lie in
T0.
Clause 3 says there must be no scrambling. I check on the map to see if
there are any features (very steep slopes, deep gullys, etc) where
scrambling techniques might be needed. (I may also check with a guidebook
and/or a colleague who's been over the route). There are none. Hence based
solely on this clause all parts of the route lie in T0.
Now I look at clause 2, '30 mins travelling time...'.What the 'eck does it
mean by 'travelling time', I ask myself? A colleague directs me to
FS120454:
Travelling Time means the time it would take a person to walk by the
quickest safe route; and for this purpose a person shall be deemed to walk
at 5 kilometres per hour and to take, in addition, one minute for every 10
metres of increase in the height above sea level of any uphill section of
that route.
What does this actually mean and how do I relate it to my route marked on
the map? Maps aren't marked in minutes! Ah, the formula gives me a way of
calculating a distance. But what if I choose not to walk at 5kph? Doesn't
matter! 'A person shall be deemed to walk at....'
Now I ask myself: 'A distance from where?' 'A road that can take a
road-going ambulance'! At the Boot end I note that the road there is
classified as being generally more than 4m wide and as it's a village I'm
confident that this is a road that can take a road-going ambulance. At the
Wasdale Head end I can see from pictures in the guidebook that a wide range
of vehicles can get there so again I'm confident that the road up Wasdale is
okay. These are the 2 nearest roads. This now means I have 2 'fixed points'
from which I can measure my distance (calculated from the formula).
Furthermore, I note that the road from Wasdale Head parallels my path for a
bit so the nearest point to the road is a little way along my route and not
exactly at Wasdale Head.
'Or a building which is occupied'. I note that there is a farm at
Brackenclose even further along the route from Wasdale Head. That now
becomes my nearest fixed point. At the S end I note that there is a farm at
Gill Bank a little way up from Boot. That now becomes my other fixed point.
Now I note that almost halfway along and a little off my route there is
something marked as Burnmoor Lodge. Great! As this sits almost midway it
looks as though this will be the fixed point to measure the '30m mins'
distance from. Funny it's so isolated, I note. Check in the guidebook. It's
deserted! Okay so my 2 farms, at either end, are my 2 fixed points; there's
nothing in the middle.
'Or another means of summoning help'. I'm now concentrating on the middle
bit of my chosen route. Is there another means of summoning help along this
bit? Doesn't look like it to me - no telephone boxes that I can see! What
about my mobile phone? It's another means of summoning help and as I'm not
expected to be out for more than 5/6 hours at best there's no problem with
the power supply. Hmm... I talk to the DMA (seeking advice as any unsure
leader should do). They tell me that reception/transmission in the area is
highly variable. Could I be sure I would have a signal in the middle of my
route? No! In fact I can't be sure I will at any time. If it did fail and I
had exceeded T0 I'd be in shit. Besides, using my mobile phone means that
the terrain I'm walking over may continually change status depending on my
phone. Uncertainty is not the best way to proceed. Furthermore, why would it
say '30 mins travelling time..', implying distance from somewhere, when
there's no distance from a mobile phone which I carry? No a mobile phone (or
any other such communication device carried by me) is not what is intended
to be 'another means of summoning help'!
Now I calculate my travelling time. I pick a point halfway along the route.
It's downhill from there either way so the calculation simply gives me 2.5
km. I measure it and find that from halfway between the 2 fixed points of
(habitation) I just fail to reach either of the 2 points. Thus I conclude
that the area in the middle around Burnmoor Tarn is T1 and I can't traverse
this unless I've got the authorisation.
What've I found out? Well simply, Up to a point on the route (from either
end) I'm in T0, but in the middle I'm T1. What've I simply done? Demarcate
areas! This bit is T0, that bit is T1.
>
> Would it occur to the new leader that the purpose of the Terrain
> definition is impose safety restrictions ???????
It would occur to the new leader that safety considerations have been taken
into account in coming up with the definitions of terrain, but the
definitions simply define terrain, i.e is this T0, or T1 or T2?
Safety was an underlying factor in my example, but all I simply did was
demarcate terrain!
>
>
> > Safety aspects per se are addressed through other
> > parts of the MHM authorisation/permit rules.
>
> That is true, as it applies to T1 and T2,
It's also addressed in T0! For there it says you don't need a permit.
> however the new leader
> wanting a walk in the countryside is unlikly to read all the MHM
> authorisation/permit rules stuff, are they ?
>
No, not if they're going for a walk in an area which is clearly understood
not to be 'wild country'!
However, I would expect any leader, new or experienced, considering going on
a hike would have at least an overview of general activity rules and would
be aware that for certain hiking activities additional rules might be
applicable.They would be aware - or be made aware (as it is in leader
training) - that activities in wild country areas might be restricted so if
they were thinking of going to somewhere such as the Lakes, Snowdonia,
Dartmoor, etc, then I would expect them to consult these rules or at least
seek advice.
Besides, a new leader doesn't have to read all the MHM permit stuff, once
they've read the terrain definitions and concluded that their hike is in T0
that's it.
I believe I have more than adequately addressed all your points on this
issue. I have told you exactly what the terrain definitions aim to do and
how they work (and don't work for mobile phones that people carry) in the
minutest detail.
If you continue to fiddle with the meanings in the manner you're going about
right now then I have to say you risk someone thinking that you don't
understand the rules and all that that entails.
I know I'm right. If you want to check then I suggest you see your DMA or
CMA and ask them. There's nothing more I can say!
GAGS
GAGS
<stevie...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153116384.9...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > If you call for it at a remote farmhouse at the end of a long rutted
> > dirt track that requires a 4x4 to reach it, it might not be doing so
> > very quickly either. That's why I'm surprised the "road going
> > ambulance" bit isn't ANDed with the other two ORed.
>
> Maybe T0 should be defined
>
> 1) Within 30 mins travelling time of a road capable of taking a normal
> road going ambulance.
>
> AND
>
> 2) Within 30 mins travelling time of a means of summoning help.
>
these rules. They're most certainly testing my patience!
All that the definitions of terrain do is define an area or distances from
fixed points. For the umpteenth time - that's all! Yes those fixed points
have been chosen with safety/rescue in mind. They have no purpose in
defining how one may be rescued.
How the emergency services decide to rescue you from a particular location
is up to them.
The aim of the terrain definitions is to simply identify 3 types of terrain,
not to confuse or over-elaborate with minutae on how the emergency services
might respond.
And, and, and! You'll be soon saying... and within 10 miles of an A&E
hospital... and one that can be reached by motorways and/or A-roads... and
which has specialists that can treat fractures, burns, hypothermia, etc...!
What the f*** is the point of putting AND here!!!!!?
Now you're almost assuming that the emergency services will always use a
road-going ambulance. Why don't you just let the emergency services decide
what is the most appropriate rescue vehicle!!?
And if we want to choose points (30 mins travelling time away) at which the
emergency services can respond very quickly why not make these next to every
A&E hospital in the country! Jeez!
>
> To me thats a lot clearer and more reasonable safety wise, but its not
> what the current definition says of course.
But it doesn't need to!
I've told you what '30 mins travelling time' means - it's effectively a
distance! I've told you what 'a road capable of taking a road-going
ambulance' means - it simply defines a particular type of road. Whether a
road-going ambulance will be used is irrelevant to the definition!
It's irrelevant if the place of habitation is not near a road capable of
taking a road-going ambulance. It's simply a place where help can be sought.
The emergency services will decide on the best way to rescue you if that is
what's needed. They'll carry you down the track, or put you in a 4x4, or fly
in a chopper, whatever! They will decide.
We're just trying to demarcate areas here and to do this in the simplest way
possible. We're trying to define areas in a way that avoids the anomalies
we've seen in the past through designating larger areas (e.g. wild country)
whereby little or no account is taken of the wide variety of terrain types
within those areas.
Clause 2 in the definitions is simply trying to define remoteness is an
easily understood and simple way. It does not set out to define how one
should or may be rescued!
You're either reading too much into all of this or deliberately trying to
test my patience.
Well on the latter point I can say you're succeeding!
If you doubt anything I've said why not phone someone, IC or someone in
Activities, and get it straight from the horse's mouth. I'll tell you now
that you'll be wasting your time and money.
Behave!
GAGS
Ewan Scott
>Now you're almost assuming that the emergency services will always use a
>road-going ambulance. Why don't you just let the emergency services decide
>what is the most appropriate rescue vehicle!!?
The other week we were kayaking on the Calder and Hebble about a mile
from the M1. The brand new Air ambulance attended an incident at
Calder Park Hotel, which is about 100 yards from the motorway (running
freely) and within easy reach of Pinderfield's. As you say, let them
choose the method of assistance.
Ewan Scott
Stephen Rainsbury
that hostilities can now cease? Please?
GAGS
"Ewan Scott" <ewan...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:hobnb2pj5ebif25i2...@4ax.com...
Exactly!
The casualty might have had a serious injury and it was too risky to move
them by road. Speed of rescue might have been a factor even if the road
system was running freely, or they might have needed to get a specialist
there quickly. The Air ambulance might have been in the area or have been
the fastest response vehicle because road ambulances were tied up elsewhere.
Etc.
There is no need to base our remoteness criteria solely on being able to be
attended to in an emergency by a road-going ambulance because in the end the
emergency services will decide what is the best vehicle at the time to send
to an incident.
There is no need to over-complicate things by trying to guess how the
emergency services might respond and from that then set the criteria based
on that guessed response.
The remoteness criteria in the terrain definitions are a simple measure used
to demarcate an area such that an appropriate set of
skills/experience/training criteria can be mapped onto it. Safety factors
were taken into account when formulating the remoteness criteria, but the
end result is to simply have an easy to understand measure. Period.
GAGS