UKC

Q&A - Jon Garside and Andy Say

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jack Geldard 02 Jun 2009
premier post photo
Jon Garside from the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) and Andy Say from the Mountain Leader Training (MLT) are appearing live in the UKC Forums on Friday the 5th of June (TODAY!) to answer any questions about these awards and about instructing climbing in general...

Read More: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=47708

***********NB Jon and Andy have now left the building!***********
OP Jack Geldard 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Hi Jon and Andy.

Thanks for coming on to UKC to answer some questions.

I have a question:

The SPA (Single Pitch Award) is kind of the 'normal' qualification for teaching climbing in the UK I guess.

I just wondered how many SPA holders there are in the UK in total?

Cheers,

Jack
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: The SPA is one of three climbing qualifications, the others being the Climbing Wall Award (CWA) and the Mountaineering Instructor Award (MIA). The CWA has proved very popular, but the SPA has too, since it was launched in 1990.

In it's first ten years, over 20,000 people registered for the SPA scheme, and over 16,000 of them attended a training course. Not all went on to assessment, as many people attend the training courses of all Mountain Leader Training schemes to develop their personal and leadership skills

Andy Say is just checking the database for the exact numbers for current SPA holders.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Sorry for the delay - there was a sheep on the road at Pont y Gromlech.
From the inception of the old SPSA by the BMC to this morning we have records of 10,533 (!) people having passed their SPA. We anticipated a slight drop in numbers going through the SPA award as the CWA has come 'on stream' and whilst there has been something like a 10% reduction in registrations for SPA over the last year this year is holding up pretty well.
 Mark Stevenson 05 Jun 2009
Hi Jon, Andy

A lot has been happening recently, there are two issues it would probably be useful to have a public update on.

First. What is happening about qualifications to teach leading indoors.

Second. Could you give us an update on what is happening with regard to coaching within climbing. I believe a lot of valuable and productive consultation work has been and is ongoing in that area.

Many thanks,
Mark
OP Jack Geldard 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Everyone:

Just a quick note to say the SPA article and BMC Video has gone live on UKC:

SPA Article: http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1898

Cheers,

Jack

OP Jack Geldard 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: Thanks Andy.

That is quite a few SPA holders. It's good to see so m any people interested in teaching climbing.

Jack
 David Turner 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Hi guys, I'm a climbing instructor down at my local wall so I have to have either the SPA or CWA training. I chose the SPA because my climbing background is mostly outdoor trad. My question is: what are the main advantages (if any) of the CWA syllabus over the SPA?

Moving on from that - is there any point in having both?
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
I'll take the teaching of leading indoors. We've gone through a fair bit of consultation and the officers employed by the MLT Boards (Steve Long, Allen Fyffe, Mal Creasey, Jon Garside, Trevor Fisher, Libby Peter and I) have produced a draft syllabus and handbook for this new award (it's in its third incarnation now). The intention is to put in place training and assessment for those who might want to move on beyond the use of top/bottom-ropes and actually teach others to lead.
Entry to this award will be through either having completed the CWA or the SPA and submitting a log of wall experience to demonstrate a solid background of wall use.
At a recent MLT conference a session was run on a wall looking at the teaching of leading indoors. A very senior and experienced MIC was heard to mutter as he left the wall 'f*****g hell - there's a lot to think about'. We're conscious that given possible margins for error the training and assessment for this award have to be scrupulous!

If I was a betting man I'd reckon this award will be launched at the beginning of 2010. It's due to go to the UK Board meeting for final approval in September.
Then we can move on to coaching.......
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to David Turner:
David - What we are finding is that the element of the CWA that deals with the teaching of basic movement skills has gone down very well both with candidates and with employers; to the extent that some current SPA holders have done the CWA just to upgrade those skills. There is absolutely no intention that the CWA will 'undercut' the role of the SPA indoors but having the leisure to focus on purely wall related topics and activities on the CWA course obviously has benefits. Its been well recieved by 'the industry' and has already become a bigger award scheme that the WGL if you compeare registration numbers.
And before anyone asks - there are currently 183 CWA holders already out there.
 David Turner 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: Thanks Andy
In reply to Mark Stevenson: Hi Mark, the existing schemes, as you know, are primarily concerned with the risk management issues of taking people climbing, hill walking and mountaineering. However, in using real ‘clients’ at assessment, the Mountaineeering Instructor scheme does allow for candidate’s teaching and coaching abilities to be gauged.

Coaching skills can already be enhanced by attending a Coaching Processes course, such as those delivered by the National Mountain Centres. Such courses would be of equal use to a both Mountain Leader coaching navigation to a group of Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme young people, and a Mountaineering Instructor coaching ice climbing.

In order to ensure that any future coaching developments work UK wide, a representative group was set up to discuss the issue in autumn 2006. Their report can be downloaded at www.thebmc.co.uk/coaching. Providing additionality to the existing schemes is currently the most likely future course regarding coaching in climbing hill walking and mountaineering.

The BMC has only recently received funding from Sport England to develop a coaching system over the next four years, and this development work is now the next stage.
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Hi Jon & Andy,

Sarah states that the SPA is ideal for single pitch crags such as the Gritstone outcrops of the Peak District. However, I was informed by my SPA trainer that many of the Peak’s crags are off limits by nature of their remoteness i.e. could present navigational difficulties.

My response was that my ML surely mitigated against that issue but he said this was not the case as MLTUK does not advocate ‘joining’ awards together.
However, this is not entirely true. In the case of the MIA, holding the ML(W) increases your training remit.

So why shouldn’t holding the SPA and ML open up high level, single pitch venues. Given the number of joint holders, surely this would ease the pressure on the slogged out roadside crags.

Regards, Paul
 NickD 05 Jun 2009
Hello.

I sort-of don't-mind the idea of the SPA. Climbing is a fairly technical sport, and I can see that some people like the idea that if some dude takes people up a cliff, they at least have an idea of what they're up to.

I'm finding it hard to keep a straight face thinking about the Walking Group Leader Award though. Whose idea was this, and what gap does it fill in the market that a first aid certificate and a CRB check don't?
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
Many of these situations need to be looked at on a case by case basis.
If someone holds both SPA and ML I would assume that they have the capability to assess how they might manage the situation of a climbing accident on, for example, Ashop Edge and in fine weather its probably that sort of eventuality rather than navigational difficulties that are the real risk element. Common sense might suggest that in fine weather with a trustworthy group it would be manageable. Taking a group that you don't know with a deteriorating weather forecast would be probably a poor judgement call. Possession of the ML would suggest that you have the competence to make that judgement call!
The classic case would be for me would be Black Crag on Pike o' Blisco; up near the 600 meter contour, kilometer from the nearest tarmac - but in good weather a fine SPA venue!
So I for one don't have a problem with you evaluating your range of competencies and making an informed judgement about where it is appropriate for YOU to work (and that does have to be an individual judgement, not a blanket carte blanche; we all have differing competencies!)
In reply to NickD:

Hi Nick, people commonly get lost or have accidents when walking in upland terrain such as the Cheviots, Northern Pennines, the Howgills and Kinder Scount. These are all areas where Walking Group Leaders award holders will work.

As for technical content, then navigation is not child's play. Ask any Mountain Rescue team, and they will report that navigational errors play a large part in many mountain incidents they are called out to. This is not to say that the WGL is simply a navigational award. As with the ML, the scheme includes party management, route planning, incident avoidance and a host of other leadership skills.

Finally, it is not a legal requirement for leaders to hold a qualification in the UK, but qualifications do provide a route for leaders to demonstrate their competence. For someone living in the South West, who may only ever work in Dartmoor or Exmoor, or someone living in Sheffield, who may only ever lead groups in the Peak District, then the WGL is the perfect award.
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Hello

A question regarding First Aid qualifications - is a First Aid qualification that is recognised by one NGB (RYA) and professionally by the MCA (Maritime Coastguard Agency) acceptable for MLT work? The real problem is only the RYA ticket has an endorsement for CAT C and deals with the administration of basic medications because of the remoteness of the area of operation. If not then it means holding two different First Aid Qualifications one for each NGB, as you can imagine this would be a real pain in the neck.

 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

Thanks for that eminently sensible answer Andy. Unfortunately, I’m not reassured that an insurer would take quite such a pragmatic view in the case of a claim.

Surely, MLTUK could establish a more robust link between the geographical limits of the leadership awards and the technical limits of the instructing awards. The normal caveat of personal judgment with respect to conditions and ability etc. would of course still apply.

My concern is that, as the number of awards multiplies, the specific remit of each award is becoming increasingly ring fenced. I do not object to this but do feel that the MIA/MIC is increasingly going to become the catch all for the any gaps in the coverage, whatever the level.

I think the pending indoor leading award is a good example of where one of these gaps is about to be filled. I would of course love to see a similar award that applied to single pitch outdoor venues.
Ruth Malone 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Hi Jack,

I'm a personal trainer and would like to be able to take some of my clients climbing as part of their sessions. I've tried to look into which qualificaiton I would need but am left confused! I would only ever be taking them indoors or to Harrisons so SPA seems like too much for this. Is there any alternative which would cover both?
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Or indeed the introduction of the Multi Pitch Award on this side of the Irish Sea?
 CarolineMc 05 Jun 2009
Hi Jon, Andy,

Dark Peak Paul has pre empted my question a bit, but I was wondering whether there might be scope for a 'bolt on module' for the SPA for single pitch leading outdoors, like you're doing for indoor leading. For the sessions I run for groups this would be a fine extension. I know the MIA is the ideal but it's a long haul...!

C-:
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
Unfortunately, I’m not reassured that an insurer would take quite such a pragmatic view in the case of a claim.
>
> Surely, MLTUK could establish a more robust link between the geographical limits of the leadership awards and the technical limits of the instructing awards.

Paul - Given that there is no legal requirement to hold any particular award to work in the outdoors and that insurers will provide cover for non-award holders I feel confident that insurers WOULD provide cover in such cases; you would, of course, need to totally up front with the insurers and might have to pay extra for the specific cover. It might be worth checking what the group policy negotiated by MLTA for award holders covers?

Your second suggestion interestingly links to the way that we may be going to developing the coaching side. The current awards could be used to determine the 'operational terrain' or however we phrase it and the coaching element will be free standing. You could therefore have a CWA / level 4 coach working with the British team and an MIC / level 2 coach teaching ice climbing in the Norries
In reply to RichieCaves:

Hi Richie

First Aid requirements is a common question in the Mountain Leader Training offices, and there is a page all about them here http://www.mlte.org/content.php?nID=42

Have a read of this and get in touch if you need further clarification.

Jon
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Ruth Malone:
CWA and, possibly, the Southern Sandstone scheme might fit the bill. That's run by some of the local authorities down your way. It's purely a local scheme and I dont have details to hand - if you want to pm me I'll try to get some contact details to you.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to CarolineMc:
Caroline;
At present I can safely say that there are no plans to extend the teaching of leading to an outdoor context at sub MIA level. All concerned at this end feel that the variables are just too great and that the management of leading on trad gear on trad crags is just too complex for a 'bolt-on' to the SPA. Sorry if that seems a bit negative!
At present the MIA scheme is being reviewed; and a period of consultation is about to start. It may be that you could have a valid contribution to make?
 CarolineMc 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: Thanks Andy! To be honest, it's not too much of a surprise - it would be a minefield!
I would be very interested in knowing more about the review of the MIA though.

C-:
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

I would welcome a consultation process. There is much of the MIA that is just not relevant to a venue such as Stanage. It is not on a mountain and some extension to the SPA needs to be found.

I would happily undergo a MIA level ‘short course’ of training and assessment for the single pitch environment if it were available. Surely, just as you have the MIA/MIC, a SPA/SPC pair could be envisaged.
 Macca_7 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: I'm really interested in the idea of either a new award to be developed or a bolt on to the SPA to allow the teaching of leading either on Single Pitch Crags or Multi Pitch, I know that the MIA covers these but gaining an ML to get onto this award seems like overkill and living in certain parts of the country make it a really difficult proposition. Could there not be a specific climbing award that covers all of the climbing side of the MIA without the hill walking. Then all those people that wish to teach leading at Burbage North, Haytor or Almscliff for example don't need to spend all there time and money getting quality mountain days?
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to CarolineMc:
Caroline - There has been a meeting involving the deliverers (PyB, Glenmore and Tollymore) and the UK Board officers with regard to current perceptions of the course. As a result of that I believe that a trial 'split' MIA training will be run next spring to try to put the current content into two separate 5 day blocks. There is a perception that the current 9 day course can induce 'overload'!
A questionaire should be going live on the MLTUK web-site shortly (we're playing with it right now)to try to get suggestions about the way that the MIA (and by extension the MIC?) might develop.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:
> (In reply to Ruth Malone)
> CWA and, possibly, the Southern Sandstone scheme might fit the bill.
Better make it clear I meant that CWA fits the bill for wall work and the Southern Sandstone scheme covers the bases for working outside!
 timjones 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:
> (In reply to CarolineMc)
> Caroline;
> At present I can safely say that there are no plans to extend the teaching of leading to an outdoor context at sub MIA level.

I'm sure you've heard me say this before. Why is it necessary to roll the teaching of leading on single pitch crags into an award that also encompasses remote multi-pitch crags and assessment of hill walking awards?
The term "jack of all trades....." seems to apply here.

It would really help those of us endeavouring to provide a cheap but high quality climbing experience in voluntary youth organisiations if this unecessary tie could be removed. With limited time and finance you need to specialise in order to maintain your skills and experience at a high level, when will the MLT recognise this simple fact and start working with us?
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC:

It looks as though two First Aid certificates are going to be required, strange that what is good enough for one NGB or even a national gov organization i.e. MCA is not for the other.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Macca_7:
Macca, and Paul, and Tim
One of the suggestions already made for the MIA review has been that we might consider the separation of the 'climbing' an the 'mountaineering' elements into separate modules. There are obvious problems in that as there is an enormous 'grey area' where those areas overlap; and also the strength of the MIA is that it does develop a very holistic set of skills and competencies allowing people to cope with a wide variety of work situations.
We are also very keen not to go down the route of '57 varieties' of awards - that way lies madness! Given the limited range of qualifications in mountaineeering/climbing we're inevitably going to get a few 'demarcation' disputes; the flip side is that the awards are relatively well understood and trusted.
As I've suggested to Caroline there will be an opportunity for all to contribute to the review through an on-line questionnaire; myself and Jon will try to remember to give you a heads up through UKC when its live.
In reply to RichieCaves:

Hi Richie

The content of most 16 hour first aid courses is very similar. Before going to further expense give Andy Say a ring on 01690 720314 to clarify the situation.

Jon
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC:
The RYA First Aid is not 16 hour but it is the only ticket that covers the administration of drugs in a SOLAS Cat C Aid Kit and a requirement for MCA commercial endorsements i.e. 20 miles off shore and more?
 CarolineMc 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: Splitting the training into two certainly seems like a good option to avoid exhaustion and brain ache!

I agree that keeping to the awards you already have keeps things simple and easily understood. Some kind of middle ground for working on single pitch crags without being in a mountain environment would be a good option for working with groups in the Peak, for instance, though.

Anyway, I'll look out for the questionnaire! Thanks.

C-:
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
Richie - difficult to advise right now as a search of the RYA site with 'first aid' comes up with zip!
Maybe pm me or ring as John suggested.
In reply to RichieCaves:

Hi Richie

It sounds as if the MCA course you are describing is quite specialist and particular to the environment.

Mountain Leader Training looks to be as open as possible when it comes to First Aid, which is why our requirements are not overly prescriptive, apart from the course length of 16 hours (or 8 hours for the CWA).

The courses we see as appropriate for award holders to possess range from ones delivered by organisations such as the Red Cross to more terrain specific ones such as Rescue and Emergency Care courses.

Jon
 timjones 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:
> (In reply to Macca_7)
> Macca, and Paul, and Tim
> One of the suggestions already made for the MIA review has been that we might consider the separation of the 'climbing' an the 'mountaineering' elements into separate modules. There are obvious problems in that as there is an enormous 'grey area' where those areas overlap; and also the strength of the MIA is that it does develop a very holistic set of skills and competencies allowing people to cope with a wide variety of work situations.
> We are also very keen not to go down the route of '57 varieties' of awards - that way lies madness! Given the limited range of qualifications in mountaineeering/climbing we're inevitably going to get a few 'demarcation' disputes; the flip side is that the awards are relatively well understood and trusted.
> As I've suggested to Caroline there will be an opportunity for all to contribute to the review through an on-line questionnaire; myself and Jon will try to remember to give you a heads up through UKC when its live.

Thanks for that Andy. I'd be very grateful for a heads up on this review as I think it has huge potential to improve the access that youngsters have to climbing and the quaility of the training/coaching they get. At present it's a struggle to keep older members who are fed up with top roping engaged in our sport whilst embracing and working within your current award framework.

I'm not sure that "grey areas" between awards should be a major concern to the MLTB. The courses and assessments allow instructors to to gain skills and demonstrate competence and these can be made more fleixble. Maybe the "employing" organisation and their insurers should be the one's that ultimately decide on how they utilise awards to ensure that their staff don't stray into grey areas?
 Macca_7 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: I don't think that you need 57 varities of awards as you put it, just seperate awards for climbing and hill walking then people can follow there passion and gain the awards which suit them and their area(s) of work.
 Andy S 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: I haven't been on an MIA training course, but I suspect the 9 day course may be a bit too much to take in at once. I think a split is definitely worth a trial.

I think the bolt-on indoor leading is a good idea. It seems the awards are largely driven by market forces and this is no bad thing.

I don't think there's enough demand for another award to cover MIA-type work on low-level terrain such as the peak district. I don't think the market demand is big enough and I also think such scenarios could be covered by a technical adviser's 'nod' for an experienced SPA to do such work with adults??
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

Will try to ring this pm but may not manage, worth looking at http://tinyurl.com/rex9ll and http:...
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to timjones:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
> [...]
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that "grey areas" between awards should be a major concern to the MLTB.
The 'grey areas' I meant were how much of a mountaineer do you have to be to teach climbing on Pavey; how much of a climber should you be to take someone along the Cuillin Ridge? It could be very hard I think, to pull those two elements apart without having an enormous overlap which maybe defeats the object?

 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to timjones:
The idea of a modular MIA would surely help ensure the background experience, enabling candidates to consolidate experience between modules rather than the rushed approach that the course takes now, would also potentially encourage more people to take up and work towards the award.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
By the way - if there is anybody out there who is vaguely interested - I followed up this trawl for SPA with looking at the numbers for ML and WGL. 14,558 folks have passed ML since its start in 1964 and 1,335 have passed WGL since 2001.
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

WGL seems to be used more and more by D of E group leaders rather than ML.
 Macca_7 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: What would be an interesting stat to look up would be the number of SPA holders who have gone on to ML training but not then progressed (yet!) to assessment.

I think this would give an idea of the number of people who have thought as a climber they would like to progress their awards but having then done the ML training have not for one reason or another done so!
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Macca_7:

I'm on your side on this one and I've already got my ML. I think mountaineering and cragging are seperate entities that can overlap but don't have to.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
>
> WGL seems to be used more and more by D of E group leaders rather than ML.
Well its a shorter course and therefore less costly of time and money and it fits well with the terrain of most bronze and silver expeditions and so could be seen as more relevant - especially for those operating in a fairly defined area.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Macca_7:
I don't know enough about the workings of our database to know if we could run a query that would give us anything meaningful along those lines. We could try but it won't be today!
I did have a look a while ago at the number of folks who had done WGL and progressed to ML. Interestingly they were outnumbered by the number who had done ML training and then gone on to do WGL instead.
 James Edwards 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:
(i just deleted this post and re posted it to add a bit to the first paragraph)
Whilst the following is perhaps going of on a tangent...

As to the introduction of more awards to cover any percieved grey area, i think that this would be detrimental to the whole area of awards and qualifications.
In my experience, Joe Public hasn't got a scooby about what qualifies you to do what. Most seem to think that Mountain Leader is a highest qual, higher than Mountain Instructor which is in turn higher than Mountain Guide. Another tier of outdoor quals/awards would muddy these already turgid waters.

I strongly think that having experience around and also above the level or type of activity that you are providing is very very valuable. On the Cullin Ridge question in particular, i work there a lot and rub shoulders with other outdoor profesionals with no quals up to Mountain Guide (IFMGA). One observation that i can pass on from this is the people with a 'climbing' back ground are often faster, more efficient and confident on the ridge, which can enable the clients to have a better day out.

At then end of the day, quals or no quals, if an outdoor professional is not confident of being able to do the work because it outside their comfort zone they should think quite hard about taking the work on.

I think that their is a lot of value in looking at the NZ outdoor qualification system which is a series of modules that can be picked out at your choice. Thus you may wish to work in skiing and hill walking, but not climibng and this is possible. However, perhaps our diversification of award / qual schemes is too far entrenched to ungo what would be a massive radical change and would cause years of upheavel, but in the long run perhaps would be better.
Interesting!
James e

 d508934 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

Hi Andy.

Question about WGL suitability for Gold D of E expeditions. I'm an ML holder and have helped a few of these. My wife is a teacher and is thinking about WGL for the same expos as living in the south east it's simply far more feasible to get than the ML. And I've partially thought that ML is overkill for D of E, even at Gold level - all the expeditions I've been on have yes been in Snowdonia, but generally along valleys or over the lower hills. Toughest section of routes in this area I've been on is coming over the shoulder of Tryffan (slog up from the Roman Campsite), across the plateau and down into the valley east side of Tryffan. In poor vis this is I think ML and prob beyond WGL - but I don't know the WGL syllabus all that well so grateful for your thoughts.

Secondly: do you think the New Forest can offer valid WGL log book days? We both help with Bronze D of E there, it's not an area mentione din the syllabus as far as i can tell.

many thanks,
James
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
> (In reply to timjones)
> The idea of a modular MIA would surely help ensure the background....

I think the problem of a modular MIA misses the point. IMO, it is not the solid 9 days of training that is the problem, it is the overall remit and therefore the qualifying criteria. Even if you work full time as an instructor in the Peak District (as I once did), you will not gain the required ‘quality days’. Peak multi-pitch isn't mountainous, even Tremadog is frowned on. 20 days walking in the mountains, on different excursions, with mixed ability groups, in sole charge. That’s what stops every crag rat I know with aspirations to become a climbing instructor rather than an advanced mountain leader.

We need a full spectrum climbing award for accessible rock, a CIA if you like. Maybe a CIA + ML(S) + additional training/assessment = MIA. Why not?

 d508934 05 Jun 2009
In reply to d508934:

Andy - re my previous message. Just realised I should explain why I think the situation outlined may be ok for WGL, as even this Tryffan shoulder is only a few hours from road - not sure of exact requirements here in terms of syllabus and if terrain comes into play in calculating time taken to walk to road, or if it's a distance thing only.

cheers
James
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to d508934:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
>
> Hi Andy.
>
> Question about WGL suitability for Gold D of E expeditions. >
> Secondly: do you think the New Forest can offer valid WGL log book days? We both help with Bronze D of E there, it's not an area mentione din the syllabus as far as i can tell.
>
> many thanks,
> James
The question of what award you 'need' to work on Gold expeds is largely down to the DofE awarding authority; they will have criteria in place. The straight answer is that there will certainly be some Gold expeditions for which WGL should be suitable. Terrain definition is 'non-mountainous, high or remote country...enclosed by well-defined geographical or man-made boundaries...that are easily exited in a few hours...and where movement on steep rocky terrain is not required'. Quite a few valley, 'corridor' routes will fit the bill. The route you describe from Pen y Gwryd to Ogwen Cottage via the bwlchs would fall outside the remit of the WGL on a couple of counts!
The New Forest. Places like Holm Hill or Hatchet Moor may give a little practice in the open terrain that is the norm on WGL; in the forests it tends to be largely path navigation with some orientation difficulties? All experience is valid, however and you will find sections in the WGL logbook for leadership experience and 'additional experience' - work in the New Forest would be better in those sections rather than the personal experience section I would have thought?

 timjones 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:
> (In reply to timjones)
> [...]
> The 'grey areas' I meant were how much of a mountaineer do you have to be to teach climbing on Pavey; how much of a climber should you be to take someone along the Cuillin Ridge? It could be very hard I think, to pull those two elements apart without having an enormous overlap which maybe defeats the object?

You appear to have missed the point of my post. The MLTB needs to offer accessible and relevant training and assessment. IMO decisions such as these should be shared between employer, instructor and insurer.
 timjones 05 Jun 2009
In reply to James Edwards:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
> (i just deleted this post and re posted it to add a bit to the first paragraph)
> Whilst the following is perhaps going of on a tangent...
>
> As to the introduction of more awards to cover any percieved grey area, i think that this would be detrimental to the whole area of awards and qualifications.
> In my experience, Joe Public hasn't got a scooby about what qualifies you to do what. Most seem to think that Mountain Leader is a highest qual, higher than Mountain Instructor which is in turn higher than Mountain Guide. Another tier of outdoor quals/awards would muddy these already turgid waters.

It's unlikely that the vast majority of the public will ever understand the awards and I don't believe they need to. The people who need to understand them are employers and voluntary organisations. It's theJob of these organistions to understand the awards and then convey the necessary message to their clients or members by whichever method suits their own situation. Our current system with it's large gaps between awards of pretty poor at allowing or encouraging progression in the voluntary sector, what is the point of having to tick unecessary boxes or employ an over qualified tech adviser in order to instruct lead climbing at crags such as the Roaches. Night nav and wild camping are irrelevant, so why are they in the syllabus that is needed to reach this level?

Are the awards a marketing tool or a means of training instructors in the art of delivering high quality activities in a safe manner?
 Macca_7 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Totally agree Tim
 d508934 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

Thanks Andy. Take your point about some of the WGL criteria, just that that route is certainly closer to WGL than a lot of other 'ML days', but on reflection i think i'd agree with you, it's still beyond the remit. 'tis a shame as getting the ML log book days will probably take a couple of years longer to get than WGL.

New Forest: One follow up question. Reason i'd asked is that Yorkshire Moors, Peak District, Exmoor etc all seem to be frequently mentioned in relation WGL but never New Forest. You seem to propose a interesting compromise that may be a touch awkward when completing log book. I'd agree that Forest paths are less wilderness (and aren't counted towards the 20)than some of the open Moorland (which could be), but when over the course of a few days you cover both types of terrain, it may be difficult to seperate out into whole days for log book purposes.

One interesting idea i hadn't thought of until this discussion and recent news article, is the wife attending ML training followed with WGL assesment. Guess we'll have a joint chin scratch about that...

thanks
James
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to d508934:
>
> One interesting idea i hadn't thought of until this discussion and recent news article, is the wife attending ML training followed with WGL assesment. Guess we'll have a joint chin scratch about that...
>
> thanks
> James

That's a route quite a few follow. After ML training you've got a clearer idea of the requirements and how you match up to them. You can then go straight to WGL assessment if that seems the more relevant award at the time.
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

But what about the Multi Pitch Award that is offered by MLTNI and BOS, does this not cover the Climbing part of the MIA syllabus? It would therefore seem that there almost is a modular MIA in place on the other side of the Irish Sea? NI is part of the UK.
 James Edwards 05 Jun 2009
In reply to timjones:
Yes, good point about the Employers and voluntary organisations, however, there are a lot of free lancers out there. Also free lancers tend to do a wide variety of work, rather than as you point out continually work at one venue (which they could well do if they worked at a centre).
I would still say that wider experience is of benifit as it gives an understanding in a context, thus if you are absailing at a single pitch venue and someone asks what you would do if you were 70m from the deck you would do you are more able to field these types of questions or someone asks during the day if you can provide advise on a future adventure that they are planning.
I do wish that Joe Public was more clued up if only that they would perhaps then understand why some people charge £180 rather than £110 for what on paper appear to be similar activities. My point is that a more informed public would be more descerning before the event rather than in retospect as time is precious!
Interesting last point, i would suggest that they are many different things to many different people.
James e
In reply to timjones: Hi Tim, Andy’s taken a lunch break so I’ll answer this. (At least he was on one when I started writing this – I see he’s back now!)

There is one ‘gap’ that you feel should be ‘filled’, namely that between the SPA and the MIA, but I don’t feel that criticism can be levelled at all Mountain Leader Training schemes.

If one considers the Climbing Wall Award to Single Pitch Award, or the Walking Group Leader to Mountain Leader, or the Mountain Leader to Winter Mountain Leader, then I don’t see these as large gaps between awards. On the contrary, in each of these examples, the latter award builds upon the former.

I think that Mountain Leader Training do offer ‘accessible and relevant’ award schemes, but the very nature of a practical qualification requires that competencies are defined to ensure that everyone knows what is, and is not, covered. As there are no laws requiring people to hold awards such as MLT’s, then they can be viewed as enabling qualifications. They enable the holder to demonstrate competence in x, y and z.

The decision that has to be made is the degree to which awards cover either a range of activities, or are more fine-grained.

In your last two posts you allude to the teaching of summer lead climbing being currently included only within the MIA syllabus. Andy has mentioned that the public side of the Mountaineering Instructor scheme review will soon be launched, and that will provide an opportunity for you to get your view known.

The more Mountain Leader Training is made aware of what people desire in a qualification system the better.
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:

Is it valid in the rest of the UK? Seems a couple of hours on a ferry would be a small price to pay. If enough people took the trip, maybe MLTUK would get the message?
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Agree whole heartily with the idea of a Multi Pitch Award, as for someones comment earlier that Tremadog being looked down on as relevant experience, just remind me where PYB do their crag rescue multi pitch days??
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

I think it would have to be valid.
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:

At Tramadog, I went on the course. Also climbed Merlin Direct at Tremadog, quoted in the MIA handbook as not regarded as a qualifiying climb due to being 'contrived' and not on a major cliff.
In reply to RichieCaves: Have a look here about statements of competence: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Pages.aspx?page=61

As already noted, there are no UK laws requiring people to hold awards, be they down caves or up mountains. It’s all about demonstrating competence. In this context, when talking about validity, then valid to whom?

If working professionally, then it would be remiss not to be insured to protect both yourself and your clients. The HSE statements of competence provide a route for people to demonstrate their competence in a number of ways.
 Jon Ratcliffe 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Is there any intent to increase the minimum personal climbing grade up from VS for MIA and winter grade III for MIC. Both these seem very low for an outdoor professional who should be more than comfortable on rock and winter terrain.
With regard to the MIA i see alot of folk who simply get theselves up to the easily attainable grade of VS for their assessment then pretty much stop climbing afterwards, leaving them almost without any safety margin if they should need it as their grade, and therefore competancy, inevitably slips to lower levels.If the minimum was higher, say E1/2 this would guarantee a much higher level of competencey and therefore a higher standard of candidate as the experience needed to climb at this higher grade comfortably is so much greater and more accumulative.
I also think that the grade III for MIC is unbelievable considering such a professional may have to get clients out of trouble in more difficult or deteriorating conditions.
Could it be that less folk would register for the qualifications if this was the case and therefore the MLTB would earn less revenue from these. (he says cynically ..) I understand that these quals are not just about the climbing but it is an essencial part of it and some who are not that competent at leading themselves may end up teaching others to do so.
In reply to Dark Peak Paul: The MIA is valid throughout the UK, including cliffs like the NE Face of Ben Nevis, or the Old Man of Hoy. Therefore, it is important that candidates gain experience in a range or environments that are more challenging than road side crags.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
Paul, Richie.
The MPA administered by Bord Oiliúint Sléibhe is an award which builds upon their SPA. In so far as you require no particular qualification to work in the outdoors in the UK the MPA may well be regarded as a valid means of 'demonstrating competence'; you might need to go a bit further and illustrate why it is relevant to precisely where you are working.
It's maybe worth flagging up that the HSE recognise four routes to competence and MLT subscribe to that concept totally.
1. Have gained a relevant NGB award (MIA from MLTUK)
2. Have gained an equivalent qualification (MPA from BOS?)
3. Have recieved equivalent training and assessment (the Technical Advisor route mentioned above)
4. Experience. You've done it a hell of a lot and can demonstrate that your experience has given you the relevant competencies.

As Jon has previously suggested we would see our qualifi cations as 'enabling' people to demonstrate competence rather than acting as 'licences to operate'.
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC:

Perhaps recognized is a better term?
 Ian McNeill 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
> (In reply to Dark Peak Paul)
>
> just remind me where PYB do their crag rescue multi pitch days??

I was assessed at The Chromlech on Noahs warning ... a VS 5a...

Training might be at Tremadog but you should be able to operate anywhere that fits the award......
In reply to chummer: Hi Chummer

Andy Say has already mentioned the soon to be launched public side of the Mountaineering Instructor scheme review. The grade for the both the MIA and MIC is one aspect to discuss.

I think it important to note that many clients employ an MIA or MIC as they are new to climbing, and are unlikely to be on terrain harder than VS. That was certainly my experience when working at Plas y Brenin.

There are many apocryphal stories of ‘an MIA who doesn’t climb’, just as there are MIA’s like James McAffie onsighting E7. If you focus on one extreme, then don’t ignore the other, or the hundreds of Mountaineering Instructors who are committed climbers.
In reply to RichieCaves: Sorry you've lost me.

I did mean 'demonstrate competence' not 'recognize competence', or are you refering to something else?
OP Jack Geldard 05 Jun 2009
In reply to chummer: Hi Chummer,

I've heard that some MIA's can even climb V7 at the Indy Wall... I kid you not!



Jack
In reply to RichieCaves: I was assessed for my MIA improvised rescue day on Clogwyn y Grochan, so candidates are taken to many different crags during both training and assessment.

It's not the case that the identical venues are used for the same syllabus elements.
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC:

I agree whole heartedly. Perhaps I should have said CIA + ML(S) + all the normal additional criteria/training/assessment = MIA.

The point being made is that I am evidently not alone in thinking it should be quite possible to have a multi-pitch climbing award that restricts its geographic remit, just as the WGL does compared to the ML.
 Ian McNeill 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

They also leave friends to the mercy of 'the Blacksmith' I understand !
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
> (In reply to RichieCaves)
>
> At Tramadog, I went on the course. Also climbed Merlin Direct at Tremadog, quoted in the MIA handbook as not regarded as a qualifiying climb due to being 'contrived' and not on a major cliff.
Untrue, Paul.
'...as a very general rule at least two thirds of the routes should fall into the mountain/major sea cliff category. Moss Ghyll Grooves, Dream of White Horses, The Clean Sweep [not the careful ethnic balance there!] are examples...rather than short, contrived climbs that may be more technically difficult such as Merlin Direct...' - MIA Handbook
So there is absolutely no problem with including Merlin Direct in your submitted list of experience; its just that the whole list shouldn't be like that! And, of course, since your submitted list should only be the tip of the experiential iceberg it should be easy to avoid including it anyway,

 Jon Ratcliffe 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC: "There are many apocryphal stories of ‘an MIA who doesn’t climb’, just as there are MIA’s like James McAffie onsighting E7. If you focus on one extreme, then don’t ignore the other, or the hundreds of Mountaineering Instructors who are committed climbers."

Totally agree with you Jonny so therefore the 'commited climbers' won't have any problem if the grade increases, but the 'MIA who doesn’t climb’ will, which was my point entirely. With regard to "apocryphal stories" These are not all just stories though as anyone who works in the industry knows, they do exist, I see them most days. Anyway, i'll shut up now, you must be gagging to get away from bored folk at work with a computer to hand, have a good weekend..
Jon R
 Jon Ratcliffe 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: They've since been downgraded to Indy V6.......
 Jon Ratcliffe 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Ian McNeill: It still chills me to think of what he'd have done with us if he'd caught us Neil...!
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Ian McNeill:
>
>
> I was assessed at The Chromlech on Noahs warning ... a VS 5a...
>
>

Call that a route? I was on Inbred on Craig Death, Newtonmore. And we had to live in cardboard boxes......
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC: I think the point was is the Multi Pitch Award run by MLTNI and BOS accepted as a valid qualification on this side of the Irish Sea and if so how does it equate to the multi pitch component of the MIA? I fully understand the process of demonstrating competence and that the MLT awards are just one way of meeting this HSE criteria and it is essential to insure you have insurance cover to include operating outside awards if this is your normal line of work, Perkins Slade are excellent at providing just this type of cover.
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

OK, you got me on a point of semantics there. So if the requirement for reqistration is not actually at least 20 'big' 4c VS climbs plus 10 smaller VS 4c (multi-pitch) climbs plus 20 'quality'days out in the mountains with groups after ML assessment, what is it? When does one know the 'iceberg' is big enough to register if meeting the criteria of the form isn't enough?
 Ian McNeill 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

don't you have a beard also ?
When you say “accepted as a valid qualification” then the question is accepted by whom? By employers? By clients? By insurers? Or by the holder themselves?

If self employed, then the clients and insurers need to feel confident that the professional providing the services is competent.

The only info Andy and I can find about the Irish scheme is at the bottom of this page: http://www.mountaineering.ie/trainingandsafety/viewdetails.asp?ID=9

At Mountain Leader Training we feel we're the 'good guys' in as much as we never say you must do our schemes and we provide information on alternative routes to competence. What will always be a challenge is providing a system of awards that fit everyone.

When one considers the total cost in time and money for the MIA, then it is very cheap when compared to other careers. Even if it can feel like a bit of a drag I believe it is incredibly good value for money for a professional qualification.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
Sorry. Ex English teacher you see; sometimes the pedant in me comes out!

'In general terms successful registrants will have climbed at least one hundred routes, of which the list of thirty is a sample. You must have led at least thirty named multi-pitch rock climbs of VS,4c standard or above in a minimum of 3 main climbing areas of the UK and Ireland. At least two-thirds of the routes should be on major mountain crags or sea cliffs eg. Moss Ghyll Grooves (Scafell) or Dream of White Horses (Gogarth)' is what it says on the current registration application form for MIA.

So the criteria is the 'must' bit of it - the 30 routes of type specified for registration; the strong recommendation is at least 100 to feel that you're in with more than a shout. Of course you can register well before you do the training course and build further experience in - many people do on ML and SPA
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Ian McNeill:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
>
> don't you have a beard also ?
Only a little one. But a bit more than Jon's designer stubble.

 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC:

Had a discussion with Steve Long a couple of months ago regarding the Irish scheme it is NI and Southern Ireland so comes under MLTNI and BOS and seems to be mainly offered out of Tollymore in NI. Why don't the other regional schemes offer it if there is a demand, which there possibly seems to be? Or could it be seen as undermining the MIA as a professional award, what does the term 'professional award' actually mean, surely SPA, ML etc are also professional awards, what about a degree in 'Outdoor Education' that includes alpine and winter mountaineering, is this 'professional', it is recognized as a teaching qualification by the GTC's of the home nations?
 Dark Peak Paul 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

Sorry, I thought you had to meet the criteria to register?

I have the ML, and the SPA, considerably more than 100 climbs, more than the 3 areas, quite a lot of multi pitch (certainly more than enough for the Irish MPA award). Yet, like many many part time instructors in lowland locations such as the Peak, the MIA is a step too far and the SPA too little.

I look forward to the MIA debate being opened.

Thanks for your time and considered answers.
In reply to RichieCaves:

As for professional award, then I meant that the MIA is commonly used professionally. A job spec for a post at an outdoor centre may specify the MIA or MIC as a minimum requirement for example. As you note, other MLT awards are also used professionally. This is one reason why the Mountain Leader Training Association offers professional indemnity insurance to its members who hold the SPA, ML and other entry level awards.

Regarding the future then the schemes evolve. Look at the Climbing Wall Award and the Climbing Wall Leading Award (to be launched next year). Even ten years ago, such national schemes may have seemed an unlikely proposition. Ten years from now, I’m sure the schemes will have evolved again.

The teaching of leading on natural crags has come up quite a few times today, and is well timed considering the Mountaineering Instructor scheme review.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
>
> Sorry, I thought you had to meet the criteria to register?

> Thanks for your time and considered answers.

Paul - yep. You meet the criteria of 30 routes(minimum)to register. Then whenever you want to you attend the training course.

And you're welcome!

 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC: Good little debate, but seemed to stay away from making an official comment on the Irish MPA, political or what!

Any way thanks for the time.
In reply to RichieCaves: I'm not trying to fudge the issue, not at all.

If anyone wishes to do the MPA and use it in the UK, then go for it. All I believe is:
1. Professionals should be competent, and there are four routes to competence recognised by the HSE, and
2. Professionals should be insured, to protect both themselves and their clients.

I'm off soon. Thanks to everyone for their comments.
 CarolineMc 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC: Thanks very much for your time today - been an interesting read! C-:
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
Difficult to make an 'official comment' when we actually know little about it other than it requires competence on Severe multi-pitch and seems to be a 'supervisor' level of award; i.e. you and one or two clients doing a route. No idea who provides it (apart from Tollymore - they appear to just offer one training and one assessment per year) or how many folks have done it. Tom Orr is our counterpart at BOS so we need to pick his brains as well as talk to Trevor Fisher from Tollymore.
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:
I'm going to hang around for a while yet if anyone wants to talk about the burning need for a Scrambling Instructor Award for those who don't lead VS?
 RichieCaves 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: Now there is an idea, sign me up!
 Nick_Scots 05 Jun 2009
WGL

We, my council/education service, require the BELA award as a minimum for leading DofE trips. I think it's less than 600m and half an hr form an ambulance road.

SPSA and Leading

I got my SPSA, yes now SPA, in 96 and have taught children from my school up to F6c indoors and E3 5c outdoors. The problem is I can't let them progress from top roping ! I don't have the time, and won't be allowed out of school to do the ML Awards to then get the MIA. So a bolt on 2 weekend type course to allow me to teach them to lead on the same SPSA remit crags would be great.

We work under AALA licensing so I could request to do the leading and my MIC Technical Expert would have to decide on this. But as we are a school/LEA would don't actually need an AALA license, but best practice etc.

UKCC

Once this eventually kicks in I would happily do modules to update and increase my remit.

The Ml and SPSA combination

I think using ML skills to approach an SPA remit crag should be MIA remit only as they are distinct situations. An example could be The Quadrocks, near Largs. It's a 20min steep hike up a hillside to a wee 9m high crag. But it would interesting to evacuate a casualty in foggy weather. I have bouldered there in 10m visibilty but on dry rock.

Nick

Nick
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to RichieCaves:
I did have an idea for a Probationary Leader And Supervisor Taking Indoor Climbing award once. But the CWA has a much better acronym......
 Ian McNeill 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

Yehy ....

the you can have
http://theSIA.org
strap line of

"The Award for those who can't lead VS!"
 Ian McNeill 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Ian McNeill: opp the sia .org exist bettr prefix or suffix .uk !
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Scott_vzr:
- 'We, my council/education service, require the BELA award as a minimum for leading DofE trips. I think it's less than 600m and half an hr form an ambulance road'
The remit now makes no mention of height; I helped to write it! The definition focusses on the fact that it is for rural countryside, essentially using footpath navigation, where it should not be possible to stray into more difficult terrain.
- 'I could request to do the leading and my MIC Technical Expert would have to decide on this'
Sounds a reasonable way to go; many Outdoor education Advisors and/or Technical Advisors could do this. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, though, sometimes it can be difficult persuading those in authority that there are other routes than just having the 'piece of paper'.

And good to see some acceptance of the possibility of coaching modules/awards/training. The development may or may not be UKCC endorsed if it goes ahead - it would depend on how difficult it was to get UKCC status. Most coaching qualifications from other sports that have gone the UKCC route have finished up twice as long and twice as costly!

Cheers!
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Ian McNeill:
No leave it as it is. I quite like the idea of running a mountaineeering award for French beauticians.......
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Scott_vzr:
Knew I had it somewhere - the guts of the BEL definition:
Acceptable Terrain
• Low-lying rural countryside, farmland, valleys or forest.
• Gentle to moderate rolling terrain with no steep slopes (see ‘Out-of-Scope Areas’ below).
• It should not be possible for a navigation error to result in a group straying into out-of-scope areas.

Out-of-Scope Areas
• Mountains, High hills, High level moorland, Extensive low-level open moorland.
• Steep slopes where an inexperienced walker may feel intimidated or may require physical support or where a slip might result in a fall.
• Mountainous or rocky terrain (NB this can be found at sea level).
• Areas which are more than 30 minutes nominal walking time from a road or refuge.
Roads should be accessible by ambulance and provide reasonably fast access to assistance. A refuge should offer shelter in an emergency and should normally be occupied e.g. a farm.
 Wibble Wibble 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

The BMC video on the IML award mentions a language test. Whilst obviously language skills are important, there's no explicit mention of a language test in the sylabus or handbook. I was wondering what form it takes.

Also given the international remit of the award it's a bit tricky to pick one language to test!
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Wibble Wibble:
On the assessments an evauation is made of the ability of the candidates to manage things like hut booking and uplift tickets etc.

I recall when I did my assessment we were given walking guide passages in French, German and Spanish to translate to see if we could make a decent stab at interpretation and following the directions. The current IML handbook does include amongst the list of things to be assessed 'Foreign Language Skills so its obviously still done in some form.
 Nick_Scots 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say:

I think eventually all BMC/UKML stuff will be UKCC as hopefully, with a demo at RATHO, climbing could be Olympic and UKCC courses can attract SportScotland funding. For example I can attend a Scottish Canoe Association Coachign course, 5 days full board at Glenmore Lodge, for free even though it costs £290, because the SCA have got UKCC uptake funding.

Most teachers, like me, accept that CPD/Updates is all part of best practice. And it tends not be assessment pressure. I have BOF, RYA and SCA quals. as well as my BEd Design and Technology degree but still attends updates, not just First aid every 3 years. I have to attend a mobile climbign tower/trailer induction before I use our councils for instance.

But UKCC stuff allows for APL (Accreditation of prior Learning) and AEL (experiential learning). So this would be a minefield but should allow me to teach leading !

I feel that I am letting down my pupils cause I can't progress them from top roping.

Cheers

Nick
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Scott_vzr:
> (In reply to Andy Say)

> But UKCC stuff allows for APL (Accreditation of prior Learning) and AEL (experiential learning). So this would be a minefield but should allow me to teach leading !
> Nick

I'm not going near climbing as an olympic sport! The lynch mobs will be out.
You're right, one of the benfirs of things like the UKCC and the fact that ML, WGL and SPA are on the National Qualification Framework does mean that funding can be available. BUT. The way that we are currently envisaging the development might be that the coaching elements doe not 'supercede' current quals therefore 'allowing' extra elements to the remit of the awards rather that you can coach better within the existing structure. So a coaching course wouldn't 'allow' (and see all of Jon and my disclaimers about awards allowing stuff above!) the teaching of leading per se. But could mean that an SPA coaches better.

 Nick_Scots 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Andy Say: Fair points.

What I don't like is that lower grade quals. are hunted by non-activists. That's why I like the SPSA as you need a good spread of crags and grades and experience.

Nick
 Andy Say 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Jack - Many thanks for hosting this. I'm conscious that we've probably only scratched the surface of a very few topics so we'd be more than happy to do a repeat sometime. All you out there can of course pm us in the meantime!

I'm going to sit and NOT look at a screen for a couple of hours!

Ciao

Andy
OP Jack Geldard 05 Jun 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Thanks to Jon and Andy - some really interesting topics.

Cheers guys.

Jack
 martin heywood 06 Jun 2009
In reply to Jon Garside, BMC:

How are you Jon, haven't seen you since Siurana.
Sorry to sound facecious but do you think the S.P.A. and M.I.A. awards would have a better image if most of the holders were "good" climbers (or "real" climbers.)
 Dee 07 Jun 2009
In reply to Wibble Wibble:
> (In reply to Andy Say)
>
> The BMC video on the IML award mentions a language test. Whilst obviously language skills are important, there's no explicit mention of a language test in the sylabus or handbook. I was wondering what form it takes.
>
> Also given the international remit of the award it's a bit tricky to pick one language to test!

Did my assessment in 2007, might have changed again since then...

However, the home paper contained questions on different languages; equally, I was tested (during the second day of the assessment in Switzerland) on my ability to raise the alarm in an emergency scenario - I was able to use both French and German to do so and I had practised for the possible scenarios where the need would arise by identifying the relevant vocabulary and responses. I knew that all my skills as an IML were being observed throughout the assessment, so I addressed the Guardians and Guardienes in the appropriate way that I would have done had I been leading a group - in their language. Had the assessment taken place elsewhere, well, you can guess the rest!

My view is that it doesn't take a great deal of effort to learn the essentials of a foreign language and practise it. A number of candidates used crib cards to help them which is a perfectly valid way of remembering important phrases under pressure.

I found the articles that Luca Signorelli and others posted here a while ago about raising the alarm and contacting the emergency services in Italy and France to be very useful - as an ideal overview of the level of information required by an IML.

If you haven't already, join the professional association - BAIML - for additional support, especially their CPD and AGM programmes.

 petestack 07 Jun 2009
In reply to martin heywood:
> Sorry to sound facecious but do you think the S.P.A. and M.I.A. awards would have a better image if most of the holders were "good" climbers (or "real" climbers.)

In reply to chummer:
> (In reply to Jon Garside, BMC) Totally agree with you Jonny so therefore the 'commited climbers' won't have any problem if the grade increases, but the 'MIA who doesn’t climb’ will, which was my point entirely.

In reply to chummer:
> If the minimum was higher, say E1/2 this would guarantee a much higher level of competencey and therefore a higher standard of candidate as the experience needed to climb at this higher grade comfortably is so much greater and more accumulative.

Why not just make it E5, or E7, or E9, then? That'll soon sort out all of us pretenders!
 martin heywood 08 Jun 2009
In reply to petestack:
>
> Why not just make it E5, or E7, or E9, then? That'll soon sort out all of us pretenders!


I think that could be putting the bar a little too high (Unless we are talking about "headpointing"), but how about say off the top of my head E2(bearing in mind the minimum what,3years? -to do your M.L. training then your consolidation period, your M.L. assessment Your M.I.A. training, consolidation period then your assessment.) I would have thought that most people with the staying power for this would have at least the motivation (they certainly have the time, even if they start as total novices) to get out and climb enough to reach this level.
 petestack 08 Jun 2009
In reply to martin heywood:

But MIA's about far more than just how hard you can climb, and there's always Mountain Guide to shoot at if you really feel the need to demonstrate comfort at E1+...

If I want to take my school pupils climbing, I am *required* to hold the appropriate NGB award and, as soon as you start talking more serious scrambles (think Curved Ridge) or straightforward mountain classics (Tower Ridge), that's MIA. This kind of stuff is outwith the ML and SPA remits, but does not require me to be comfortable at E2. Mountain VS is a sensible standard, especially when you consider that the required fluency at VS 4c pretty well assumes some activity at HVS/E1.

So I'm technically limited by your standards, but that doesn't make me (to come back to your earlier reply) any less 'real' or 'good' where my own aspirations are concerned. There's a whole area out there that's beyond ML/SPA but below instructing 'hard rock', and MIA has to remain appropriately rigorous (on which note personal climbing grade is merely part of the picture when you consider the overall remit/syllabus) but attainable if it's to cater for those who need it for that. By all means introduce some kind of further endorsement for those who 'need' a badge to say they can climb E2, E4 or whatever, but not to the detriment of those for whom MIA as it stands says enough.
 martin heywood 09 Jun 2009
In reply to petestack:
> (In reply to martin heywood)
>
>By all means introduce some kind of further endorsement for those who 'need' a badge to say they can climb E2, E4 or whatever, but not to the detriment of those for whom MIA as it stands says enough.


I am not talking about needing "a badge", I am talking about being a competent climber.
I am quite aware that there are plenty of excellent climbers holding M.I.A. but there also many "Climbing Instructors" who are more like P.E. teachers and this not right in my book (I have been involved 3 times in rescues of these people.)
Your comment about becoming a Guide in order to lead "E1 plus" strikes me as rather strange.It would probably take me about 15 years to achieve this award (but at least it is achievement based) when it took me a matter of months to reach this standard (of climbing) when I started climbing.
 petestack 09 Jun 2009
In reply to martin heywood:
> (In reply to petestack)
> I am not talking about needing "a badge", I am talking about being a competent climber.

In that case I'm going to ask you at exactly what grade you consider someone becomes a competent climber, whether that grade automatically demonstrates competence and whether anyone who can't climb it is incompetent?

> Your comment about becoming a Guide in order to lead "E1 plus" strikes me as rather strange.

Hmmm, is that what I said? I thought it was 'there's always Mountain Guide to shoot at if you really feel the need to demonstrate comfort at E1+...'

> It would probably take me about 15 years to achieve this award (but at least it is achievement based)

So how is it achievement-based when MIA is not? It's just a different level of achievement, when neither level is the be-all and end-all of either award. Unless you'd rather just give MIA to anyone who can climb routes of the difficulty you consider makes them competent and never mind all the other essential stuff the syllabus covers?

> when it took me a matter of months to reach this standard (of climbing) when I started climbing.

So maybe you're more naturally gifted than others (eg me), but that doesn't make us incompetent!

 petestack 09 Jun 2009
In reply to martin heywood:
> (In reply to petestack)
> but there also many "Climbing Instructors" who are more like P.E. teachers and this not right in my book

PS Something wrong with PE teachers? Or teachers in general? And have you ever heard of Wilson Moir?

 martin heywood 11 Jun 2009
In reply to petestack:
> (In reply to martin heywood)
> [...]
>
> PS Something wrong with PE teachers? Or teachers in general? And have you ever heard of Wilson Moir?



Sorry if I was ranting a little.
(I have given up smoking again, and I always get the soapbox out)
I am aware that th the main requirement of M.I.A. and M.L. is to be able to be as safe as possible in any situation that may arise, and that as such the awards are fine.
My gripe really is that, well, (takes deep breath) I go out climbing to get away from people like P.E. teachers and those who parrot nonsense about centralizing 3 independent anchors as if it was a law handed down from God, when anyone with a bit of experience would know that a tree with a 10 feet diameter would do fine (etc). Oops, I am off again.
Perhaps there should be some separate coaching awards? I think of a country like Slovenia with a tradition of mountaineering as well as the best sport climbers in the world, and I cannot conceive of anyone calling themselves an instructor who was not capable of real technique (amongst other things) instruction. I do not know ANY women in Slovenia who do not climb at around 7b minimum (hard E5?)and see no reason why some of this attitude/method could be fostered in Britain.
I am ashamed to say that I know nothing of Wilson Moir (And I pride myself on my knowledge of U.K. climbing history)
P.S. I come from a family of teachers, but have to say "Those that can't do, teach"

 martin heywood 11 Jun 2009
In reply to martin heywood:
> (In reply to petestack)
> [...]
>
>
>
> I do not know ANY women in Slovenia who do not climb at around 7b minimum (hard E5?)and see no reason why some of this attitude/method could be fostered in Britain.
> I am ashamed to say that I know nothing of Wilson Moir (And I pride myself on my knowledge of U.K. climbing history)
> P.S. I come from a family of teachers, but have to say "Those that can't do, teach"


Sorry, that should read "no reason why this attitude/method COULDN'T be fostered in Britain.
 petestack 11 Jun 2009
In reply to martin heywood:
> (In reply to petestack)
> My gripe really is that, well, (takes deep breath) I go out climbing to get away from people like P.E. teachers and those who parrot nonsense about centralizing 3 independent anchors as if it was a law handed down from God, when anyone with a bit of experience would know that a tree with a 10 feet diameter would do fine (etc).

Sorry your perception of P.E. teachers is so negative, but agreed on the tree!

> I am ashamed to say that I know nothing of Wilson Moir (And I pride myself on my knowledge of U.K. climbing history)

Top Scottish climber. And P.E. teacher...

> P.S. I come from a family of teachers, but have to say "Those that can't do, teach"

Well, I might have thought that about teachers once, but now (as a music teacher of twenty years' standing) I know how wrong I was.
 martin heywood 12 Jun 2009
In reply to petestack:
> (In reply to martin heywood)
> [...]
>
> Sorry your perception of P.E. teachers is so negative, but agreed on the tree!
>
> [...]
>
> Top Scottish climber. And P.E. teacher...
>
> [...]
>
> Well, I might have thought that about teachers once, but now (as a music teacher of twenty years' standing) I know how wrong I was.


Nothing but respect for your twenty years of teachimg

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...