I guess we’d all like to be dynamic, but what I’m referring to here is actually rather more mundane. It’s about making judgements and assessments, and the need for them to be dynamic and flexible, according to conditions.
I sometimes lead low level walks at a summer walking festival where all walk leaders are obliged to fill in a risk assessment form. We’re encouraged to do this in the fortnight before the event so that it is reasonably up to date. Of course, at low level not a great deal is going to change in the intervening days; yes, a period of heavy rain might make streams swollen and paths boggy, and the weather might be bad on the day, but unless there’s a weather warning out, our walk is more than likely to go ahead as planned without any need for route changes. This kind of static risk assessment, completed in advance, is OK for something like this.
On the mountain, though, things can be very different. The weather is invariably more extreme, and additionally it has a tendency to be unpredictable, changing very quickly. Winds can whip up out of nowhere and even easy paths can turn dangerous in the blink of an eye.
Most people on Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) won’t do a formal risk assessment. The nearest they’ll get to this is probably looking at the forecast and dressing accordingly (though as we know, some don’t even do this) but as I’ve just said, the fickleness of the conditions on the mountain is our biggest enemy and will sometimes force an unscheduled rethink.
So if a rethink is needed, who has the responsibility for doing this? If, say, an adult couple are on the mountain, they will have a responsibility both for themselves and for each other; however, one may be more experienced and will therefore likely assume more responsibility on account of that. If it’s a family group, the responsibility will clearly additionally extend to looking after any younger members. And where a formal group are out with a leader, then clearly this leader (who may or may not be qualified and/or experienced) has overall responsibility for the group.
And this is where dynamic risk assessing comes in. Given the potential changing nature of conditions on the mountain, whoever is in charge must be prepared to adapt the plan, if necessary. OK, so we know that it’s disappointing having to turn back early if the summit is our target, but it’s better to do the safe thing and return another time, or to return on a safer path; after all, the mountain isn’t going anywhere.
Often the weather is different to what people have expected. I recall an incident some years ago when a university group of freshers were being led up from Pen y Pass. It was early November, it was bitterly cold, and before long they started having casualties with hypothermia, and were advised to turn back by wardens who happened to encounter the group. The leader, who seemed unaware of how strung out his group had become, or of their condition, later said that he had checked the forecast several days previously and seemed little concerned; he was keen to point out that he was well insured!
Whilst the weather is probably the biggest cause of changes of plan, other issues can also force a rethink: the fitness and well-being of the group, for instance, or conditions underfoot that weren’t expected, such as rugged terrain or ice/snow.
It all comes down to being prepared, and this includes being prepared for the unexpected. My working life was spent in education, and as much as every lesson was planned, the best teachers and tutors were those who could, when necessary, be flexible and adapt their plans.
A plan cast in stone is not a good idea on the mountain. Anyone in a position of responsibility should be prepared to make decisions and adapt plans based on changing circumstances. This is being dynamic.