Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>> Alan Wright wrote: >>[NAH comment on policy of restricting access to cave diving training] > >I can understand the policy and completely agree with it in principle. >The problem I have >is that because of the external commitment one must make to caving prior >to cave-diving and the length of time it could possibly take (several >years [2 years is the rule of thumb --- NAH]) it could (will) push people >into attempting cave diving on their own. This has been an historical problem --- the CDG was seen as very hard to join (it was). Starting in the late 80's, some sections started making access easier --- on the grounds that we'd rather have people in where we could train them, than out where they'd get themselves killed. Unfortunately, it didn't seem to work --- for one thing, we're not really geared up to provide systematic training. Secondly, we ended up with some scary people --- one in the Welsh section in particular caused major trauma, and only avoided being finally thrown out because his membership cheque bounced :-) Consequently, things have tightened up a bit again (though not to earlier extremes). >In the event of an accident the CDG (as is done be the diving agencies) >would issue a statement saying that the person was untrained and it was >silly to go into that environment without training, and they would >stress the need for training prior to this activity. However, if it is >difficult to get training then it is inevitable that this will happen. Actually the CDG is rarely asked to comment on cave diving accidents (and, yes, the majority have involved either untrained or inexperienced divers). That training is difficult to get is true --- partly its a result of policy (which, as I said, I think is a bit outdated), and partly a consequence of the nature of the group --- see below. Having said that, I'd be suprised if you couldn't find someone to help, especially if you have something specific in mind (what was it by the way :-) that doesn't need dry caving skills. >I find this attitude a bit patronising. I don't mind if the CDG remains >mainly for dry-cavers who require to dive, but if so they should refrain >from restricting or commenting on divers who want to cave dive. Perhaps >we need an alternative agency, say, the DCG :-) In most cases "just" cave diving isn't practical --- you've got to get to the water first. Granted there are sites which are completely flooded (especially in the North), but these are a minority. There is no problem with an alternative agency --- the CDG doesn't have any "power" as such to restrict non-CDG divers (with a couple of exceptions - see below, there are no such restrictions). In fact, at one time in the mid/late 60s there was a second organisation. >If you truly want to avoid accidents then you have to make training >easily accessible. This is one area where I believe that the US provides >a better service. It may be very commercially driven but it it is very >accessible. Then if some either fails a training course or fails to take >a training course you can, IMO, quite justifiably call that person silly. When I made the remark about anarchy, I wasn't joking --- the CDG is a very small organisation (about 150 members, of whom maybe 30 dive regularly), and can't cope with US style formalised training programs. We just recently revised the training program (a source of endless grief) and couldn't get general agreement on much more than removing the ambiguites from the old schedule --- even suggesting that a medical should be required got the flamethrowers out in force :-) The whole training program, tests included, runs to about 2 pages and is pretty vague. We have no real authority over cave diving in the UK, and apart from agreements at Wookey Hole and Peak Cavern, we don't control access. (Both Wookey and Peak are show caves, with the access restrictions driven solely by liability concerns.) Now, given that we're not in a position to provide systematic, formalised, training, any increase in access is likely to lead to more accidents. Also, there is a long-standing aversion to commercial involvement --- Rob Palmer caused a major row over what was seen as an attempt to benefit financially from the CDG. I'm not saying I like all this, but these are essentially the reasons things are as they are. The CDG in fact provides very little for its members --- very limited insurance, limited supervised training, limited access benefits --- that's why its quite cheap :-). Its main role is as an information and advice sharing forum. Dr. Neal Harman Department of Computer Science University College of Swansea Singleton Park Swansea SA2 8PP TEL: +44 792 295394 FAX: +44 792 295708
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]