Each company I have worked for has had a different interpretation of where that remit or the extent of the 20 conditions stops and liability or accountability starts.
It all depends on conditions number 2 and 3 sited below;
2:
Your expedition must be unaccompanied and self-sufficient.
3:
Your expeditions must be supervised by an adult who is able to accept responsibility for the safety of you and your team.
I know of a few companies that insist that an instructor walks with the group at all times whilst on expedition. 'How can you except responsibility for a group of teenagers and not be there the whole time'. Does this stop condition 2 from being achievable? (I believe so).
I am aware of expedition providers who are happy to sit in a van or in a cafe, and turn up at camp check group are in then leave. Is this not taking condition 3 seriously? Surely if something happened to the group the supervisor would be negligent?(I believe so).
Usually there is a reasonable compromise between these two worrying approaches, that include regularly meeting groups at checkpoints (road crossings etc), following weaker groups at a distance, the use of mobile phones to allow the group to regularly text grid reference and group status* (* a method still frowned on in some areas of the industry).
The question always in my mind as a responsible adult taking responsibility for a group And wishing my groups to meet all conditions is 'at what point could I be accused of negligence if something serious happened and what is the best possible way to get a group of DofE aspirant youth as self sufficient as possible. With all things I coach DofE or otherwise ultimately I want my client to not need me any more the proof of a good coaching relationship is that they can do the activity with very little input form me by the end of it. There are countless publications from different National governing bodies, D of E and much more qualified instructors then I in regard to remote supervision.
As part of its extensive supervision package AtoZ provide each group with a satellite tracker, which enables a supervisor to be just over the "horizon" and still have close eyes on the group and its progress. using the spott tracker Gen 3 device the system also has a 'need help' feature which sends a text directly to HQ who then inform the supervisor in the vicinity who will then close the gap and sort problem. It can also be used to confirm there ability to give grid references, when the group check in via text with a six figure grid reference it can be checked against the satellite tracker making the assessment more accountable.
In short my original scepticism is being softened and I can see some real positive reasons to using this technology within the Expedition framework and I believe it helps to create that compromise between the two conditions. Being in the new forest last week 10 mins away from my group and still being able to confirm they were on the right track was a real advantage and it meant I didn't have to interfere with there expedition!
# The spott trackers do not replace the need to physically meet and reassure the group as part of the assessment, it does how ever mean you can keep those invasive encounters to a minimum and still achieve an assessment, in order for the award to be worth doing I believe the assessment has to be accountable and assessors & supervisors need to be prepared to defer groups, tracking system enables you to monitor 'short cuts' being taken or trespasses being committed if and when the group are out of site.
Wow this is a long post I will stop their and leave room for thoughts.....
