UKH

The Mountain Training Boards are conducting a review of the ML and WGL awards with a view to possible changes/revisions/tweaks to the ML and WGL leading to a possible overall 'walking awards' syllabus and handbook.

As part of the review we'd be grateful for responses to an on-line survey. The survey has 36 questions and takes about 15/20 minutes to work through (unless you want to write a lot of essays!). Responses from folks who have undertaken and use ML or WGL would be most welcome but anyone is free to contribute.

The survey is at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PWLR8SK

This has been posted with the kind permission of UKC/UKH.

Many thanks: Andy Say - MLTE

In reply to Andy Say:

Andy, that's just made me realise how out of date I am (have had very little involvement in awards since having kids....so 6 years or so).

I notice some providers are now offering a WGL -> ML conversion - is this now available as a formal training (ie automatically eligible to do a ML assessment)? Is it registered as a full length ML training but only marketed to those already have WGL? Or is it a "do the conversion and then apply for exemption from ML training"?

Also, what the current position on use of GPS - is it now taught to some extent?

Hope that makes sense! And I'm probably being lazy and should just read the latest guidance notes. Will do the questionnaire in a bit....

In reply to Andy Say:

Done, although could have done with an any other comments section.

The reason I say this is that their seems to be a problem where some assessors only accept specfic area as QMD's ie scotland alone or require days in certain areas when the hand book has a much broader defination and does not give this requirement. And as a candadate this can lead to fail. On logged experiance even though according to the hand book you have meet the requirement.

In reply to Carolyn:
Carolyn,
With regard to the WGL to ML courses the idea is that a shortened ML training course can cover the syllabus areas not included in the WGL (which you must have passed). Whilst numbers are pretty low for that 'conversion' at present (which means that many providers will only run fairly ad hoc courses for specific groups) the feeling is that if we can show a clear progression route then maybe more people would take the opportunity. People doing the 'conversion' after having passed a WGL are considered to have completed a 'full' ML training so don't need to apply for exemption.

GPS - 'The use of navigation aids such as global positioning systems and altimeters should be discussed.' One of the survey questions does touch on this.

In reply to Ross B:
Ross, Noted.
Andy

In reply to Andy Say:

Cheers. Certainly when I had more involvement it was seen as something that was needed - that was leaders with a youth organisation, mainly wanting to run DofE. Most had aspirations to work in mountainous areas, but only had the personal experience for WGL. The lack of an obvious conversion route was seen as an issue (cost and time), although I suspect in reality relatively few would have ever gone on to gain the necessary personal experience to convert to ML. Actually, a wild camping module for WGL might have been equally useful - in fact, I think the organisation may have done an in house one.

Anyhow, I'll find somewhere to stick that into the questionnaire!

In reply to Carolyn:
You will find its already in

In reply to Andy Say:


OK, have now won the fight with super slow network and found it

In reply to Andy Say: Done

In reply to Andy Say: I'd have preferred a bit more space to comment at the end.. it was a tad directed..

Anyway..

I'd prefer a central ML award but with bolt on modules for such activities as coasteering.. at the moment I can't see how the ML award enables us to lead coasteering groups.. but I was signed off by one provider.. I never did lead because I don't feel suitably experienced..

But the main one is scrambling, I think there's a grey area on easy grade scrambles. I take people along the classic easy grades, many ML's do, many think its outside of our remit..

My other issue is teaching awards.. for us to progress we need to then push the climbing route..

IML.. its too much.. provided by too few.. too expensive.. just stinks of monopolisation.

Anyway hopefully my survey went through, I had a power cut half way so lost wifi...

In reply to Andy Say:

Licence to print money?

£50 for someone to read through your log book and say you don't need to do the training.

In reply to s.scott: Step up and look at the IML award.. I see little reason for the UK summer part of that..

In reply to IainRUK:
>

i agree.

In reply to IainRUK:
Hi Iain. Enjoying the sleet in Nant? What a rough night!
I'm a bit constrained in my answers to posts on this thread as we don't know where the review will go and I just don't want to lead folks contributing to the survey re ML and WGL.

I think that a lot of what you are suggesting could be included in a future review of the 'instructor awards' (which I hoped would have happened a while ago!). An 'MI' for a Mountaineering Instructor which encompassed scrambles and mountain instruction and a 'RI' for 'Rock Instructors' which was about those seeking to just instruct climbing on multi-pitch, which, added together could equate to the current MIA. Would that float your boat?

But that's for the future. As an humble MLTE employee I'm currently just looking at WGL and ML. And I'm afraid coasteering doesn't sit in there comfortably

In reply to Andy Say: I'm in Texas..

Personally, at the moment, things change, I'm just interesting in the UK/European trail guiding, but do like adding easy scrambles to runs. We have done a lot of 3000ers work, which includes Crib Goch.. at the moment it sort of falls in between.

Some seem to think we shouldn't be leading groups on that terrain.. I'd personally be very interested in a weekend 'bolt-on' module to the ML to cover easy scrambles. At the moment I fear its a sort of.. you could possibly do it.. but if something goes wrong we might not have your back.. I don't know if that's true but that's the impression I've got..

Obviously all you do is shift the grey area.. but I think there's a point where that grey area attracts less and less people so is much less of an issue. At the moment easy grade scrambles like Tryfan N, Nantlle, Crib Goch type things are routinely guided by ML's anyway..

Yeah I agree re coasteering.. yet at the moment it seems a growing area which is being lumped under work for ML's.. which to me seems crazy..

In reply to s.scott:
Re the exemption process. People are asking to be exempt from the training element and allowed to go straight to assessment as a result of 'exceptional experience'. MLTE needs to be assured that they are not going to be a total liability - and I speak as someone who applied for exemption myself in 1991!

You are asking a fairly highly qualified person to vet your experience. In a few instances it goes through fine. In many instances it takes a few phone calls and emails to sort out what is being submitted. Maybe some more evidence submitted. It is approved? The office generates an 'attendance on training' on the database; an approval sticker is attached to the endorsement page which is emailed back free of charge. You are then free to attend an assessment course without having gone through a training course.

We could allow just anybody to attend assessment of course, but I'd guess the assessment staff wouldn't thank us and just maybe the 'did not pass rate' might go up?

In reply to IainRUK:

Sorry, Iain. Is that a quote from the Chris Rea track - could of sworn your van was still at home.....

In reply to higherclimbingwales:
highclimber - My apologies. Yep - all on line surveys are a bit linear! 'Tell me what I want to know' stuff. But what I am initially trying to do is get fairly 'straight' stats to feed into the review report.

If you've other issues to comment on then you can go andy@mlte.org and I will respond/listen.

Within limits!

Andy

In reply to Andy Say: The van is.. but Sarah is in NZ.. plus we don't live together anymore.. haven't since last summer..

In reply to IainRUK:
Ooops. Sorry Iain. Didn't know.

In reply to Andy Say: I'm surprised.. its been part of Llanberis gossip for a while.. and despite me being out here now still remains so.. but no we separated last summer, pretty common knowledge, and despite rumours to the contrary we remain apart..

In reply to Andy Say: Completed.

In reply to IainRUK:

Re: scrambles as an ML; isn't it a case of you and the group both being competent on that kind of ground, and the conditions being suitable too? If all are OK then it's fine to do some scrambles as an ML (so long as you don't plan to use a rope) and you can justify the decision if anything goes wrong.

Interested in your views on the IML too. I hold the IML (did the old scheme) and haven't made that much use of it, but am keen to at some point soon.

In reply to Andy Say:
Done Andy.

In reply to Andy Say: Done, some interesting concepts looking at awards in general in a modular sense.

In reply to JayPee630:

The ML is an award for leading walking groups, as defined on the first line of the scope of the scheme. Completing a scramble without a rope does not make the scramble within ML remit, even if nothing goes wrong. The ML scheme does not assess candidates ability to manage groups on scrambles, it is for hillwalking leaders.

In reply to Alan Pearson:

That's not the view I've been given many times by guides/instructors. And notice I said *some* scrambles.

Also the qualification itself (which you don't actually legally even need remember) is only one part of the matrix to justify whatever you do. I also said if you and the group have the experience and the conditions are suitable.

In reply to JayPee630:

You are indeed correct, you can do whatever you like, and it is accepted that rocky terrain will be encountered by MLs, and MLs may well choose to lead groups on scrambles.

However this is all down to the decisions made by the leader, the ML award itself, as defined by MLT does not train or assess leadership on scrambles and is not a qualification to lead groups on scrambles.

In reply to Alan Pearson: I disagree.. there's a good section on security on steep ground.. so no I don't think its strictly a hill walking award... but it highlights the grey area.. and understandably Andy nor the MLTB's will make a comment either way..

Hillwalking> scrambling is a continuum.. Daear Ddu ridge? Nantlle ridge?

In reply to IainRUK:

I agree there is a grey area, there will always be one, there are routes that are described as scrambles that an ML is more than capable of managing groups over safely and could be sure they are in remit.

But the assertion remains it is a mountain walking award and that it assesses a candidates ability to understand the extent of their remit which does include steep ground and narrow ridges in the context of a walk, but is not a qualification to lead parties on scrambles, the MIA trains and assesses for this.

In reply to Alan Pearson: You are both right. You are taught and assessed on steep ground security for the purposes of emergency situations (not necesarrily life or death emergencies) i.e. the planned use of a rope is strictly out of remit.

I like the module idea... eventually I will have an ML (doing QMDs at the mo), but I would still prefer to avoid chalk or (non running) water without additional training.

In reply to Andy Say:

done andy it'll be interesting to see where this takes the awards

In reply to Andy Say: Synical but will this mean yet another hoop to jump through and increased fee to pay?

In reply to old un:

One would hope its just better hoops that are more worth jumping through.

In reply to Andy Say: Completed. Pete

In reply to Andy Say: Can the Board please review the "Thompson Knot" and it's uses. Please find me an ML/MIA/MIC/Guide who has ever used this in anger.

In reply to Jim Walton:
Dear Jim
I have used it several times mostly though in embarrassment rather than anger when I have forgotten my harness when climbing.
Yours
Forgetful of conon bridge

In reply to Jim Walton: I have use it scrambling if students unexpectedly less able than I expected and needed a harness. I don't issue harnesses as a rule unless I am on a scramble I really expect to use it. So unlikely for the Gribin Ridge, Crib Goch or Striding Edge.

In reply to Andy Say:

How about ending ML being a prerequisite for MIA.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Why?

In reply to Jim Walton:

If you read the guidance notes and syllabus for all the awards you will see that no specific knot or technique is ever specified. Choice of techniques and teaching thereof, taking note of the specific award guidelines etc, is down to individual trainers.

In reply to george mc:

Because then I wouldn't have to do my ML!

On a more serious note, perhaps candidates with substantial mountaineering and rock climbing expirence could be allowed to complete the MIA without having done their ML?

I don't really see how this any different from getting exemption from ML training?

I also think the rope work and scrambling aspect of ML should be removed. It is pretty dangerous.

When I did my ML training I was with a group of non climbers... the idea that any of them could be belaying novices attached to thompson knots scares me silly.

A much better course of action would be to tell them not to get into the situation in the first place and if they do to call mountain rescue.

HTH

In reply to george mc:

Interesting. I thought of Thompson knot after I'd done the questionnaire and thought it could be binned. I don't reckon most MLs will remember it 6 months after assessment let alone ever use it..... For me, more emphasis on ways to spot/protect a group without a rope on steep ground would be more useful, as sometimes the rope seems to take over candidates' thinking from what I've seen (which is largely folk preparing for assessment).

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Then what about the navigation element and all the general mountain skills needed to access and get to/from mountain crags safely?

The rope work of the ML syllabus is not dangerous. It's safe when done properly and used in the correct context.

You only did your ML training, if you do your assessment you'll find that people not safe belaying don't pass.

Are you seriously suggesting that an ML should be told to not do anything but sit down and call MR if they have one person that needs lowering down a small rock step to get back down the mountain?

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: I feel the same as you tom I wouldn't go as far as saying you don't need to have an ML to do the MIA but I feel it would be better to be able to do the MIA training without the ML with the proviso that you can only go for assessment once you've passed the ML.

I think the river crossing part was the most pointless exercise not to mention highly dangerous to perform in the wrong conditions and without the right knowledge!

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Hence the perfect demonstration of why you'd go out of your way to avoid it in 'real life'...

In reply to JayPee630:

That's where the substantial amount of mountaineering expirence comes is.

Say to do MIA without ML a candidate would have had to do 60 QMD at least 20 of which were in Scotland. There is also a reasonable amount nav involved in getting to crags like Llech Du, Esk Buttress and Carnmore.

I would also expect all their multipitch VS to be on proper mountain crags and sea cliffs. Routes like Eliminate A, Longland's Climb, Ffion Buttress, S Ridge Direct. The likes of Scratch, Nea, Fool's Paradise don't really cut it.

The week after I did my training I was asked to help a family friend with no climbing expirence to brush up on his rope work prior to assessment. His rope work and understanding were fairly shocking. He still passed.

Lowering people directly from spikes is a skill which requires years of expirence and judgement to perfect. You can't just pick it up.

An ML shouldn't call MR at the drop of the hat, but if the only option is to lower someone down a vertical steep then, I think, they are way out of remit/their depth and could probably do with assistance getting off the hill.

Just my 2p...

In reply to James Edwards: Oh, I thought the Thompson Knot was ONLY for lowering. Am I ever going to pass my MIA...

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: The navigation required to get to Dow's Crag, Cloggy etc is not enough to get your ML. The MIA training is only 9 days and does not have enough time to each ALL the aspects of navigation that you need to pass your MIA. If they had to spend 2 days teaching nav then the course would have to be lengthened. The cost of the course would go through the roof, as it is if the Lodge or PYB were to charge commercial rates for the MIA then the cost would be £1500+. Quite a few people fail there MIA Nav day, my friend did. He was gutted.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Dear Tom,

These comments are NOT aimed at you or any other super keen young climber who wants to do the MLT qaulifications, but at the 'ticket punchers'.

Workings as a MLT SPA and CWA provider and on other Providers ML's and WGL's, I have noticed with SOME young people the desire to sprint through the awards with the very barest minimium needed. When gently challenged some young people respond well and gain the experience needed, others, with a little questioning reveal that even the less than minimium in the log books is errmmmm 'creative writing'.

So by removing the ML and creating a fast track might make a better and simpler route for a keen and experienced person like yourself but it may also create a route for the less than experienced to be on training courses they are not ready for and assesments they will fail.

When you look at the sort of experience you'll need to create a safe and suitable 'straight to MIA' route you might as well do the ML and at least you can earn some money / lead groups before you compete the MIA assesment.

Well thats my 2.5p worth!

In reply to Jim Walton:
Well there is "Assessment world" and there is the "real world"... in assessment world you have 10 screwgates at all times, 5m off 10mm abb tat and all spikes are train stoppers etc. In the real world you walk for 3 hours into the Orion Face on Ben Nevis find perfect conditions and realise that you have left your harness at home.
I wouldn't use it for working a hard sport route mind.
James

In reply to James Edwards:

I was out with two guinea pig students the other day teaching self rescue skills. One asked me if I normally carry 14 screw gates whilst out climbing...

In reply to Simon Wells:
You make an excellent point re experience leading groups. I feel that the awards should focus on these soft skills (but of course teach and assess that candidates can do clove hitch, belays etc) but a persons ability to lead a group is hard to assess as it is wooly and indistinct, but these skills are what get you good tips and returning customers. Experience is a massive part of this, although some people are good at this from day 1.

There are more than enough people out there with MIA and MIC qualifications already, with respect to saturation from a customers viewpoint without making it easy for more to be added who scrape by with the minimum.

James e

In reply to Simon Wells:

Hi Simon,

I think the creative writing aspect of ML log books is a pretty big problem. I know of several acquaintances who have embellished their log books.

They way you could get round this for a fast track MIA would be to have two references (ideally an MIA/MIC/Guide) who have climbed substantially with the applicant.

Cheers,

Tom

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
And you think there is no chance anyone can't get their mates to tell porkies for them? 'Join the Old Boys Club@ - where your mates will vouch that you are a good chap? Get the hill days in mate. Far quicker in the short term.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

That's where the navigation, personal hill experience, route planning/choice,and party management all come in. Just do your ML assessment. It'll all make sense.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: In the context of working in an Industry you don't want the entry requirements "Dumbed Down" . All this will do is reduce the quality of Instructors and reduce wages due to increased competition.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Dear Tom,

The reference from an MIA etc sounds attractive, but as George points out even MIA, MIC's & Guides might make poor decisions at times regarding references. Managars at centres with staffing issues and budget problems will be tempted, friends and club members might feel duty bound etc. At the end of the day a battered pair of boots, dozens of dog ear maps and an encylopedic knowledge of cheap / free places to park and sleep is a much better reference!

I gained a lot from my ML training and assesment and would have been a poorer MIA with out it even though I did my ML assesment with well over a hunderd Qaulity Mountain Days in the log book.

Leading and instructing in the mountains are a 'craft' and our clients are right to expect a seasoned and time served craftsperson for thier money, not a short cut, minimium logged, got there quick product. I know these comments don't apply to you!

Well I am off to bed as I have a long run tommorrow.

Good night all,

Simon

In reply to Andy Say: Excellent idea on the re - think of the WGL and ML awards. I do believe a winter training day should be added onto them as well. I Recently completed the Winter Moorland Leader assessment in Dartmoor in Feb, the course was fully booked and the day night winter assesment was challenging. Cannot believe I spent a lot of money travelling Scotland to do Winter Skills courses, when I could of gone to Dartmoor. Paddy Doyle.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Wow. I have always seen the award scheme as a ladder to climb. Not every one wants to go the whole way. I think the ML is an amazing award and gives an important lead into MIA work. I have worked as an ML all over the country and used it extensively within the remit i.e. navigation, camping, expeditioning, scrambling etc. I have also worked on alot of ML training and I think that all the people I have ever worked with on these courses have pitched it at not only covered the syllabus but at the right level. If you do have extensive experience I'd suggest you'd find the ML a doddle but at least you have then got a qualification to prove your competence and could get lots of experience in the mountains. After all MIA builds on basic mountaineering skills! Finally just don't get into the situation in the first place??! I don't really know you Tom but I know you've had your fair share of epics! It happens to the best of us!

In reply to Andy Say: ....and with reference to Simon's comment of 08/04. I totally agree that working as a Leader / Instrcutor is a 'craft'. Simply gaining the QMD's, refining your construction skills and application of knots and 'rote' learning environment bits 'n pieces is not going to enable any accredited leader to provide groups with a quality experience; 'cause that's surely the purpose of the Award, isn't it?

So, I worry when I read so many postings debating the minutiae about shortcuts / fast tracking and exemptions. These are distractions from the core of the training course: which is to provide a cohesive learning environment in which 'experienced' hillwalkers can develop their skills in the context of leadership - not learn the skills from ground0!

In my 2d's worth, I think that the review should focus on the end product. ie: the quality of the leader who is given the nod to lead groups throughout the British hills and mountains.

Again, I worry when folk start debating what isn't there! In the real world, if ML holders are deliberately leading groups onto scrambling terrain then their award is void for the duration of the element of that journey and it's up to their manager or deploying agency to ensure the leader is doing what 'it says on the box'. Fine if we want to broaden the scope of the award; that's another debate but an ML Scramble Leader doesn't currently exist so I think the issue of scrambling is a distraction too.

Let's first checkout that the Registration, Training and Assessment phases are doing a better than adequate job first - so the folk who are lead by ML leaders need to be researched.

If leadership shows up to be a problem then lets research where the weaknesses are & correct these first: then move to reviewing what could be added to make the Award better.
Thanks, Andy (another one)

In reply to Andy Say: You need to make the right hoops! I feel that their needs to more control over climbing. Their are more and more people taking the sport up so more peolple jumping on the band wagon to teach.

The gap between SPA and MIA is enormous. MLT are looking at changes to "walking" how about more levels in the climbing quals. Perhaps an ML with the ability to lead roped scrambles upto a set grade or a single pitch leader?

In reply to pete.hutchings:

Well i think that that would be a bad idea. Scrambling, whilst the grade is easy and lots of people can do it, is probably the most difficult part of a guides or instructors repetoir to do well. It can take YEARS to do well. When i am working on a cullin ridge traverse i'm doing around two risk assessments a second and that is when the weather is nice. By contrast roped climbing even at 'hard' grades is very easy as everone is lashed to a nice big cliff and are far easier to control.
I think managing a scrambling group well, particually effective use of the rope, is near the top end - way above the ML. Indeed most people who do their MIA award don't do this often enough to be really good at it (that's not me saying that, that is what lots of people have told me; in the real scary world people are honest about where their abilities are and choose to work to their strenghs)
Interseting points being made on this thread.
James

In reply to James Edwards:

Good point, well made. It always annoys me when people think roped/unroped scrambling is a little step above walking, whereas it reality it's the hardest and most dangerous thing to do in the hills often.

In reply to pete.hutchings:
'A single pitch leader?' I think its called the SPA? Whose remit includes the leading of routes.

In reply to James Edwards: Well said James. The people who argue for fast tracks, simplifications and half way houses in the qualification process seem to have very little idea of the seriousness and realities of the work. The MIA is a very long way above the SPA but that's because it needs to be. Scrambling/ mountaineering work [and work on Skye is an excellent example of this] is amongst the most judgement dependent work that you will do, there are many MIA's who are borderline for the necessary experience in my opinion. As James says, developing the judgement to do the work well takes many years so anything that encourages people not used to looking after others in this environment to push their experience too quickly is a very bad idea, look at the fatality rate on the French guide scheme for evidence of this.

I suspect a lot depends on people's background experience, though. Personally, with a background in general mountain walking/running/scrambling and lower grade multipitch climbing, I reckon could get myself up to MIA level short roping/scrambling level fairly easily. It'd be far more work for me (though I accept entirely possible!) to up my climbing to be comfortable enough leading any multi pitch VS. But for someone with with a background in roadside cragging, the opposite is likely to be true.

Then again, I guess many MLs have next to no climbing experience, which probably makes it much harder to do an add on.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Tom - see my above, tentative, flag raising 'I think that a lot of what you are suggesting could be included in a future review of the 'instructor awards'. An 'MI' for a Mountaineering Instructor which encompassed scrambles and mountain instruction and a 'RI' for 'Rock Instructors' which was about those seeking to just instruct climbing on multi-pitch, which, added together could equate to the current MIA. Would that float your boat?'

However I would have to say that if that ever came to be I for one would lobby strenuously that any 'Rock Instructor' should also have their ML and any 'Mountaineering Instructor' should have their SPA; transferability and flexibility in application of skills is pretty important.

Andy (one of the many)

In reply to Andy Say:

Have the SPA as the steppng stone to the MIA training. Makes far more sense than doing ML first. Though I'm looking forward to doing my ML assessment soon, I'm aiming for MIA.

In reply to Andy Say:

That makes some sense to me, Andy.
Certainly for an scrambling add on to ML, I reckon you'd need some climbing ability - and in the interests of simplicity, SPA is probably good. I'm not so sure you need mountain walking ability for "roadside" multipitch, though?

In reply to Hans:

No it doesn't, the ML is considerably better at building judgement and general leadership skills in the mountains and should always be a pre-requisite to the MIA. This isn't about making it deliberately difficult or limiting the numbers of people qualified it's about ensuring that MIA's have the skills,judgement and experience to do the job.

In reply to IainRUK:


Crib Goch formed part of my assessment as did scrambling up steep ground, off the "paths" and recognised routes to reach the top of Snowdon from Cwm Hetiau.

I've always considered that ground very much within remit, I just needed to assess if it was appropriate for the group.

In reply to James Edwards:

James, I totally agree on the scrambling issue. This an area that requires much more risk assessment, judgement and experience than most.
It's also a very dangerous area that many experienced and qualified Mountain Guides and Mountaineering Instructors feel uneasy about.

As you and I know it's an area where less experienced mountain leaders often stretch their qualification boundaries.
Some ML's feel that they know better and scrambling is more fun for them anyway. Some will even argue that they can always use ropes or Via Ferrata as it was done on their UK or IML training courses. They forget that security on steep ground was looked at as emergency use only, rather than planned use or very poor judgement!! In their excitement they forget that the job is actually looking after the clients safety and picking suitable objectives that don't risk life and limb. Easy ground is boring for them so all is forgotten or pushed aside while they drag their unsuspecting charges across lethal, steep loose ground until one day....!

In reply to Andy Say: I'm going through the mia scheme at the moment, and for me it's the scrambling stuff that I need to work on most.

Keeping people safe on a climb is pretty straight forward, but the judgement needed when scrambling is non stop. I've been scrambling for years, but it's very different to safe guarding two clients.

For me it's obvious that you need to be an experienced ML first.

I do see a place for an SPA bolt on to teach leading, but I haven't given much thought to the mechanics of this.

A point i'm interested in teasing out answers to is does it water down existing awards at MIA / ML level to have the introduction of other levels below them. I can see the benifit perhaps of having an award that is for the teaching of leading on single pitch (we currently have this it is called the MIA). Do people feel corraling a specific mandate into an award to solve a geographical location i.e. "i live in sheffield and just want to work on single pitch gritstone" is a good way to go?
I understand that a lot of life is 'modularised' these days and can see that people like awards and small stepping stones and it gives NGB people more work and more admin and thus more jobs and has the potential to 'earn as you learn (maybe) but do people think that it will be of beifit to the punter who is looking to hire someone to do work or would we got more people opperating outside aggreed insurance peramitors and thus uninsured?

Lastly, before my stream of conciousnous runs away with it's self, to add most clients i have in the UK haven't got the first scooby about the different qualifications and when quizzed usually state that 'Mountain Leader' is a higher qualification than 'Mountain Guide' so go figure!

In reply to Andy Say: Have completed the form Andy.

However, I have to say that with the exception of the inclusion of remote supervision as a distinct subject area into both the WGL and ML syllabuses, I think the WGL and ML(S) awards are fit for purpose and they require no major changes.

That is in distinct contrast with the SPA which needs a complete overhaul and needs to be replaced with an essentially new 3-day qualification that includes much more coaching along the lines of that in the CWA and also sport climbing at cliffs without top-access.

In reply to Andy Say: For me, the SPA is now, for all intents and purposes defunct for those, like me, who are inbetween that and the ML as it is quite hard to get work with just the SPA as most providers ask that you are SPA ML minimum. Adding something to the SPA to enhance work opportunities would be beneficial to all those going through the motions to get more qualified.

tis a catch 22 situation most of the time ith these sorts of things - you want experience but without experience/qualifications you can get the experience!

In reply to Kendal47:

Totally agree. The experience in leadership is the area I see left out most often in someone's potential quick progression through to an award (be it WGL or ML). Make the whole process even faster and risk putting those with even less leadership experience into the mix.

Some people confuse having a logbook full of fantastic solo or peer group epics with being experienced and sufficiently safe to lead totally inexperienced others in the Mountains and that is wrong. This for me is why progression through an award scheme is so important.

In reply to various: About ten years ago, I thought that you should not need to need to do your ML(S) before doing your MIA. I also thought that a leading bolt-on for SPA would be a good idea. The comments will still be there on UKC threads if anyone cares to look!

I now realise ten years further on that I was being massively naive and didn't have much clue what I was talking about and greatly over estimated my knowledge and ability.` It was a simple case of not knowing what I did't know. There are a lot of things it is hard to know until you go through your MIA and then spend time working professionally in the outdoor industry. Finally, it is only when you progress to working as an instructor on MLTE courses or employing ML/SPA holders that you really have a full perspective on the issues.

I don't mean to demean people's views, but I know from personal experience that if you haven't done your MIA then you are not really in any position to critique the qualification. I know a fair few MIAs who think VS 4c is on the low side, but I never hear any serious discussion about ML(S) not being a sensible pre-requisite or that we should have a bolt on to SPA for teaching leading.

As already stated there are more important issue such as MLTUK belated recognising that sport climbing exists, is mainstream and should not be by omission the preserve of MIAs.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

That is a post that should be gold-plated and preserved - nice honestty and self awareness!

In reply to Andy Say:
Seems there's two levels of qual at the moment. One level for them that 'just' lead people- ML and SPA and CWA - and one level for them that 'teach' skills. MIA and MIC. If you want to 'teach' them only good climbers need apply. If you'r just a good mountaineer not a rockjock then the only progress route is through the IML. Which is neither fish nor fowl really?

In reply to Wainers44:

This is why group leadership and management through supervision should be made a requisite for both WGL and ML (and SPA). There are a number of people going through these awards who have very minimal inclination to bother getting group experience as it generally means volunteering and some think that because it's not mandatory, they don't need to bother.

In reply to andyathome:

So only MIC's and MIA's teach? Thats not the case. Without sounding like I've eaten a management book, the best leaders are always teaching while they lead. Its the level of teaching that is appropriate to the award held thats the difference. MIA's and MIC's would clearly be able to teach skills that I cant, but if I lead a group for a day (on my MLC) and they learn nothing, then its probably been a waste of everyones time.

In reply to andyathome:

That's just not true.

I teach a lot using my SPA and ML.

In reply to Wainers44:

I think what Andy is saying is that the teaching element is a big part of the training and assessment of the MIA and MIC and it's not in the other "leading" awards and I have to agree...

In reply to Ron Walker:

I'm not sure thats what he said. As for how much of MIA/C assessment and training is specifically teaching I dont know so I will take your word for it. I read what he said to be more about the holders of the awards and what they are suited to do and I didnt (dont) agree that teaching is the preserve of the MIA and MIC.

In reply to Ron Walker:

Ron
Couldn't agree more with your statements, "Some ML's feel that they know better and scrambling is more fun for them anyway"
I'm afraid I'm almost guilty of this, I have to virtually pinch myself to stick with the plan when I'm out with a group and spy this interesting ground. I do however and have taken people out scrambling, but never more than a ratio of 1:4 and I've always known personally at least one of the groups abilities before hand. Quite simple the group management skills you need to deploy to keep the group safe are huge, probably more than if you were roped up. With the variation I have seen in the abilities of ML holders it worries me that some could think it the norm to take groups out on this kind of terrain.

Don't fall off
Mark

In reply to Wainers44:

Well if you don't agree with it, then why not, as most people do, go and get the appropriate qualification.
With your background and experience it should be really simple and I'm sure Andy Say will appreciate the feedback.

In reply to pass and peak:

Thanks Mark, but I worry with groups of more than two on that type of ground and I think the 1 to 4 ratio quoted is often a total nonsense. Yet this is a ratio often quoted as a good ratio for similar activities, It's clearly a nonsense from the safety aspect. It really emphasises the importance of experience with real groups before and a probation period after the leader assessment

In reply to Mark Stevenson:



With that in mind, should the SPA now not a suitable award for man made climbing wall work?

In reply to Wainers44:

You are dead right - I was trying to 'simlify' the hierarchy of the quals!

But if you talk to some Instructors and Guides they are the only folks who know how to teach!

In reply to andyathome:

Do you believe everything qualified instructors and guides tell you? they most certainly are not the only people who know how to teach!

In reply to James Edwards:

What's the situation like for instructors in the South West? I can kind of imagine someone running an outdoors centre in Penzance being a bit frustrated that their leaders have to get ML and then MIA before they can take someone to Sennen, particularly since getting quality mountain days in would involve some fairly serious driving.

(Genuine question, by the way - I don't know or have strong opinions on the matter...)

In reply to higherclimbingwales:

Naaaah! There's a lot of people that don't realise that it is a 'u' and an 'i' between the 'g' and 'd' in guide and not an 'o'.

In reply to Ron Walker:

Not sure "most" people do go and get it (MIA/C). The time and financial cost to someone like me in full time non-outdoors type employment living 250ish miles from the nearest true mountain range is prohibitive. One day maybe...but in the meantime I will keep happily volunteering, leading and passing knowledge on to groups (and learning myself) as an ML.

I want to make it clear though that anyone who does commit themselves and gets MIA or MIC (and they arent most people) have my greatest respect. I am just saying that ML isnt just about leading. Depending on the group it may be more about passing on knowledge and suitable experience is a foundation of this knowledge. Going back to the very start of the point I was trying to make, the graduation of the award scheme helps make time for experience to be gained. Shortcuts dont help anyone.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Totally agree folk living in the highlands and islands and working on the Cuillin Ridge or in mainland Europe aren't too happy about it either.
Why not just employ fully qualified instructors from other areas.
Or are you saying that local unqualified SW instructors should be given some preference because they live there?

In reply to Ramblin dave:
An interesting point. I don't know the venue you mention but a single pitch sea cliff with a tidal approach bottom but a walk off top could be a serious venue indeed (but also a very nice pleasent one too). I'm not sure where the specific skills of coasteering as an approach are covered but I think that perhaps the pyb Mia training may mention this. However I doubt it is assessed ( as is the other popular activity of canyoning).
Perhaps if we begin to think of the awards system as a start to learning rather than 'that's me I'm now signed off as being officially an expert on everything now' as seem to some paper holders opinion ( and the ludicrous idea that people who don't hold awards don't have a clue about anything )
All good
James

In reply to Wainers44:

Ron, just checked your profile, after doing the post and see you are an MIC! Wouldnt want to sound like I was sucking up to anyone ...so I take my nice comments about MIC's all back!

In reply to Wainers44:

The time and financial costs to most going through the schemes are absolutely huge. Most people I know live and give up their jobs to spend several years in mountain areas just to get the required experience.
It really annoys me when people say they can't afford to do it because of family or other commitments, as if they are some how an exception.

In reply to Ron Walker:

Like I said, it's a genuine question, I'm not suggesting anything - is this something people see as a problem with the current structure of the qualifications or as an example of the qualifications doing what they ought to do?

In reply to Wainers44:

Don't worry about it it actually took me about twenty years working full time doing winter mountaineering to get the full qualification!

In reply to Ron Walker: ....and I agree its a choice (sacrifice) to make to do it. Lets hope the result of Andy's survey isnt to make it any easier as it shouldnt be. The value of what you acheived shouldnt be undermined and in a much smaller way the value of the other awards shouldnt be either.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Mark, I agree almost entirely with what you say (and whilst I don't have a MI qualification, I have plenty of contact with people who do). But it's worth remembering it's a self selecting group; once you've made it to the level of a qualification, it's hard to remember it ever seeming way out of reach. And so there's often not serious consideration as to if the two sets of skills (ie mountain scrambling and multipitch climbing) are interdependent, or could be separated. I think they probably could be seperated, but equally I'm not certain it'd be particularly sensible, or would benefit more than a handful of people.

But I agree with the experience thing. (And not only because I remember you as a student ). I learnt more working alongside really experienced MIA/Cs in what would now be WGL (it was before its creation, so a large youth organisation's internal equivalent) than doing anything else.

Also, sure, and generalising wildly, you do want to make sure that over confident young blokes don't end up getting qualified above their experience. But neither do you want to put off those with a whole load of experience who reckon they just about make the grade. I've climbed with a few people off UKC who claim to "lead about VS". The reality has varied from falling off VDiff and being unable to build a belay to cruising VS and having a couple of Everest ascents to boot. People assess their own abilities very differently.

In reply to Andy Say: But again a grey area. Can an SPA teach lead climbing? some instructors wish to teach only single pitch like Stanage or Dorset and have no wish to do ML.

In reply to James Edwards: Point taken.

In reply to Kendal47: I think some of you are taking my comment in the wrong way. I don't think fast track is a good thing and you can't by experience but some climbers don't want to be mountaineers. MIA is a good thing but what about the group who only wish to teach "how to lead on single pitch"? I know SPA instructors who are climbing at E5 and have no wish to go into the mountains or be ML/MIA as they are based on the south coast. This is my point for maybe a half way award between SPA and MIA. Just a thought.

In reply to pete.hutchings:
How hard you climb is completely irelivent. You could climb E10 but it doesn't make you a good instructor however being qualified isn't the be all and end all.

Say you have a 1/2 way point. what about a 1/4 or an 1/8. Where do you draw the line? The qualifications set a standard and MIA is a high standard appropriate to teaching leading.

I hold SPA but I also teach lead climbing skills. Oh and I don't climb E5

In reply to Ron Walker: I think one of the things that is being missed here is that there are instructors working the south cost without MLT awards as they are not a legal requirement + their are other local awards. A lot of centres insist on SPA/ML but freelance DON'T legally have to have these awards.
The MLT awards in my opinion is a good think and people need to be encouraged to take up the awards scheme and if that means updating and modernising awards then so be it.

Modular, standardised, and re-named awards please.

Walking Leader
Mountain Leader (Summer)
Mountain Leader (Winter)

Climbing instrcutor (Indoor walls)
Climbing instructor (Single pitch)
Climbing instructor (Multi pitch)

Mountain instructor (Summer)
Mountain instructor (Winter)

Base modules for all:
1) Environment/geology of the UK hills/mountains
2) History and ethics of UK walking/mountaineering/climbing etc. (inc. MR)
3) Basic level of teaching/coaching skills
4) Group management

Added modules for Walking Leader:
1) Navigation
2) Hill skills
3) Campcraft
4) River crossings

Added modules for Mountain Leader (Summer):
As Walking Leader plus:
1) Security on steep ground (summer skills)
2) More navigation

Added modules for Mountain Leader (Winter):
As Mountain Leader (Summer) plus:
1) Security on steep ground (winter skills)
2) Use/teaching use of ice axe/crampons
3) Snowpack analysis/avalanche
4) Emergency overnight options (snowhole etc.)
5) More navigation

In reply to JayPee630:

Then modules for climbing awards follow some kind of predictable pattern of relevant modules.

So people can start with either the walking or mountain leader awards, or the climbing instructor awards, then progress up, and then to be a MI (Summer or Winter) people need to have both the mountain and climbing awards, (same remit as MIA/MIC now) but for people that wish to teach leading on non-mountainous crags they have the option of doing the climbing instructor (single/multi pitch) that doesn't need to be a mountain leader.

Single would broadly be SPA ish, multi pitch would be a MIA style but with no scrambing and on simple crags. And they would have all done some level of base modules that give them

In reply to JayPee630: A while ago, there was a debate about the Multi-Pitch Award offered by Tollymore.

The multi-pitch climbing instructor's award you propose seems to fit that award. The debate about the MPA could be found on the MLTA forums for a while, though I can't find it at the moment. Here's what you can find about the course:-
http://www.tollymore.com/Courses/Mountaineering/Mountaineering/ClimbingandW...

So, is there really a need for an additional multi pitch qualification when one already exists?

'The RCLA MP scheme is peculiar to MLTNI and as such is recognised by the MLTNI as valid across the UK and Ireland. It does not cover the skills required to access crags in mountainous terrain or those crags requiring a technical approach or exit.'

Naturally, I'm being disingenuous here. This isn't about teaching clients to lead - that skill still remains within the CWLA and the MI schemes.

As for the problems which a non-MIA might face, there were a number of really good points made here:-
http://www.mlta.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1022

In reply to Dee:

First awards done would be either Walking Leader or Mountain Leader (Summer) for the hills/mountains or Climbing Instructor (Climbing Wall) or Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch) for climbing.

If you wanted the next step would be to do the Mountain Leader (Summer) if you're a Walking Leader, or the Mountain Leader (Winter) if you've done the Mountain Leader (Summer).

If you following the climbing path, then the next step would be the Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch) if you're a Climbing Instructor (Climbing Wall) or Climbing Instructor (Multi Pitch) if you're a Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch). For these to be done no walking/mountain awards would need to be done.

Both award paths could be followed seperately or together, but to be a Mountain Instructor (Summer or Winter) both would need to have been completely.

In reply to pete.hutchings:

Their is no legal requirement for any qualification is there?

Just need to satisfy your insurers.

Thanks JayPee630.

As an IML, I'm very mindful of IainRUK's comments about costs for training and assessment courses.

Currently, there is no requirement to work through CWA and/or SPA to reach MIA, so there's are additional cost expenses which MLT doesn't believe is currently required (otherwise CWA and SPA would be pre-requirements for the MI scheme).

Equally, there's no requirement for ML Winter for the MIA so this would be a further cost implication which MLT has indicated is not necessary.

So a candidate for the MIA would need to hold SPA and Winter ML, neither of which they currently need to have at the moment.

I accept the ideas which underlie developing relevant experience and expertise through assessment within additional course provision but the cost implications would seem to be significantly beyond and above what is currently expected, and very unlikely to be less expensive than the current MI scheme. I would welcome MLT's view of the MI scheme to see if such changes were needed - the MIA review was not that long ago, you'll recall.

In reply to Dee:

No, in my grand scheme to be a Mountain Instructor (Summer) you wouldn't need the Mountain Leader (Winter) only if you wanted to be a Mountain Instructor (Winter) as it is now.

Yes, you'd need the Climbing Instructor (Single) and then the CI (Multi Pitch) one too, but the MI (Summer) would be much shorter as you'd have already been assessed as a Climbing Instructor (Multi Pitch).

Basically you'd just be adding the scrambling and shirt roping sections on. It would also be modular (mainly 2 or 3 day training/assessment courses) so could mostly be done over shorter weekend courses, so people wouldn't have to take holiday/miss work, so would actually work out cheaper.

It makes sense in my head!

In reply to JayPee630:

Basically it's partly a renaming and rebranding to make the award system more logical and with 2 seperate paths - hill/mountain walking and climbing, and also to make it more understandable to the clients.

IME the current system is totally unfathomable to most people, even some of those going through the schemee... leader/guide/certificate/award/instructor/supervisor... I mean WTF!?

In reply to JayPee630:

So... renamed and revamped awards:

Hill/mountain walking path:

Walking Group Leader = Walking Leader - no prerequistes
Mountain Leader = Mountain Leader (Summer)- no prerequistes
Winter Mountain Leader = Mountain Leader (Winter) - need ML (Summer)

Climbing path:

Climbing Wall Award = Climbing Instructor (Climbing Walls) - no prerequistes
Single Pitch Award = Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch) - no prerequistes

NEW AWARD = Climbing Instructor (Multi Pitch) - needs Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch)

Mountain Instructor path:

MIA = Mountain instructor (Summer) - needs Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch), Climbing Instructor (Multi Pitch) and Mountain Leader (Summer)

MIC = Mountain instructor (Winter)- needs Climbing Instructor (Single Pitch), Climbing Instructor (Multi Pitch), Mountain Leader (Summer) and Mountain Leader (Winter)

So, yes a MI (Summer) would need a CI (Single Pitch) but this isn't an unreasonable expectation (and people could get exemption still fo course if justified), and also I imagine that the vast majority going for MIA now have their SPA anyway.

In reply to James Edwards:

You make a good point but does it take a competent VS leader to take people scrambling. I agree - it's mountain experience that counts. To that end I'd like to see a bolt-on qualification (Advanced ML?) that trains and assesses Mountain Leaders to the end that they can take clients on all graded scrambles.

Further I'd suggest that SPA award holders should be able to do a bolt on award (Advanced SPA) allowing them to teach clients to lead climb at a single pitch venue. Again surely a mountaineering qualification is overkill for this?

Andy - great to see this work being undertaken - really look forward to seeing what comes of it.

Will

In reply to Will Legon:

But how on earth can that happen, as it would require placing gear, belaying, etc. basically all the things an MIA learns and is assessed on.

As has been noted scrambling is regarded as some not as a small step up between the ML and MIA, but at the other end of the MIA spectrum in difficulty and danger.

I'd totally argue against an 'Advanced ML' to take people scrambling.

In reply to Will Legon:
Your agrument that you dont have to be a competant VS leader is a bit of a straw man really. You have to be very good at managing groups of people and very very good at thinking ahead, planning, assessing subjective and objective risks on constant review, extremly aware of the limitations of the rope in any given situation, how to use the terrain and the rope in harmony so it seems to the clients that they are moving along in a fluid continious motion rather than constantly starting and stopping, constant re adjustment of the rope to suit the terrain all the while maintaining what i call 'feedback tension' that gives you eyes in the back of your head etc etc.

Perhaps an analagy is a duck gently gliding accross a mill pond in apparent effortless grace, but when you look under the water there is a lot going on.
I do conceed though that in most places in England and Wales it is less alpine so a leader may not have to be super charged so yes there could be an argument for a bolt on. But actually then again no, on the other hand why not make the argument the other way around and make the standards for ML MIA MIC all higher.

Work hard for your pieces of paper; in the end you will be a better profesional for it.

James e (who is currently a bit distracted to proof read what he has written as he is trying to find batteries for all his tranceivers for a day on the skis tommorow - who'd a thought it, ya dancer!)

In reply to Will Legon: some people seem to be losing sight of the scope of the survey and the OP's requirements. he's not investigating the efficacy of the MIA SPA etc awards!

In reply to James Edwards:

I sincerely thank you for this insight. I guess as a climber and as an experienced ML - but also as someone that has never led better than VS (and so is unlikely to ever get to qualify as an MI) I wish there was that in-between qualification for me. Maybe I'm being too subjective. But I do hope that one day training and assessment will open up the mountains for people such as myself to take clients on to more adventurous scrambles than Striding Edge.

Will

In reply to Will Legon:

This is the problem.. I don't think 'all scrambles' as the scrambling > climbing is a continuum.. i.e. sentries ridge.. Grade 3 scramble or moderate climb...

I suppose all you do if you bring in a bolt on scrambling module is shift that grey area... into more dangerous terrain..

I'm still in favour of a scrambling module, but it would need to be very carefully worded with a clear remit.. I'd actually say just grade 1 scrambles..

In reply to IainRUK:

But with some clients/in some conditions a grade 1 might require use of a rope and gear/belaying and/or shortroping, so how would this then be different from the skills an MIA needs?

In reply to JayPee630:

I think people, even very experienced walkers/climbers (and even more so if they've never worked in the mountains) really underestimate the danger and difficulty of looking after clients on a scramble.

And so you get calls for a scrambling bolt-on to the ML, like it's some simple day course to do.

In reply to JayPee630:

So leave it then.. I don't actually think it is the same.. I once went up in the mountains.. went up Moel Eilio once.. scary..

And we are assessed for basic rope work.. As I said it wouldn't be easy.. I take clients on easy grade 1's.. Crib Goch etc and feel confident doing so.. but we do assess them before hand.. ask experience and watch them as we approach the ridge.. you can tell way before you get there if someone is going to be trouble.. but we are pretty strict on conditions..

In reply to JayPee630: Question? Who has more experience in the mountains. A 25 year old MIA who has been teaching for 8 years(and they are out there)or a 50 year old ML with 35 years under his belt? just a thought. They have both earned there award.

In reply to JayPee630:

But how on earth can that happen, as it would require placing gear, belaying, etc. basically all the things an MIA learns and is assessed on.


An SPA is required to place gear, belay and keep a client safe and they are assessed on this. All be it in a totally different environment than a MI

In reply to pete.hutchings:

Yes, in a very different context though, IMO so different as to not be that relevant. And even if you accept it is, then the SPA would need to be a pre-requiste too.

In reply to Dee:

Sorry I have come late to the debate but........

While the MPA is recognised by MLTNI with a UK remit but is not recognised by any of the other boards. If you take out the MLTA insurance for instance, it does not cover the MPA.

Also, it a bit of a misnomer as it covers crags you can escape with a single rope lower. As such it might be better called the Twin Pitch Award (as long as they are short). That said, I’m thinking of doing it anyway as it looks interesting.

So we do still need a UK wide recognised award of this type.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
>

Is it recognised by MLTNI? The MPA is not mentioned on the webiste.

I thought that it was just run through Tollymore by the board for BOS as they don't have a centre of their own anymore.

In reply to Paul at work:

Not called the MPA

http://www.tollymore.com/Courses/Mountaineering/Mountaineering/ClimbingandW...

I suspect the reason it is not recognised over here has something to do with the ratio of mainland MIAs to Irish MIAs. However, the remit is limited to the degree that I doubt very much it would have any impact on their living. As far as I know, a number of Scout instructors have used it to get their permits extended as they have their own system.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul: I can see your point but in many areas of the UK going MP climbing with novices often involves many of the skills needed to access mountain crags. Most of the multipitch crags in Scotland (even Glen Nevis) often involve the use of short roping or short sections of mountaineering ground more akin to what you do on the mountain days on MIA training. The training courses often stress that although each day has a focus you may use skills/techniques from one day on another with a different theme and at assessment the toolbox is open and every day you use what's appropriate and effective. It's all quite hollistic and difficult to tease apart.
I'm not saying that there aren't many crags on mainland UK where an MPA wouldn't be entirely appropriate. But it is another niche amongst many. I think MTNI had a CWA before the rest of the UK and I saw how much work went into creating that as a whole nation award. It certainly wasn't a case of just rubber stamping an existing syllabus. Given the relatively limited manpower of the Boards its a huge task to create a new award/adapt one and they prioritise based on awards that meet a demand from the largest number of people/give the most flexibility.
I am glad that the Boards are constantly reviewing things and looking into the remit of the awards. Our current awards are the end result of a reactive process with bits added on to meet perceived needs as they have arisen. A blank paper exercise redesigning the whole system might well produce something more modular and flexible and maybe we are seeing a move towards this?

In reply to AlH:

Hi Alan,

I think this thread has gone rather off piste but that is what forums are good at. However, if I were looking at the WGL/ML awards, I think I would be giving some thought as to how they might best dovetail into something much more like the South African model. Really, I think they would already be quite a good fit. As for the MPA, I think it would need to be a bit more demanding to match the SA equivalent but is nearly there.

Having both worked in the industry and then continued in the MLTA as a diligent part timer if you like, I think the jump from SPA/ML to MIA is not so bad if you are in the industry but is a mighty gulf for the part timers.
A modular approach has a lot to recommend it. Especially if the full timers could still do it in 'one hit'.

Happy mountaineering, Paul