[Wayne]

Hi all

One thing some of us have been thinking about is how we grade club sea kayaking trips. ive discussed this with one or two others and have looking into some of the problems that have arisen on some trips with lack of skills etc when the wind comes up. Fom what i can see the problems on trips that arise seem to happen due to lack of skills to deal with certain sitns (such as wind) more than the actual weather itself.

what i think we should do is change the form of grading away from easy, med or fit trips because its not that appropriate for club trips – ie a trip one day (say today) to Mana Island would be an easy trip whereas yesterday it would be an FE trip… so its darn hard to grade these trips

one option would be to grade trips like the following:

Kayaking instruction – a club instruction course in kayaking

Kayak 1 – an introductory level trip whereby those going dont need to have had previous kayaking experience

Kayak 2 – those going on the trip have all done a kayaking before (but may or may have not practiced deep water rescues)

Kayak 3 – all going have done kayaking before (and are known to one of the club kayak trip leaders) and have practiced deep water rescues

Whether a trip is graded a kayak 1/2/3 trip would depend on the trip leader themselves – for instance i may be ok taking a kayak 1 trip on say Lake Tarawera whereas someone else leading would grade it as kayak 2. (i think it is best to give our trip leaders some discression in terms of how they grade the trips as the leaders all have different levels of expericence etc)

Also trip nrs – i dont think we should have a fixed limit on the nrs – as again there will be differences between leaders etc – but ideally 8-10 max (otherwise it becomes risky). If there are more than 10 – a second trip is the way to go (provided a second leader comes apparent) – this is what happened last weekend with 2 kayaking trips being run

What do others think? Please put your comments on this forums page..

Ruth will shortly begin putting together a new trip schedule so any ideas/feedback on this or anything else kayaking is welcome

Thanks
Wayne

[Grant Newton]

Wayne,

Good thinking ….. there is both fitness and skill level to be considered. What you propose is similar to how the alpine trips have been graded for the past couple of years. I think it also useful to have a fitness level ……. ie Mana is not far and if you’re only paddling for a shortish time, then fitness grade = medium … but skill grade = kayak 3 (this allows you to differentiate from a Mana to Makara trip which has skill = 3, but would have fitness level = Fit)

Cheers
Grant

[Wayne]

Thanks Grant

Yep goood points. Think the idea is stolen a bit from the alpine trip gradings which works well

Think the grading ie kayak 1 or 2 or 3 would need to have a fitness dimension built into it. Personnally the grading would be say 75% based on the skills of those going on the trip and say 25%? or so based on fitness levels.

Kayaking is a bit different from other trips – on a really flat calm day its not that hard for a capable person to do 50kms plus – on a windy day going 5km or 500m can be darn hard

ta
Wayne

[Katja Riedel]

Hi Folks!

I had a look around and found that other people also distinguish between skill and endurance levels. This is from a US paddle magazine (http://www.wavelengthmagazine.com/1996/apr96tripgrading.php) and we know that the Americans are extremely careful people…..

---

In general, kayak trips have two characteristics: technical difficulty (“Skill”) and strenuousness (“Endurance”). Difficulty describes the degree of technical skill that is required to achieve a safe journey between specific points. Strenuousness describes the strength and endurance that is required to comfortably complete the journey. SKABC uses a two-part scheme: A to D for skill level and 1 to 4 for the length/endurance of trip.

Degree of Strenuousness (“Endurance”)

A) Not strenuous — daily paddling limited to less than three hours and/or distances of six nautical miles. Ample sheltered spots for resting and easy landings.

Moderately strenuous — daily paddling typically between three and five hours and/or distances of six to ten nautical miles. Some sheltered spots for resting and landing.

C) Strenuous — daily paddling time typical between five and six hours and/or distances of 10 to 15 nautical miles. Infrequent shelter or landing spots.

D) Very strenuous — daily paddling typically exceeding six hours and/or distances of 15 nautical miles. May be little or no shelter and very few landing points.

Degree of Difficulty (“Skill”)

1) Easy — requires minimal paddling skills. Expect protected waters, limited wind effects, little or no current, and easy landings.

2) Moderate — requires basic paddling skills including the ability to brace. Expect protected waters with minimal exposure, moderate wind effects, weak to moderate currents, and easy to moderate landings.

3) Difficult — requires good paddling and seamanship skills. Expect some exposed water and short crossings, moderate to strong currents, ocean swells, moderate to strong wind effects, surf, difficult landings.

4) Very Difficult — requires advanced paddling and seamanship skills. Be prepared for long open crossings, rugged and exposed coast, large swells, surf, strong currents, turbulent water, difficult landings, and strong wind effects.

The selection of the appropriate grade is indicated by the occurrence of one or more of the criteria: not all of the criteria have to be met.

Limitations
It should be noted that a trip classification scheme describes the characteristics of a trip without regard to unexpected changes in ocean conditions, or the remoteness of an area. Standards of preparation, skill and behaviour, not to mention the quality of equipment, become more critical as the demands of a trip become greater. Bad weather on a class B1 trip in local waters, for example, is more likely to be inconvenient than dangerous; bad weather on a remote trip or on the exposed coast may test the standards much more severely.
Also, any grading system designed for an activity where conditions are variable and contain some unpredictability elements (weather, currents, wave conditions) is inevitably inexact. Note that a trip that receives a “B2” grading when scheduled for July may be reclassified as a “B3” when slated in February, because of the likelihood of adverse conditions. A word of caution is perhaps necessary to paddlers who wish to progress on to more ambitious trips. There is a big gap between the limited skills and stamina required to successfully complete a “B2” trip in ideal conditions and those required for a “C3” trip in adverse weather. Similarly, a participant should ensure that rescue techniques learned and practised are keeping pace with the escalation in trip ambitions: a slick self-rescue technique in a warm water pool may not work in cold rough conditions on the ocean.

---

For us this probably means combining skill levels 1-3 with our normal fitness grading easy – fit essential is a good idea. This still doesn’t help in regard of the weather but is probably the best we can do.

Cheers,
Katja

[Don Goodhue]

I agree with all of the above, particularly the gradings Katja has presented. A common “problem” with punters new to kayaking is that they underestimate the effort required, particularly when the wind gets up and simply “run out of steam”.

In terms of numbers on trips, it may be worth considering on the trips graded for less experienced paddlers a mimimum ratio of experienced paddlers to new paddlers. This means that if there is a problem, the leader or other experienced paddler is able to deal with it and there is someone else to keep an eye on the rest.

[Keeping the club honest!]

Think you’ve stolen those classifications from the NZ building code clauses, i.e. B2, E2, C5, D5, etc.

Whatever classification system you have it needs to be simple to understand and implement, which is the basis of any risk management framework. The weather is an inherent risk in any activity so regardless you have to allow for that anyway. For instance, a medium trip to Nelosn Lakes at the weekend was most likely a Fit Alpine experience essential trip given the weather conditions and snowfalls…

Suggest you develop a table with the most common kayak trip destinations and skills appropriate and use this to standardise the classifications rather than it be done in an ad-hoc manner.

Overall, a good idea provided the leaders of kayak trips have the appropriate skills and experience to lead the trips as they’re graded.

[Alasdair Alexander]

I agree with Don about the difference in the ratio between experienced kayakers and newbies (it was great at the weekend to have Lyndsay with his experience and local knowledge and Garry and Alison who are experienced kayakers) However, we are effectively using the benefit of hindsight to re-grade the trip after people have signed up. A few questions/consequences to ponder:

– Does that mean that every kayaker in the club should be labelled as a B2 or a C3?
– If so do we have the scenario where the leader tells Fred that he can?t go on a C3 trip because Jane rated him as a C2?
– On the other hand, does the leader drop the trip grade from what is on the schedule, potentially losing a fitter paddler who expected to get value for money from his kayak hire with 6 hours paddling each day.
– Do the above gradings make reference to whether someone is in a double or a single? Someone who may be borderline in a single may be comfortable in a double.

I think we may be making things a bit too complex. It is worth perservering with finding a simple solution, that works as well as the tramping gradings. My preference is for a similar system to Wayne’s original proposal.

[Alasdair Alexander]

An alternative grading system from a Guide Book. As opposed to B1, C3 etc., I think it’s too simplistic, so maybe something in between is required:

The Sea Kayaker?s Guide to the South Island, gives ratings as
– PROTECTED or SHELTERED: waters with a short fetch where it is usually possible to reach the shore in any direction if the weather breaks. No surf landings
– MODERATE: open Coast where the sea conditions are unlikely to rise unpredictably. Some Tidal Effects. Possibility of surf landings up to 0.5m. Short Open Crossings up to 8km between landings
– EXPOSED: Open Coast where large swells can be expected; rocky exposed coast with an hour or more between any possible landing. Possibility of surf landings.

As a guideline, Abel Tasman from Marahau to Totaranui is protected, with the mad mile as moderate. Most of the Marlborough Sounds are rated as protected, which I would question for the Outer Sounds.

[Wayne]

Hi all

Thanks for your comments..

What i think should be implemented is a system very similar to that we use for Alpine trips.

For instance trips last weekend were discribed as Alpine 1 or 2 and then had a fitness level next to them. Eg the trip Jim led last weekend was graded Alpine 1 M/F. Which means Alpine 1 skills (rope and crampons) and was a med-fit trip.

So a trip like Alisdairs last weekend to Abel Tas could be rated as Kayak 2, Med fitness. Whereas the trip is on at Able Tas could be rated say Kayak 1, M/Easy

I dont think we want to complicate it anymore than this – ie ratios of experienced to inexperienced, doubles vs single kayaks. Such factors could be taken into account by the trip leader based on who signs up (a bit like how somebody leading club trans alpine tramping trip or clibming trip will take into consideration different factors such as who signs up, weather etc in terms of route planning)

Hope this makes sense. Maybe we will need to put an explanation of how this grading system (if its supported) will work on the trip form?

Thanks
Wayne

[Max Thomas]

I agree with Wayne, Alasdair etc on keeping it simple and then having the trip leader make some fine tuning decisions based on who signs up. However the trip sheet should be graded along the lines of what Alasdair wrote (coastal/water exposure) and the minimum expected distance to be covered in hours. As regards vetting paddlers (have they paddled/who with/slow-put them in a double etc), this is already happening informally and along with seeking informed knowledge of likely conditions needs to continue and be accepted as part of the process. Cheers Max

[Gerald]

I like Wayne and Katja’s proposal too – using similar language to that used already keeps it easy to understand the system. If the grades aren’t understood, they won’t be doing their job.

Part of a trip leader’s job is to establish appropriate expectations, and details such as those quoted by Alisdair are worth researching and conveying to people interested in going on trips (before they have to pay). There may not be room on trip sheets for all of this information – it can be given as part of club announcements, talking to people who show an interest people, and emailing people who sign up.

A “kayak trip” page on the website might be a good place to collect our wisdom (?!) about some of the standard trips.

Cheers – Gerald

[Author]

Posts