UKH

"A sheriff has suggested that mountain guides require regulation after a fatal accident on Skye in 2012..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30483342
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=ba0fbba6-8980-69d...

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Interesting judgment, I wonder how regulating guides activities would have helped?
No mater the degree of regulation errors of judgment will still occur.
If it's a question of qualification - not suggested in the report- then I've been out with folk who are highly qualified but displaying poor judgment.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


I would not be particularly for such regulation. However, we already have 2 governing bodies for those who work in the mountain environments; BMG and the Mountain Training Board. Would it not be too difficult for those 2 organisations to be recognised legally as regulatory bodies as well?

In a sense there is already some regulation. Getting appropriate insurance requires an individual to hold an appropriate qualification such as being a Guide or MIC, MIA MLS, MLW etc. It is possible to get insurance without, but much more difficult and more expensive.

BMG members and those holding Mountain Training board qualifications are seen as highly competent. Yes, there are always those who do not fulfill their obligations, but from my experience that is a very small minority.

Those are the 2 organisations that should at least be consulted about any move to regulate (whatever that really means) guiding or instructing in the mountains.

Rich.

In reply to above:

It sounds as though it has little to do with a guide's qualifications or insurance but a requirement that they equip their client(s) with navigation equipment and some guidance on how they would use it. Which on the face of it is surely a good idea (and something many/most(?) will do anyway).

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I'm not sure because the judgment does not state what the deceased guides qualifications were, but does emphasise the qualifications of the witnesses.

The suggestion that locator beacons should be carried is interesting.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

One rule for ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/5008694.stm

In reply to Dr.S at work:

In fell running this will certainly next to happen..

The FRA and UKA have a 'qualification' to train leaders for fell running.. Just one weekend, unassessed, no nav, no mountain craft, no limits of the qualification set out...

They intend for it to be used in clubs but it's being advertised by running guides.., until we get deaths this won't change..

Sadly people are wanting to guide way too early.. MLs too., I did my ML training with people who would be betting their assessments soon and you wouldn't trust them to work around llan padarn...

In reply to IainRUK:

I agree, there's some people (only a very few mind) that I struggle to see how they got through their ML with a pass as they're totally not competent to take people in the mountains. Think it's still suffers a bit from the very subtle voluntary sector attitude that the people that want to do it are 'good sorts' who are doing it to help people so should have a lower level of competency to reach rather than being a professional qualification.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:


A sad case but one we can all learn from I feel not just those who climb professionally I would advise all mountaineers to read the whole summary by the Sheriff and will be interested to read others comments?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Not knowing the specific route they ended up on, this is speculation, but I would guess that it was a navigation error on the guide's part. Surely heading up a grade 4 route in walking kit even personally is not a judgement that someone makes knowingly, and then more so with a client? No amount of licencing would stop that.
I also find the idea of beacons an intersting one, but also the point that the client should have been told how to deal with an emergency. I do always talk to clients about how to phone MR, and I think they sometimes think this is odd, however I am only human, and accidents can happen, none of us should be too cocky.
Sad event, I hope the lady isn't put off further winter adventuring.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I'm not so sure - the guide had apparently stated a clear plan - we hit the snow line and turn back. I'm not sure how navigational error feeds into this?

What is most difficult for mountain guides is that they often work alone or for very small companies. This increases the chance that bad practice will occur (or at least deviation from norms of behaviour) and increases the risk that errors of judgment will not be called.

There is a vast literature from aviation and medicine looking at human, equipment and environmental factors and how they contribute to critical incidents. How much are the guiding community aware of this? Some of the things that I've read on avalanche avoidance seem to suggest they are to an extent, but I wonder how much is filtered through to day to day practice of company organisation?

In reply to Richard White:


I'd have thought AALS would have been the more appropriate body as they do it already, any provider of certain outdoor adventure activities must already have a licence from them if they provide it to under 18s.

I'm normally against over regulation but provided it's done correctly I think this is a good idea, for providers themselves as much as for the public. As far as I'm aware anyone who got an MIA certificate then 20 years later decided to take someone out could do so, regardless of the state of their equipment, how much attention they'd paid to changing best practice over the years and whether they were actually still competent to do what they could before. Also younger people are now paying for intensive training courses where they're blasted through qualifications, you could have a guide take you climbing that's been leading groups in and out of the mountains for 20 odd years, or you could have a 20 year old whose fast tracked their SPA in a couple of years and can now take anyone out to the crag - would they not benefit from someone more experienced inspecting the way they operate, having guidance on their risk assessments and operating procedures rather than just saying right you've got your SPA now off you go, your qualified?

I imagine the vast majority of outdoor activity providers are diligent and good at what they do but if you were an activity center you'd be required to keep logs of your equipment, up to date risk assessments and consult with advisers whose job it is to have knowledge of situations like the incident on Skye and were able to offer advice on best practice and how to learn from other accidents. I don't see why the same shouldn't be expected of individuals and I'd imagine that for most guides licencing wouldn't affect them in a negative way as they already meet the standards that would be required, but perhaps some might be open to their practices being questioned and to see if there was anything that a licencing body could suggest would make the way they provide their services more safe for their customers and for them if something went wrong.

As with anything it depends how it would be done, there are a lot of incredibly experienced mountain guides in this country who've been climbing for 40+ years. A 22 year old MIA being inspected every few years by someone like that would be invaluable I'm sure, giving the job of licencing to someone who does a bit of paddling and maybe got their SPA a few years ago and then did an in house course on licencing would be useless. But then would a governing body be capable of employing a mountaineering expert to inspect guides, a mountain biking expert to inspect MB activity providers, an expert paddler...etc. etc. I think there's definitely a case to be made for licensing but it's just how it would be implemented that would be the issue.

In reply to Sharp:

The current licencing is prohibitively expensive for independent providers, and would end up putting people out of business. I think if licencing was to be introduced, then it would need to be more appropriate for sole traders. Maybe some sort of 'umbrella' licencing, where by an AALS licenced provider could share risk assessments etc with sole traders or something like that? Maybe that wouldnt work, I haven't put enough serious thought into it, but something different would be more appropriate.

Dr S, I think there was still a nav error to get there! Yes, sounds like the plan changed and he didn't report back that it had, but I still can't imagine anyone intentionally heading up grade 4 in the given scenario.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I don't know anything about this case other than what's been written in the thread. But, at least here in France, mountain guides have to attend a refresher course every couple of years to keep up to date - should something similar be in place for MICs etc ?

And on the few occasions I've skied with a French guide, he's made sure I/we knew how to use an avalanche beacon just in case it was him who was buried (seems a pretty obvious precaution to take) but I've never been asked about navigation or other topics which could be relevant in case the guide was injured

In reply to girlymonkey:

I agree it's all rather odd, but I'm not sure it can be explained as purely a navigational error. It would, I think, be hard not to notice you were heading into grade IV ground when you were apparently planning to do an easy walk - so why push on?

In reply to Carolyn:

Yes, it does seem odd! You would certainly hope he knew the dfference between walking and climbing terrain. I guess we will never know as we can't ask the guy and the lady doesn't seem to know.

Doug, yes, maybe a refresher would be good. The MTA have introduced a CPD scheme, so maybe the answer is an extension of that?

In reply to Dr.S at work:


I think there is an increasing awareness of this issue but like everything new it will take time to trickle through to all parts of the industry. In the latest issue of the Professional Mountaineer there is an article on decision making in the mountains and I know Mountaineering Instructors who are passing on recommendations to read things like 'Thinking Fast and Thinking Slow' by Daniel Kahneman. Also a surprising number of MIs had former careers and have an awareness of things like the open accident reporting in the aviation industry and bring that to what they do day to day.

In reply to Sharp:


I forgot about AALS - good point. They could expand to include outdoor activities for all ages.

In reply to AlH:


That's good to know - I bought it last week to read on holiday!

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I think this shows even the "professionals" should : Leave details of hill, route and expected time before heading out on the hills.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Thanks for posting link to the full judgement. I def recommend reading this in full, it makes interesting reading for anyone working as an outdoor leader/guide and anyone looking to book one.

I have some specific comments to add to the judge's recommendations.

Its good to fully engage a client with the process of the day by tracking progress on a map. Although retaining this information is hard for novices. Pointing out easy escapes and alternative routes as the day goes on is another way to help the client orientate themselves. Aside from the safety advantages, this adds to the quality of the client's experience. I do however personally think it is too much to place the burden of full-on navigation so squarely on the shoulders of many clients. By that reasoning however, this begs the question- which the sheriff asks, about whether leaders should be working alone. That is frankly, a is bit of a can of worms for sole traders like me.

In terms of the technology that is now available, there is tons out there, but there are two that I use personally. Viewranger is a cheap and cheerful OS mapping service for mobile phones, and has a buddy beacon facility that updates your last known position to a website (pin protected, requires mobile signal to update so not failsafe).

In my experience many colleagues who work alone these days also carry an epirb. I sometimes brief clients on its use and location in the rucksack, and I tend to give a lot of chat about mountain safety, and how to call out the cavalry if necessary. Most people find this stuff interesting (I think).....

I do think that we mustn't stick our heads in the sand about this. The leading/instructing community has an opportunity to reflect on its practices and make positive changes. It would be good in my view not to have these imposed from outside of the industry. I had a wake up call a couple of years ago when a colleague had a fatal heart attack on the summit of a mountain when working. We like to be seen as invincible, but we are not!

In reply to Snoweider:

Good comments. Is an epirb a location beacon? Does that work on satellite?

In reply to Snoweider:

As always, it's a matter of balancing the probability of something happening with the precautions against it happening. Some things, such as your colleague's heart attack, are fortunately rare, others less so. The assumption that you get everything right all of the time is a false one.

Many guides will use familiar mountains on which to take clients: familiarity with the terrain is one less thing to worry about, why not have a small emergency pack to hand to the client at the start of the day? Just needs to have a list of escape route, maybe a small map of the area with these marked on along with avalanche prone areas and phone numbers, a compass - the map would also have bearings for the escape routes. If something should happen to the guide then the client has a quick check-list of things to do and potentially get them down off the hill. Something like this would get round the memory retention problem, though on a winter's day you can't be sure that the client has even heard you let alone taken the information in.

In reply to girlymonkey:

http://www.findmespot.eu/en/

http://www.aboveandbeyond.co.uk/products/SKU6151/spot-gen3-satellite-gps-pe...

In reply to girlymonkey:

Yeah there are a few different sorts.

SPOT beacons aren't true epirbs- they use GLOBALSTAR satellites. Coverage is good, but not worldwide. Beacon strength is weaker than a true epirb (less good in trees/next to big cliffs), and there can be some delay in relaying. Useful for tracking progress online (used by a lot of adventurers) and also have an SOS facility that has led to many lives saved. There is also at least one documented UK case that I know of where a family member called out mrt becuase the tracker had stopped working when the user was fine.

A true epirb/Personal Locator Beacon is an emergency button basically- no tracking facility. Something like the Fast Find uses the COSPAS SARSAT satellites, has global coverage, and is very powerful. Must be registered with Maritime Coastguard Agency. Costs a bit more than the SPOT messenger but its what I carry as if I ever need to hit that button I want to be sure my location will be relayed fast.

In reply to Snoweider:


I'm also aware of at least one accidental SOS activation leading to a MRT callout in the Lakes (although that's probably a tiny percentage of users, they seem very common with e.g. DofE groups now)

In reply to Carolyn:

Yes the SOS buttons on most spot devices are not that well protected. My Fast Find has a plastic seal and a big flip top lid, you've got to really mean it to set if off.

Also worth pointing out that if you have a mobile phone signal it would be better to dail 999 than to set off a PLB as it can't relay information about casualty/injuries/weather, and it has to be passed through additional agecies before MRT are called.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

The thing I don't understand is why they don't just fit a small cellphone base station to the search and rescue helicopters. When switched on any phone within a couple of km of the helicopter that was out of coverage from the normal base station network would see a pilot signal from a base station and try and register itself. If the phone number of whoever they were looking for came up the crew could just call it up, they'd also see the numbers of any other phones carried by walkers in the vicinity. If the person they were looking for was incapacitated and couldn't answer their phone the base station would be getting a received signal strength indication showing roughly how far away the phone was from the helicopter, which coupled with the GPS position of the helicopter as it moved across the ground could be used to triangulate the phones location.

In reply to Snoweider:

I have a SPOT device which I use in situations where I'm working alone, but I'm in the habit of putting it in the client's bag, not mine - the rationale being that if I fall down something, they have it available to use. When I'm with DofE groups, the SPOT is part of a sealed 'emergency' pack which also contains a mobile registered to SMS999 and a card which explains DR ABCDE and has emergency procedures on the back. Having read through the sheriff's report, I can't think of any reason which shouldn't use that pack with adult groups as well.

That said, I can't help thinking that the situation under discussion should never have arisen, given what the client asked for was "a walk" and what they got was "unroped climbing on grade IV ground" - it reads like a tick list of heuristic traps that are commonly discussed on avalanche avoidance courses, but I can't think I've come across in general discussion about mountain leading/instructing/guiding. I've certainly found it thought provoking reading.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

There are a lot of comments on here based on the misapprehension that the guide who suffered the tragic accident was unfamiliar himself with the territory. As I understand it, Graham Paterson was an experienced local guide who died not ten miles from his home in Carbost. While I wholeheartedly agree it appears bizarre for his body to be found on technical ground when he was merely accompanying a client on a winter walk, I'm sure there is an explanation that sadly no one will ever unearth. It seems to me this is just one of those tragic accidents that we all hope not to endure ourselves. I can't see what form of regulation would have protected Mr Paterson or his client. I bet he knew the ground better than most of the higher qualified guides working out of FW and Aviemore.

In reply to Neil Pratt:


Hi Neil, that was exactly the thrust of the recent article in the Professional Mountaineer.

In reply to Doug:

If a person hires a member of BMG, AMI or the MTA then they will get someone who is likely to be current, as CPD is a requirement of membership. Get my drift?

There are a few who are not members, the one person I know in this category is an excellent operator.

In reply to BnB:

I bet he knew the ground better than most of the higher qualified guides working out of FW and Aviemore.

Several have already mentioned the influence of 'human factors' or heuristic trap,s the first of which is familiarity...............

http://pistehors.com/backcountry/wiki/Avalanches/Heuristic-Traps

In reply to BnB:

I agree - it just doesn't really add up (even taking into account the possibility of heuristic traps and perhaps over familiarity with the terrain) - but there's not enough info to get to the bottom of that, and I'm also unconvinced more regulation would eliminate the small risk of something similar happening again in the future.

In reply to Murko Fuzz:


I certainly do, the requirment for a IFMGA/UIAGM guide throughout the alps is sensible and uncontroversial... It occurs that it would not be discordant with that to have a requirement for suitable accreditation for UK guiding, it is widely acknowledged that the scots mountains in particularly are a very unforgiving environment for their diminutive stature.

How hard would having a register of holders of MLTB Quals and a requirement for Continuing Competance and CPD to be demonstrated and assessed regularly?


This to me seems logical and inoffensive, in contrast to blanket mandatory guiding by dubiously qualified guides as seen in various destination trek/climb areas; which fails to acknowlege the competance and acceptance of risk on the parts of individual participants.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I have read this determination about 3 or 4 times now and it seems more stupid each time I read it. Derek Pyle should be one of our most hill-aware Sheriffs but this document barely reflects that. The requirements of the 76 Act do not seem to be addressed particularly well.

BMG will probably love it though.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I thought his conclusions measured and not obviously wrong. Carrying basic equipment, customers gaving a means of being confident of a guide's abilities etc all seem reasonable. What do you find stupid? I'm not quite sure the suggestion of regulation follows from what (may have) occurred, or that it is really needed, but I don't think that makes it stupid in itself.

In reply to MG:
A transcript might illuminate more reasonably some of the important points. Transcripts are normally only provided to "interested parties" in the Inquiry, as per s.6(5)(b).

I think there is careless use of the term 'mountain guide'. It surely cannot be difficult to discover that this term has a particular meaning that in jurisdictions across the world refers to a particular qualification.

I think I detect limited consideration of existing structures of training, assessment and control, including not only qualifications but commercial facets such as insurance.

I am not happy with the reference to "a technical climbing route which was grade 4 in winter conditions". A walker scrambling on Scottish Winter Grade 4 and then withdrawing from it without further incident? No, sorry, something missing here.

s.6(1)(c)
No reasonable precautions? Surely much of the stuff listed under sub-sub-section (e), whether right or wrong, belonged in (c)?

s.6(1)(d)
As (c).

Why are we seeking evidence from a guy who doesn't even think a torch is necessary in the Scottish hills in winter?

The consideration of satellite technology is not competent.

In reply to MG and Jim Fraser:
Reasonable and measured but strangely, as Jim notes, ill-informed in some respects. Or so it would appear.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I agree that sounds very strange all round. It is difficult to believe they were actually on grade IV ground, unroped and that she managed to down-climb with no previous experience. No way of knowing the real circumstances though.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Agreed- I've had to stand in the middle of a dual carriageway with the sat phone pointed skywards in the capital city of Malawi to get it to work due to interference with line of sight from buildings (not very tall, 3 stories max). Likewise whilst trekking on Mulanje it took some wandering about to get a decent line of sight as we were camped under Sapitwa peak. Its a tool that does a job under certain circumstances, but is a useless lump of nothing in the bag under others.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Out of interest, why is the reference to satellite technology not competent?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Jim is quite correct to say there is careless use of the term mountain guide, as there are no BMG/IFMGA Guides living on Skye, but most seem happy to call themselves guides, or at least let others call them guides. This is not only a problem on Skye but all over Scotland, where people use the word guide knowing that their clients will be ignorant of the difference between a Guide and an instructor, or knowingly deceive.

Even the Sherriffs report fails to get this point across, when it states the expert witness holds the "highest UK based Mountaineering qualification for summer and winter". Being a UK based BMG/IFMGA Mountain Guide, it makes me wonder if I wasted my time to reach higher standards, so that my clients could get the best service available.

I don't live on Skye, but have guided there for a long time, and have seen frightening things being carried out under the name of guides (small G), and their clients don't know the risk they are being put under; as in this case where the client was lucky to survive.

In reply to John Lyall:
I've read several on line articles about this, they all say he was a qualified guide or mountain guide but none (of those I've seen) actually say what qualifications he actually had. Any one know ?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I never met Graham Paterson but he was popular with the Walkhighlands crowd in terms of hiring someone to get them up the Skye Munros - eg see
http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=27756
http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=21566
http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=24012

The "grade 4" bit of the FAI determination is very odd, and - as others have said - doesn't seem to make sense. Could there be confusion here between winter climbing grades and scrambling grades? Hard to see how, but it's hard to make sense of this at all. Another puzzling thing is the stated intention to only go as far as the snowline on Sgurr na Banachdich, but for the accident to then happen on winter terrain on Sgurr Dearg. Quite aside from the snowline aspect, the "just a walk" approach to Sgurr na Banachdich goes via Coir' an Eich rather than Coire na Banachdich, so what were they doing in the latter corrie? It sounds like they might have been trying to get up the back wall of the corrie on to the main ridge, but that would have been well beyond what the client wanted ("she did not do cliffs"), and it's very unclear generally.

All rather puzzling and very sad. The client does appear to have been lucky to have survived.

In reply to John Lyall:

Hi John,
Whilst I empathise with your point, it's worth noting that the accounting profession some years ago, via a legal case, tried to stop people calling themselves accountants unless they held a recognised accountancy qualification. If I remember correctly it was thrown out of court because it was deemed an infringement on a persons right to earn a living and that the word accountant was a generic term. I would think that the same would apply to the term mountain guide, desirable or not as you may see that. If someone, say, with an ML(S) takes some clients on a walk are they not guiding? If they take clients up a mountain are they not mountain guiding? Therefore are they not a mountain guide? As you correctly say, their clients may be ignorant of the difference, but if they get a good day on the hill I'm not sure they really care.
ANdy

In reply to John Lyall:

I was told by a walking company this year that they nearly didn't read my CV because I didn't call myself a guide. They were looking for MLs to take their clients walking, and I was suitably qualified for them. I called myself an Outdoor pursuits instructor on the CV, and it nearly didn't get read. I am always hesitant to call myself a guide for the reasons you mention, but I get little choice in it. They only reason they did ask me to work for them was because of my language skills, otherwise the lack of the word guide would have lost me the work

In reply to girlymonkey:
Interesting. The more of this I read, the more my opinion about regulation is being swayed more towards some form of regulation. Though exactly what I don't know.

I hold the MIA, Summer and Winter ML. In no way whatsoever, would I consider myself a Guide. Yes, a day out instructing clients (under the MIA) or leading a summer walking or winter mountaineering group (under the Summer or Winter ML) may include an aspect of guiding (little g) but the onus is on instructing, teaching or leading.

Possibly part of the problem is, as girlymonkey describes, due to companies only wanting people who say they can guide due to commercial pressures.

I know the BMG, AMI and other associations put a lot of effort into informing the public what the qualifications all mean. There are a lot of them now.

Perhaps we can't, as I thought in my original response, just rely on individuals to make proper judgements on what they should be calling themselves or activities they are doing with customers.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:



but some titles are protected (veterinary surgeon for example, see quote below) - a legal case would not be the way to go though, you would need some primary legislation I'd have thought. That might be a big ask for a small part of the economy like guiding.



"‘Veterinary surgery’ as an area of work is protected by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. This means that activities described as veterinary surgery can only be carried out by veterinary surgeons, with some exemptions.

The title ‘veterinary surgeon’ is protected in law: only those who are registered with the RCVS can use the title."
<source RCVS website>

In reply to Richard White:
It's quite rare in the UK for a title to be protected - the obvious one being Dr. Anyone can call themselves an engineer, an accountant, a teacher etc. I think there would need to be a strong case for "guide" to become a protected title and the occasional and not fully explained accident such as this isn't to my mind sufficient.

I think in everyday language most people understand "guide" to mean someone to lead them safely up and down a hill or climb or whatever. The various qualifications available, albeit not legally required, and word of mouth seem to do quite a good job in general of demonstrating capability at this, with accidents rare. Wouldn't regulation just add more bureaucracy? And in any case how would it improve matters? I can't see that holders of something like an ML would suddenly be barred from leading people on walks, or that suddenly not being allowed to use the word "guide" would change people's habits in employing them much.

In reply to Dr.S at work:

It would seem far more important for someone in a medical profession to have a 'protected' title than nearly all other professions.

In reply to Michael Gordon:
but even there the title itself (Dr) doesn't necessarily meant a doctor of medicine - my business card uses it but I'm a plant ecologist & I suspect many users of this site are also non-medical 'doctors' (I could list several). And elsewhere in Europe, engineer is also a protected title, & many feel it ought to be in the UK as well

In reply to MG:

Anyone can call themselves "Doctor", eg: "'Doctor' Gillian McKeith".
She calls herself a nutritionist, which is fine. If she called herself a dietitian (or a dietician) she'd be liable to prosecution because that one is a protected title.

In reply to deepsoup:


Including all these MD's that don't actually have a Doctoral degree.

In reply to Richard White:

Hi Richard,
Your points are well made and may be right.....but....instructing, teaching or leading, or guiding (is leading not guiding?)what is the difference between all these and do the clients/general public actually really care ? The clients want a good, exciting, safe, day on the hill. If they get that do they really care if the person is BMG, IML, ML, MT, AMI, IOU or ASAP ? Yes, some may care within our wee climbing community, but outside ? I have my doubts....

And maybe therein lies the actual root of the problem...lots of different associations doing lots of different awards...now further confused by MT who oversaw qualifications for leaders/instructors/guides (whatever you want to call them) now overseeing skills qualifications for the public. Until this guddle is sorted out I doubt there will be any consensus, let alone any understanding by the general public.

Anyone is free to call themselves a mountain guide in the UK, and anyone can act as a mountain guide with or without formal qualifications. The HSE recognises that someone can be qualified by experience. Whether this is a beneficial state of affairs is open to debate (and I make no comment thereon), but the situation is as it is......

Just some thoughts....
ANdy

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Hi Andy,

You are probably right, I suppose I am looking at this with an insiders knowledge. I know that a BMG member has undergone more rigorous training and assessment than a Summer ML holder, though I am not saying a Summer ML can not be as experienced or skilful as a BMG member. They could be working their way through both schemes. Also, those without any qualifications can be as experienced and skilful as those with.

Yes, most clients just want to know they are going to have an enjoyable and safe time.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:

Agreed. Anyone who is paid to guide someone in the hills is a guide (by definition). Even the best qualified can have accidents. And surely in either case showing the client the route you plan to take (on the map), equipping them with the knowledge to read it and making sure they have one with them is not a bad idea.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I'm not a Guide (but I do guide in the mountains). I do think it's good for clients to know where they are, and always show them our route on a map before we commence. But to expect all clients to have the ability to get themselves out of a complex navigational situation on their own is just not realistic. Some can for sure, but I frequently see levels of map illiteracy that would take a multi-day course to sort out. Such teaching is rarely the purpose of a guided day.

In reply to Jamie B:

Fair points. Certainly a map and compass will be little use without the ability to use them properly.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Or indeed someone who's doing it for free, perhaps just to help a friend. It's far too useful and generic a word to be reserved to IFMGA Guides, but I'd still say others need to be careful about *how* they use it and promote themselves. In which case, 'so and so has been guiding hill walkers in Scotland for x years' strikes me as fair regardless of qualifications *if true*, but 'so and so is a qualified Mountain Guide' (or even 'mountain guide') is just wrong if they don't hold the full Guide's ticket. And the first 'so and so' should still 1. be totally up front about what qualifications they do hold and 2. make sure vague enquiries for a 'guide' or 'mountain guide' are given properly-informed answers.

In reply to Andrew Mallinson:


If they get that do they really care if the person is BMG, IML, ML, MT, AMI, IOU or ASAP ? Yes, some may care within our wee climbing community, but outside ? I have my doubts....

Its maybe a wee bit simpler than you make out. BMG and BAIML issue carnets for 'G'uides and International Mountain Leaders. MTA and AMI also provide a 'professional' back-up. But essentially qualifications are the simple way of demonstrating competence. They are pretty clear in terms of their scope I'd have thought? The guddle would appear to be at the other end. And, especially, where people pretend to be something that they are not!

I'm minded of the Skye 'g'uide advertising his holding of the MIC and membership of AMI on the web a few years back. Trading Standards were on the case pretty sharpish I recall.

You know what? In the last few months I've employed a gas engineer (could have killed me), a plumber (could have ruined my house) and an estate agent (could have ruined my bank account). I'm not at all clear about their qualification status either. But what I did was check reviews, look at their websites and make a judgement call. I'd have thought that someone wanting 'g'uiding on Skye would perform equal due diligence?

How does one differentiate between an MIC and BMG for winter leading/guiding in scotland ?.
I was under the impression that the BMG qualification was designed to be an international qualification covering mountaineering as well as skiing off piste and crevasse/ glacier travel. Would this not be over qualified for guides working in scotlands winter mountains as the MIC remit seems to cover all the bases for uk conditions.

In reply to Calski:



£150 can only mean Spot. I saw one yesterday for £124 + VAT.

PLB are normally £200 to £350.

Neither are on reliable constellations for mountainous terrain at high latitudes. Spot is on Globalstar that is on a tilted orbit and never comes north of Birmingham. PLB are on Inmarsat which is geostationary and has trouble with high latitudes especially in mountainous terrain.

Both end up passed through the UK MCC (mission control centre) at ARCC Kinloss.

Nearby steep terrain between you and the equator causes problem for these devices.

In reply to andyathome:

No you haven't. You employed a gas technician.

I think the protected title ought to be "British Mountain Guide", not "guide", which as others have pointed out is a descriptive term which can refer to people with a very diverse range of skill-sets.

Re false description, anyone requiring a BMG's skill-set is extremely unlikely to be misled by someone calling themselves a guide: such a client is very likely to know that a BMG is what they need and they'll therefore know to check whether said guide actually is a BMG before forking out their hard-earned cash!

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Cool, thanks!

In reply to adamarchie:

Protecting the BMG title would seem a bit over the top. It has a sort of unofficial protection anyway - anyone calling themselves that would quickly be put right by their peers.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
I knew Graeme from working on Skye. My sincere condolences to his family and friends at what must be such a difficult time.


Mountain Training UK have produced a statement in response to some of the Sheriff's comments.

http://www.mountain-training.org/blog/fatal-accident-inquiry---skye