Recommendation to abolish the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority AALA

[Seoras]

I got sent this today.

As it says in the title it is a recommendation.

I do not run a school but work with cadet forces and have never had to deal with AALA.

You may have if you work in the outdoor industry. What are your thoughts on this recommendation folks?

http://www.hse.gov.uk/aala/recommendation-to-abolish-aala.htm

Cheers

George

 

[Paullyfuzz]

It is being got rid of, to be replaced by a voluntary code of conduct. Not a bad thing really as AALA only covered the standard outdoor activities. A lot of instructors will be glad of it's passing as it's a £1000 a pop.

 

[maddave]

Thank the gods... Seems you can't do anything anymore before handing large sums of cash to faceless "bodies" for the priviledge. Abolish Health and Safety and bring back Common sense.. It's cheaper and works a helluva lot better.

 

[johnboy]

Oh dear....

The AALA covers licenceable activities for Under 18's for commercial provision.. So groups like scouts guides, cadets boys/ girls brigade were never covered.

The AALA was brought into being after the Lyme Bay Tragedy. Basically A lot of outdoor centeres were using staff that were inexpert and under qualified to provide 'instruction'.

The basic premis for the AALA was if you're sending U18's to a commercial centre than that centre should be able to provide proper instruction and a safe ( as is reasonably possible) environment.

The question is if the AALA is abolished and a voluntary code of practice is brought in. Will standards at commercial providers drop as no one is ensuring they are kept up?

 

[johnboy]

Thank the gods... Seems you can't do anything anymore before handing large sums of cash to faceless "bodies" for the priviledge. Abolish Health and Safety and bring back Common sense.. It's cheaper and works a helluva lot better.

Mate you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in relation to the AALA.

I'm not against 'common sense' however common sense would to me dictate you dont send a bunch of kids canoing across Lyme bay with 'instructors' that have no basic idea waht they are doing. With no safety plan and little in the way of rescue kit.

The AALA was far from faceless in reality.

Have a think before you post.

 

[maddave]

Mate you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in relation to the AALA.

I'm not against 'common sense' however common sense would to me dictate you dont send a bunch of kids canoing across Lyme bay with 'instructors' that have no basic idea waht they are doing. With no safety plan and little in the way of rescue kit.

The AALA was far from faceless in reality.

Have a think before you post.

I have thought.. And my comment wasn't an attack on the AALA in general but the astronomical cost of qualifications in general. I work as a park ranger and I have to obtain certificates to work with kids, to drive tractors, to use a chopsaw, to use a chainsaw, to drive a telehandler, to use a JCB, to climb a ladder, to lift anything, to use manual tools (hammer crowbar screwdriver pliers etc etc) , to view the CCTV system, to use the boat, to ring birds, to ***** eggs, to take people on walks, to work at height, to use the jetwash, and probably to go to the toilet.

What I'm saying is there is a massive industry purely geared to stifling common sense and experience to make big bucks out of handing out bits of paper telling you you're qualified to do a task after doing a weeks training (costing lots of wonga). That you may have been doing quite perfectly for 20 years. I've seen people who've been on a LANTRA chainsaw course doing horrendously dangerous things, but is it OK because they've paid for a weeks course and got "qualified".. Sorry, that's rubbish. No amount of paper buys experience. On this forum alone I know some immensely "qualified" bushcrafters who don't have a qualification to their name.. Does that make them "instructors who don't know what they're doing"? Does Mr Mears have lots of paper? Or Mors Kochanski? or dare I say it, The Chief Scout Mr Grylls ?? if not they shouldn't be teaching is this correct?? regardless of their experience.

 

[ged]

... I have to obtain certificates to ... climb a ladder ...

Ask the RoSPA how many people put themselves in hospital every year by climbing ladders.

The answer is over 40,000. And 4,000 employees -- who have to be trained by law -- are still seriously injured every year through working at height:

http://www.rospa.com/occupationalsafety/training/riskassessment/working-at-height.aspx

Some of the things people do have to be seen to be believed. I've had a driver who reversed over his deliveries instead of loading them into his van. When I get new people working for me they're astonished by the Quality Manual. They can't generally make a neat pile from three pallets without it falling over, and they've no idea why I want incoming mail stamped with the rubber stamp, and they kick and scream about writing the date and time on the telephone message pad. They think the fire drills are funny, and don't like it when I grumble that they took over twelve seconds to clear the building. Yes, people need to be trained. Some of them need it desperately. No good whining about it, it's a fact of life. And most businesses will cut corners if you don't keep on top of them. If you don't know all this then you're the one lacking in experience.

 

[johnboy]

I have thought.. And my comment wasn't an attack on the AALA in general but the astronomical cost of qualifications in general. I work as a park ranger and I have to obtain certificates to work with kids, to drive tractors, to use a chopsaw, to use a chainsaw, to drive a telehandler, to use a JCB, to climb a ladder, to lift anything, to use manual tools (hammer crowbar screwdriver pliers etc etc) , to view the CCTV system, to use the boat, to ring birds, to ***** eggs, to take people on walks, to work at height, to use the jetwash, and probably to go to the toilet.

What I'm saying is there is a massive industry purely geared to stifling common sense and experience to make big bucks out of handing out bits of paper telling you you're qualified to do a task after doing a weeks training (costing lots of wonga). That you may have been doing quite perfectly for 20 years. I've seen people who've been on a LANTRA chainsaw course doing horrendously dangerous things, but is it OK because they've paid for a weeks course and got "qualified".. Sorry, that's rubbish. No amount of paper buys experience. On this forum alone I know some immensely "qualified" bushcrafters who don't have a qualification to their name.. Does that make them "instructors who don't know what they're doing"? Does Mr Mears have lots of paper? Or Mors Kochanski? or dare I say it, The Chief Scout Mr Grylls ?? if not they shouldn't be teaching is this correct?? regardless of their experience.

Dave your original comment was an attack on the AALA IMHO. As the post was about the AALA not generically about the cost or validity / need for qualifications.

I like your use of celebrity names... Always an emotive way to get a topic going...

Ok lets explore them a second.

Mors operates AFAIK in Canada not the UK unless he's attending the Bush Moot. Maybe he's PAWGI certified??

Ray Mears (Woodlore) operates primarily to over 18's and those U18 courses that are run may not fall under the AALA remit. ( should they? Well that a whole different discussion) If they do then 'even Ray Mears' or more realistically Woodlore would need to have a AALA licence to operate.

In fact if we check on the AALA's website we can see that Woodlore are not a licenced provider..

http://www.aals.org.uk/aals/provider_search.php

Bear Grylls if operating as an instructor in a non paid role for a Voluntary organisation such as Scouts would not be covered by the AALA remit. Neither would all the thousands of other folk who volunteer all over the country for a host of differing organisations.

AALA covers the commercial sector.

The post is about the current situation with the AALA. Not really about the requirements for folk providing Bushcraft instruction.

let's take a few lines to look at that...

As we know there is no requirement for any form of qualification to operate as a Bushcraft instructor currently in the UK.

Of course there are heaps of really great bushcraft instructors out there offering great experiences with a heap and wealth of knowlege. There are also probably others who are not as good who potentially operate unsafely and probably dont even realise they are.

How do you tell the difference apart from word of mouth and reputation? Is word of mouth too late if my child has lost a finger though inexpert supervision of a knife session. Or burnt themselves due to poor delivery of a fire making session...

Anyhow I digress.

From my perspective the AALA has had a good effect on the conventional outdoor industry.

I'm not one for stifiling 'common sense' but the issue is where a non regulated environment has existed in the past with respect to
the conventional outdoor industry issues happened such as Lyme Bay.

The truth is it's cheaper to put a non qualified person in a Kayak and ask them to lead an activity than it is to put a qualified person in a Kayak.

It's cheaper to operate without adequate safety systems in place than it is to operate with them in place.

Would you rather send your kids away for a week to an outdoor centre that is independantly audited + certifed as meeting the standard.

Or a centre that says it meets the standard ??

That's the crux of the issue not if you need to have a chainsaw licence if you've been using them for 20 years...

A really good report about folk leading young people in the outdoors that led to a totally preventable tragedy is the case of Glenrigging Beck and the Death of Max Palmer.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/schooltrips/investigation/index.htm

A text book example of how not to do it at so many different levels.

 

[maddave]

I don't disagree that inexperienced instructors can get things wrong. But tragedies happen even with highly trained leaders. I just don't think certification is any measure of experience.

2 mins with photoshop and I'm certified...... Who's going to check?? All the qualifications I have (MLC CLC etc) No one has ever asked to see them. Except once for a job interview at Plas Y Brenin a good few years back.

I have no comment about PAWGI

 

[johnboy]

Dave,

You are missing the point entirely.. Do you actually understand what the AALA does?

Knocking up a certificate on photoshop while fun and I admire your skills. Is not what this is about.

AALA audit and then licence the provider. I can as an individual go and check that the provider has the licence in place that they say they have..

Clearly your AALA photoshop special will not stand scrutiny in that case and if you hypothetically were operating with such a certificate and an incident occured then watch HSE take you apart very quickly indeed.

You seem to be saying if I have a lot of experience at a particular activity then I dont need to be certified???

Certification and in the AALA's case Activity Licencing sets a bench mark for the minimum level of expertise or operating practice.

If you exceed the minimum requirements because you are very experienced then great getting the qualification will be easy for you.

Certification doesn't confer you know it all or have XX years of experience. It says you meet the minimum standard required. The standard is the device that sets the requirements you have to meet.

That PYB asked to see proof of your qualifications speaks volumes for them as providers.

 

[maddave]

I see we're at crossed threads or we may have to agree to disagree. I understand the certificate would not hold up to scrutiny (all you'd have to do is phone up) What I'm saying is that a certificate is no guarantee of quality.
I understand the AALA is a benchmark, but it can be done in a more efficient and cost effective way. Those who wish to run a "questionable" establishment still will and you're right the HSE will rip them a new one "if they are caught". Would an individual know what to look for or where to go to check this out? Or even be bothered
Have you ever got in a Taxi and asked to see the drivers current british driving license? or asked to see the license of your driving instructor? No.... We assume because he has a few stickers on the car and/or a radio that he's a qualified driver. Yes the police stopcheck them and a few get caught (in fact the Driving instructor that knocked me off my motorcycle didn't have a british driving license), but the unscrupulous don't, nor do they care. A code of practice could rest with the school and each school be judged on its sucesses.. Like high schools are with their GCSE passes. That way the school is measured by the Quality of it's staff and training, not by handing over £750 and being on the ball for a day while the HSE inspectors nosey around. Dodgy schools will still be around, but I'm sure they are now AALA or not.
In fact I'm positive that some entreprenurial businessmen have even set up Professional associations who certify schools without any qualifications to do so.... nuff said

 

[johnboy]

I see we're at crossed threads or we may have to agree to disagree.

That's a couple of several options...

I understand the certificate would not hold up to scrutiny (all you'd have to do is phone up) What I'm saying is that a certificate is no guarantee of quality.

No that's not correct IMHO. In the AALA case the certificate holder / licencee has undergone an independant audit by an experienced assessor / auditor the certificate / licence says the establishment or Individual meets the AALA's minimum standards.

Is that not a guarantee of quality??

I understand the AALA is a benchmark, but it can be done in a more efficient and cost effective way. Those who wish to run a "questionable" establishment still will and you're right the HSE will rip them a new one "if they are caught". Would an individual know what to look for or where to go to check this out?

The thing is if you're running an establishment now where you're offering commercial provision to U18's for AALA licencable activities but you are not licenced then you're breaking the law.

A law that was put there to stop substandard providers. Following the deaths of four young people.

I'll think you'll find that schools and people using outdoor centres are very concerned about providers being licenced and competent.

Have you ever got in a Taxi and asked to see the drivers current british driving license? or asked to see the license of your driving instructor? No.... We assume because he has a few stickers on the car and/or a radio that he's a qualified driver. Yes the police stopcheck them and a few get caught (in fact the Driving instructor that knocked me off my motorcycle didn't have a british driving license), but the unscrupulous don't, nor do they care.

When you get in a Taxi in China and also here in NZ there is a card with the drivers details and picture on it tells you that he is a registered driver by the taxi federation.

What's this got to do with the AALA? Nothing but there you go...

A code of practice could rest with the school and each school be judged on its sucesses.. Like high schools are with their GCSE passes. That way the school is measured by the Quality of it's staff and training, not by handing over £750 and being on the ball for a day while the HSE inspectors nosey around. Dodgy schools will still be around, but I'm sure they are now AALA or not.

The problem is as soon as you remove regulation which seems to be what you're advocating then commercial pressures come into play especially for providers a bit lower down the food chain.

Remove the need for CPD and some folk will continue with it a lot will just drop it. Remove the need for an updated and audited safety plan.. Then some folk won't audit and update it.

I could go and do a days's CPD or take group X abseiling for $250.00 if you're in business especially as an O'n'O waht would you do?

Sometimes dispite what the Daily Mail would have us believe regulation can and does have benifits.

The problem with common sense is that my interpretation and yours probably differ for a given issue. A standard say's here is the definition of best practice for that issue. Regulation says if you want to do this then meet the standard if you dont then you're not allowed to do it.

 

[EdS]

Having seen what goes not some site and working with H&S from both emforcement and as a Union H&S rep -- H&S isn't nearly enforce enough. Not only should bad managers/compaies have stiffer penalties but we really need to clamp down more on employees with bad practise.

What alot of people get confused is most "bans" are nothing to do with H&S law - all that does is require risks to be accessed and recorded and mitigated as much as possible by defined protocals - but fear of the company/organisation been sued even if they do comply with the law. And that is the fault of the great British public and their compensation culture.

 

[Tony]

A 2am crossed threads conversation, cool I do think Dave's comment was a general pop at things, not specific. Anyway, I'm not sure what I think, I don't know a lot about the organisation but there does seems a pro and con side to it, in some ways it will be good and some bad, if there's accidents due to the scrapping of the AALA then it will have been a bad thing, although the legal system should be used as a deterrent as well to prevent unqualified or experienced people leading activities that they can't and shouldn't do.

I've done quite a bit of H&S stuff as well and it's good, it's just the execution of it that's usually bad, not done right or over the top.

I think the main gripe some people have is that it doesn't matter what experience they have they have to have a bit of paper and the bit of paper can even undermine other people with far more experience and capability.

 

[timboggle]

Dave your original comment was an attack on the AALA IMHO. As the post was about the AALA not generically about the cost or validity / need for qualifications.

I like your use of celebrity names... Always an emotive way to get a topic going...

Ok lets explore them a second.

Mors operates AFAIK in Canada not the UK unless he's attending the Bush Moot. Maybe he's PAWGI certified??

Ray Mears (Woodlore) operates primarily to over 18's and those U18 courses that are run may not fall under the AALA remit. ( should they? Well that a whole different discussion) If they do then 'even Ray Mears' or more realistically Woodlore would need to have a AALA licence to operate.

In fact if we check on the AALA's website we can see that Woodlore are not a licenced provider..

http://www.aals.org.uk/aals/provider_search.php

Bear Grylls if operating as an instructor in a non paid role for a Voluntary organisation such as Scouts would not be covered by the AALA remit. Neither would all the thousands of other folk who volunteer all over the country for a host of differing organisations.

AALA covers the commercial sector.

The post is about the current situation with the AALA. Not really about the requirements for folk providing Bushcraft instruction.

let's take a few lines to look at that...

As we know there is no requirement for any form of qualification to operate as a Bushcraft instructor currently in the UK.

Of course there are heaps of really great bushcraft instructors out there offering great experiences with a heap and wealth of knowlege. There are also probably others who are not as good who potentially operate unsafely and probably dont even realise they are.

How do you tell the difference apart from word of mouth and reputation? Is word of mouth too late if my child has lost a finger though inexpert supervision of a knife session. Or burnt themselves due to poor delivery of a fire making session...

Anyhow I digress.

From my perspective the AALA has had a good effect on the conventional outdoor industry.

I'm not one for stifiling 'common sense' but the issue is where a non regulated environment has existed in the past with respect to
the conventional outdoor industry issues happened such as Lyme Bay.

The truth is it's cheaper to put a non qualified person in a Kayak and ask them to lead an activity than it is to put a qualified person in a Kayak.

It's cheaper to operate without adequate safety systems in place than it is to operate with them in place.

Would you rather send your kids away for a week to an outdoor centre that is independantly audited + certifed as meeting the standard.

Or a centre that says it meets the standard ??

That's the crux of the issue not if you need to have a chainsaw licence if you've been using them for 20 years...

A really good report about folk leading young people in the outdoors that led to a totally preventable tragedy is the case of Glenrigging Beck and the Death of Max Palmer.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/schooltrips/investigation/index.htm

A text book example of how not to do it at so many different
levels.

John, from your comments I believe you have a very firm knowledge and understanding on what AALA is about and what good it's done for the industry. Indeed I remember the Lyme Bay incident well and the inception of AALA, I've also dealt with AALA on a consultancy basis over the years of it's existence and I believe it has without a doubt saved lives, if only it spread it's remit beyond commercial provision it would have saved more.

The talk about replacing it has been ongoing for a few years now and I'd hate to see it go and be replaced with some voluntary code of practice, what good is that apart from a reference to be used in the coroners court. I think you'll find that any outdoor provider who takes the safety of their clients seriously will not want to lose it, if anything I think it's remits should be extended, for example - Auditing expedition providers to BS 8848 as they too were involved with it's original draft and consultation, in addition to licensing non-commercial providers and maybe even the provision of Bushcraft/survival activities to under 16's.

 

[johnboy]

A 2am crossed threads conversation, cool

It's wasn't 2am here.....

 

[timboggle]

It's wasn't 2am here.....

Nice one

 

[Faz]

I agree with the need for the aala, but they seem to operate in order to make cash and the safety of people under 18 does not appear to be their main interest due to the fact that they do not require teachers or schools to have a licence for any activity a teacher may want to lead. They only ask that the teacher has experience. This places the checking of qualifications of the teacher in the hands of the school and not the aala. If your children only ever attend outdoor activities arranged by their school, the aala are worthless.

 

[johnboy]

I agree with the need for the aala, but they seem to operate in order to make cash and the safety of people under 18 does not appear to be their main interest due to the fact that they do not require teachers or schools to have a licence for any activity a teacher may want to lead. They only ask that the teacher has experience. This places the checking of qualifications of the teacher in the hands of the school and not the aala. If your children only ever attend outdoor activities arranged by their school, the aala are worthless.

You need to understand the remit of the AALA as defined in the The Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations 2004 and the Act which is The Activity Centres (Young Persons Safety) Act 1995.

In short if a school is providing activities to it's own pupils then it is not covered by the regulations.
If a school provides activities to other pupils then the regulations would require it to hold an AALA licence if the activities were within the AALA remit.

I disagree that they do not have the safety of folk under 18 as their interest. You can only reasonably expect the AALA to act within the remit of the regulations and the Act.

I personally think it's entirely reasonable that a school (the employer) checks that a Teacher ( the employee) has sufficent qualifications to undertake an EOTC type activity with pupils.

 

[Faz]

Its ok to quote acts but it still leaves a big hole were the school or teacher are not covered, which makes my point. I understand the act and understand that one reason they are not covered is because they cover the commercial side.

I pay my kids school when they go to do outdoor activities. Sounds commercial to me.

Im all for reform if it brings schools/teachers onto the fold. At the moment the aala seem to think the best way to keep people safe is to only regulate the commercial side of the business, ie those they can get £750 from.