In considering the proposed Australian Adventure Activity Standards (AAS), we should start with their targets and how the AAS will affect them. There are four major groups.

Photo by Daxiao Productions

Adventure Activity StandardPart 2 of 4

50 | BWA October 2017

Commercial operators

These offer Adventure trips on a commercial basis, for a fee. They may be strictly compared to Guides organisations as found in New Zealand and Europe.

How the AAS applies to commercial operatorsThe idea of having some form of regulations to cover commercial operators is, at least in principle, a good one. In most countries the “laws” simply require that anyone wishing to offer “service for a fee” must belong to a recognised Guide Association of some sort. It is then up to the Guide Association to set the qualifications, and these can be very strict. The tests for guide-aspirants are legendary.

This approach, of leaving technical regulations and qualifications to the real experts (ie experienced guides who have the respect of their fellows) rather than attempting a paper bureaucracy, has an overwhelming amount to recommend it. It may well be an appropriate path for Australia to follow, and I have no reservations about it.

School parties run by a teacher or a parent

The term “school parties” should be taken to include church groups and the like. While these are not commercial, the leaders are nonetheless taking responsibilty for minors who are usually completely unskilled.

How the AAS applies to school partiesOne is loathe to place restrictions on the idea of getting kids out in the bush, but the sad fact is that a major fraction of SAR activities have always been associated with school parties. The “leaders” (teachers etc) may be enthusiastic, but they are generally unskilled in the bush and are not equipped with the knowledge to handle problems or emergencies.

This is a difficult area. I can only suggest that such parties should be led by a qualified guide, while the teachers' role is to ride herd on the kids. I realise that this could add significant cost to these activities, but it might save on SAR costs.

Photo by Sirtravelalot

BWA October 2017 | 51

BWA October 2017 | 53

For example, the AAS Planning section has a heading Activity plans, which has “objectives of the activity (desired outcomes) and participant expectations”. I've been leading bushwalking club walks for decades and have never done this. Instead there's a plan, such as walking the Overland Track or climbing Jagungal. The trip details are made known, and party members come on the basis of the broad information. Commercial groups would have a similar approach in that most applicants would know something about the walk. That said, except for the easiest walks in the most friendly of weather, commercial group leaders have a duty of care to assess applicant's suitability, gear, fitness and the like more rigorously than is done by bushwalking clubs. There is also a duty of care to apprise applicants about the walk.

Not everything in the AAS has to be applicable to everyone, and this point should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

LeadersJust below this the AAS says that “At least one leader should be suitably familiar with the area being visited”. This is too general in nature. The way that trips are conducted depends on the trip type. For example, an easy day walk that will have beginners should have a lot of preparation, with the leader very sure of the trip with what many

call a survey, before the actual walk. The duty of care is higher on such trips. Alternatively, extended walks in unfamiliar terrain should have a warning that this is like an exploratory trip, so be ready for anything, with party members carefully selected.

There can only be one leader, with deputy leaders, or people who can lead should the need arise. If the leader is smart, he or she will either know or research the walk area. The leader will take note of those of similar skills on the trip, and seek their advice. I've frequently gone to places I have not visited before, including days off-tracks, no GPS, no track notes (there was no track), just a map and a compass, and on a few trips, no map in places (there was no map). How can one be familiar with long-distance walks, such as Larapinta, the AAWT, or the Bibbulmun? When I walked the Alpine Walking Track (AWT) there were track notes for just a very small portion and a lot of unknowns. Party members had walked about five days out of 30 before the trip. I made a lot of mistakes, but we survived and had an adventure. The AAS seems to say that before walking the AWT I should have walked it or read track notes. Or maybe the AAS means that when leading dependent people the leader should have walked the trip before. The level of dependency is where it becomes relevant.

Photo by Westmarmaros

56 | BWA October 2017

Sunset from Mt Speculation, VictoriaRobbieG

As leader I make sure that people who want to go on the walk have adequate experience, stamina and gear. This is assessed by how they conduct themselves on easier trips. A few weeks ago a friend had an overnight trip compromised by a person that was long on assurances and short on requisite skills. It happens. I said “So the rule is - disregard any stories, any BS. For harder and/or longer trips the newish person must be known to at least one other person from similar walks, if shorter and/or easier.” That is, start with easier shorter walks and progress as the person becomes known. While this is subjective it works.

Record keepingPoint 3.3 Competencies says “It is recommended that leaders keep a diary record (sic) of activities they participate in and/or are responsible for as relevant experience is also extremely important.” This is fair enough for formal qualifications, but seems to me to be unnecessary for bushwalking clubs. Some clubs have leader training, and I have instructed on these. An easier way - best used in conjunction with leader training - is to have the potential leader take over a group with the official leader close by in case things go amiss.

Note that only people with adequate experience are or should be allowed to begin leading via baby steps such as this. The potential leader does short temporary leadership stints on trips until he or she is deemed good enough to lead a trip, which

happens with an experienced person as backup. Learning to lead this way is like an apprenticeship.

It has been put to me that keeping good records is the best way to cover your back. However, most people take photographs and will have other records to show that they have been on the requisite number and type of trips. Clubs know their leaders, and if requested, should be able to evidence the experience of leaders. I was advised that “Demonstrated ability and a written record carries considerable weight with insurance companies and in court.” I agree with this, and keep contemporaneous records that have been submitted in court and peak bodies with a lower remit. Certainly keep training records, but beyond that there seems to be minimal need.

TrainingIt seems that the AAS wants to formalise standards so a person can be recognised and the organisation is protected. If a bushwalking club can provide training to the standard then a person could take that training to another club and have it recognised. The problem is that the standard may be very hard for some people to achieve. If so, then potential leaders will walk away from such training, leading trips without the backup they need.

BWA October 2017 | 57

Attempting to quantify and teach all aspects of bushwalking in the manner of the AAS may not succeed. Some background. In the 1960s there were a number of bushwalking incidents in Victoria and elsewhere. In Victoria, this led to the formation of the Bushwalking and Mountaincraft Leadership Course (BMLC), starting in May 1969, based on a similar UK course. Secondary school teachers were among those participating, and it was soon a requirement that teachers have a BMLC certificate before leading school groups.

It was too late for some. In November 1971 a school party was caught by bad weather in the Cairngorms, Scotland. Five children and a leader died of exposure. In 1971, secondary student Glen Matters died at Cradle Mountain Lake St Clair National Park, a victim of poor leadership and bad weather. Too many others have died or suffered on bushwalks due to poor leadership. It's strange that BMLC funding was stopped by the Victorian Government.

Adoption of a standard criteria for leadership is useful. How it is done is contentious. If bushwalking clubs could be made responsible for training their members, with elements of the AAS selected to suit, it may work. Creating a standard, competency-based, course description would make it easier. Recognition of bushwalking clubs as trainers could then be possible.

A training accreditation course may be needed, train the trainers. These trainers and the people they teach would keep detailed records of who has done what when. Such records are a great protection for a bushwalking club.

While the BMLC and AAS material is similar, the BMLC was not quantified to the extent of the AAS. The BMLC relied on a few aspects to teach potential leaders:

A base level of skill and experience before people could be on the course;

Formal training trips over one or two years;

A mentor for all candidates; and

Several assessment trips and exams.

Similar material was covered by BMLC differently to AAS. Instead of separating the parts of leadership into very small bits, like AAS Interpret weather conditions in the field, unit code SROOPS004B, BMLC looked at candidates more holistically. This included what trips the candidate had done, and how the candidate led assessment walks.

Also, if the candidate made a mistake, the assessor might ask if the candidate has learned from this, and will do better in the future. All my candidates made minor mistakes, all were honest about these, all learned, and I marked them all accordingly – acceptable. If a candidate is fully compliant with major items and 95% compliant with the rest, “acceptable” is apt, It seems that the AAS is more rigid. Note that there were a number of people assessing candidates over a period of time.

Glen Matters, November 1971

58 | BWA October 2017

be avoided. For example, the emergency is a flooded campsite, so we will camp elsewhere. It has been suggested to me that the AAS may not explain it well enough. True. Maybe the AAS means “risk assessment to manage possible incidents.” I do not know.

A few years ago I was quite unwell, and staggered up Jagungal. On the top I realised that I needed to rest for a few days, and instantly changed the walk. There was no planning, I just knew. Leaders should have enough experience to be able to make calls like this, quickly. On another trip from a 4am start I left the group and made rapid time solo off the map to get help for an injured party member. A note was left for another person to lead the group, which he did. I broke a few rules and put a few noses out of joint, but help arrived five hours earlier than expected. My risk assessment took 20 minutes of deliberations about the worst case scenario for the party and me paid off. On another trip a party member was injured and I skied off the map, solo, reaching help on dusk. On Search and Rescue, nearly anything goes. How can there be an assessment before the trip for these sorts of things? Leaders should have skills to make these sort of decisions in a variety of situations. The ski rescue was a party of four. One person stayed with the casualty at a hut while the last person, the leader, went back to tell the rest of our group what was happening.

So the party must have enough strength, experience and resources to manage and resolve unforeseen emergencies. All parties that I have led and been in have these attributes. The leadership can also draw on others in the group whom they feel are capable and delegate accordingly. That is good leadership.

Random pointsThe detail in the AAS staggers me. For clubs a lot is unnecessary. Usually there's known people on walks, with a higher proportion of new starters on day trips than on weekend trips. An adverse incident on a day trip is manageable. Weekend trips have more experienced people who can look after people on their first weekend walks, and new people are discouraged from harder overnight trips until they are known to leaders and club regulars. It's informal and it generally works. On the rare occasions when an adverse situation arises then it can be managed satisfactorily. This may not be the case for all bushwalking clubs at all times. Assuming it will be the same each time leads to complacency which leads to disaster. There might be a pro forma gear list. Pre-trip information includes or should include a map, details of the walk, how hard it is, transport and all the rest. The AAS is a good basis for planning, but it's too formal for my liking.

Photo by luckybusiness

60 | BWA October 2017

I got a laugh from one section, no reflection on the AAS, which says “as a general rule, groups should be of no less than 4.” For bushwalking club trips I agree with this, but I work on a group of no less than one. I laughed louder when I read “Use established campsites. Take care not to create new ones. Otherwise camp on rock, sands, or gravel where impact is smallest.” There is a difference between how large commercial groups and smaller bushwalking club or private groups are conducted. I wonder how Outdoors Victoria wants tents to be fixed to the rock. Bolt anchors? I've camped on thousands of places that are not established. Very few of these campsites have been rock, sand or gravel, and yet I've left no trace. There's an old bushwalking saying, leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but photos. Many of my campsites have probably not been used before, like a bivvy on the summit of King Davids Peak Tasmania. This was on rock. The dawn was unbelievable. Fog.

The top of page 12 says “Keep campsites small. Focus activity in areas where vegetation is absent.” This is silly. A tent takes up a fixed amount of room, and cannot be reduced. The somewhat muddled words seem to say that “activity” (whatever is meant by this) should be on rock, sand or gravel. I cannot understand this point.

Just below this the AAS says “Protect water sources by camping at least 100 metres from rivers and billabongs.” Section 84 of the National Parks Regulations 2013 (Vic) provides that camping must be more than 20 metres from water. This is a good rule, but is impractical in many places. Instead, it's better to rely on the experience of the group to minimise riparian impact. Think about it. If the tents are close to the water then the most probable toilet areas are further away from the water. But if the tents are 100 metres from the water, people may go closer to the water for toileting. Advocating camping 100 metres from rivers and billabongs is ill-advised.

The AAS says “if they must be used, use only small amounts of biodegradable soaps and detergents”. All soaps and detergents are suss, should not be used. Oops.

Finally, the AAS has not been edited very well. There's rather a lot of typos and poor forms of words. While most people will not see these or care, a higher standard would have been nice and improved credibility.

SummaryWhile the AAS has merit, it is badly drafted and seems to be too onerous for bushwalking clubs. There's been a lack of meaningful consultation about the AAS. Adopting the AAS in a very informal and relaxed way for bushwalking clubs to achieve compliance should be a goal. The AAS is not far from BMLC. I urge all those involved to tone down the words and find a way to make this work.

Stephen has been bushwalking for over 50 years. He led what seems to be the first AWT walk, and many club and other walks since then. He was very active on rock and XC skiing. He has instructed on bushwalking club trips and was a BMLC assessor. He was on the SAR A list. Stephen sub-edits Bushwalk Australia.

Why bushwalking standards are goodMuch of the debate for bushwalking clubs around the AAS seems to have focused on whether or not the standards should explicitly apply to “volunteer” organisations such as bushwalking clubs. Much of the debate I have heard focuses on detailed definitional arguments, rather than if the concept of standards are a good idea or a bad idea. To me, the debate should be how do we make the AAS work well for the the whole outdoor community, including clubs - that is a debate that excites me.

In this article, I want to show that standards are not to be feared, that they are inherently good and should apply to all people and organisations, whether paid or volunteer. The standards should allow for context specific variation. For example, the requirements for leading a bushwalk vary depending on the walk grade, remoteness, skill of participants, climate, equipment, etc.

Bad standards exist - don't get me started on them - but they are usually bad because of a poor development process (usually from leaving out core groups), leading to a standard that does not reflect the whole community expectations. A few bad standards do not make the idea of standards a bad thing.

It seems that most bushwalking club organisations across Australia have been pushing to be excluded from the AAS, arguing that volunteer leaders should not be subject to such standards. By removing the idea of “volunteer leaders” we are removing a very important set of contexts from the standard, narrowing the community input. In time clubs may well be forced to comply to the AAS, perhaps by insurers or land managers. If the AAS is developed wholly by commercial operators, ignoring the context of clubs, then we will be much worse off. We need to be proactive and create an awesome standard that helps all bushwalkers.

Blue Breaks vista, Blue Mountains, New South Wales Mandy Creighton

BWA October 2017 | 63

Why broad contexts matter in developing standardsWithin the clubs and other bushwalker's involvement in the AAS debate there seem to be a few key issues that keep coming up. Here are the key points as I see them.

Does the volunteer thing matter?Volunteers are amazing. Australia would be much worse off without volunteers. When the SES turn up to remove the tree from my roof, even though they are volunteers I expect that they will be safe and not fall through my ceiling. If I scrape my knee at the football I expect that the St John Ambulance volunteers will do a reasonable job cleaning the wound.

These expectations certainly increase if I pay for an arborist to remove the tree or for a doctor to dress my knee. Notice that while my expectations increase, the minimal expectations are the same.

Formal agreed standards help clubs, participants, commercial operators and others better understand what these expectations are.

So, yes, the volunteering thing matters. Volunteering is such an important part of the bushwalking community that without their voice in it’s creation, the AAS will be considerably worse off.

Clubs cannot afford the training costs!If the clubs cannot afford the training requirements then the standard most likely needs fixing as it does not match community expectations. If the community expectations are higher than those of the clubs, then the standard should provide a mechanism to determine more affordable training options.

First Aid training is an interesting example of this. The current AAS suggests that at least one leader in the group must have first aid qualifications, varying with remoteness. Formal first aid training can be costly. For clubs the standard could

Photo by amriphoto.com

BWA October 2017 | 65

be more open and say that for walks in more urban locations then someone in the group should be able to demonstrate specific knowledge of first aid.

If during the building the standard you discover that the community does expect formal first aid training in club settings, then the standard creates opportunities for clubs to apply for volunteer training grants.

The point is that we need to be involved in setting the understanding and standards.

Clubs lead experienced members, not newbies, like commercial operatorsI have heard the argument that clubs are different in nature from guided walking groups because club participants are experienced bushwalkers. I assume that most clubs trips have more experienced walkers than most commercially guided trips.

Not everyone who joins a club is an experienced walker, so there are going to be some club members with little if any experience on at least some walks. Different clubs have different ways to manage this.

This argument does not suggest that no standards or community expectations apply, but rather that the current draft standard does not suit club's needs. Clubs provide a clearly different context that the standard needs to recognise and work within. For example, the standard currently focuses mostly on leader's requirements, but perhaps in some contexts should also focus on how participant experience impacts on leadership requirements.

Clubs are just a group of friends, aren’t they?Some people have suggested to me that since clubs are just a group of friends then standards like this do not apply.

You know me well enough by now that I obviously disagree on a few layers here. Firstly, community expectations still apply with friends and therefore a formal standard can help define those expectations.

My main issue with this line of argument is that clubs are more than a group of friends. A club is a group of people dedicated to a cause or activity, in our case, bushwalking. Most of our time as clubs should be out enjoying the pursuit and helping others enjoy it as well. If as a group we are dedicated to bushwalking then we should also be dedicated to the furtherment of the pursuit. Each club will have a different focus on this, whether it is land protection, promotion of Leave no Trace principles, documenting and mapping, advocacy etc. Whatever we do, we should be starting with a clear understanding of the broader community expectations. We should also be involved in influencing those expectations.

In the past five years we have seen a massive rise in the number and activity of less formal bushwalking groups, namely the “Meet up” style groups. My experience of these groups is limited, but I have seen leadership ranging from very good to atrocious. Community expectations still exist for these groups and I would argue that members of formal clubs should attempt to influence establishing the AAS to protect the brand of bushwalking clubs and to help these less formal groups to thrive on their trips.

We will never get people to lead if they need a degree in bushwalkingOhh, it frustrates me greatly when people exaggerate the demands that standards place on people and groups. If as a community we expect leaders to have a doctorate in bushwalking then fine, that is our expectations. If standards are community expectations (as set by the bushwalking community, considering the wider community), then they are our expectations.