UKH

Ive got my ML course in September but wondering what the actual law is regarding guided walks, is there people on the internet who offer this service "paid" or is the law you do need a qualification, only reason I ask is there is so many hikers out there who have been doing it for years and navigation skills top notch who are probally know more then some Ml instructors. I read an article regarding the cairngorms disaster which I believe law changed for taking children out but cant see anything from 16 plus

In reply to Dingerbell:

As far as understand, there is no law in UK (unlike many other countries) and anyone can do it. But most folk who offer nowadays are qualified.

In reply to Dingerbell:

Some relevant reading will be the adventurous activities licencing authority. The Lyme bay canoeing tragedy was a major turning point in children's outdoor supervision.

For adults there is no legal obligation, but I think folk have to make sure they aren't implying given qualifications they don't have when advertising and having no quals would make it interesting in terms of obtaining insurance as a leader.

As for your knowledge point, who would you prefer to lead you in the hills, 20yrs of unassessed experience, or 10 years of assessed? That said there are masses of folk on the hills every week who just climb for pleasure and would cruise any assessment.

In reply to summo:

"That said there are masses of folk on the hills every week who just climb for pleasure and would cruise any assessment."
Thats what i thought until i did my ML assesment last year -perhaps not quite as easy as you think (and that was after 25 years of experience).

In reply to AG:

Agreed, the ML navigation was far more testing than I had anticipated and I found it quite a challenge despite over 40 years experience on the hills. With regard to the law and insurance I looked into this 9 or 10 years ago when I was doing SPA and ML. You do not need a piece of paper to teach adults and at that time getting the insurance was not a problem. Indeed I was surprised to learn that the difference in premiums between a fully qualified International guide and someone with no certificates was only £30 per year.

Al

In reply to AG:


Of course it does depend where you go, when, how often and in what weather, as to how prepared an individual might be for an assessment.

In reply to Dingerbell:

A general comment, aimed at no-one in particular: the 'plenty of experienced mountaineers who are probably better than qualified instructors' type comment is something I've heard on several occasions in recent times, usually in defence of no qualifications. It's utter conkers. Twice, on other forums, I've challenged the poster and after a bit of detective work have discovered that the 'Instructor' was nothing of the sort.

In reply to Rich W Parker:

A qualification only means that you have been through a formal assessment process.

It doesn't mean that someone who hasn't been through that process is necessarily either incompetent, or incapable of instructing. It just means their competency hasn't been formally assessed.

In reply to captain paranoia:

A qualification only means that you have been through a formal assessment process. This includes only having the pre-requisites to register, only attending a formal training course with content delivered by highly experienced instructors alongside other like minded trainees to share experiences and ideas. Only undergoing a consolidation period where the skills and training are developed, practised and honed in preparation for a rigorous assessment which is quite stressful and unlikely to be fluked by the inexperienced and ill prepared.

It doesn't mean that someone who hasn't been through that process is necessarily either incompetent, or incapable of instructing. It just means their competency hasn't been formally assessed. Or potentially their incompetency hasn't been formally assessed. The point is you don't know. How do clients decide beforehand, or even measure on the day what the standard of this leader is?

Someone holding the relevant qualification has taken the time, effort and commitment to achieve and pursue a professional standard and is a known measure. Yes, it would be possible say for someone who hasn't been through the process to have put as much time and effort into their craft to become a good leader, but qualifications ensure a minimum standard. I really don't get this reactionary attitude to qualifications.

In reply to captain paranoia:


I think it means more because, for most, that assessment process also involves training.

Before going for my first NGB award (ML) I was a sceptic, thought myself experienced (I am) and just wanted the ticket to supervise school pupils on expeditions and outings. But I surprised myself by how much I learned. Same is true of my other quals when I've now done three with Glenmore Lodge and one with Al Halewood, so I've never yet done a course or assessment where I didn't learn something. And much of this has been useful to me personally, like when I brought a sick partner off January Jigsaw with the accompanied abseil learned for the sadly much-sneered-at SPA, but here effectively deployed for real way outside the kind of situations envisaged by that syllabus.


While this is true, there must be many experienced hill goers and climbers who, like me, still had (and have!) much to learn. So of course there are unqualified people out there who're perfectly capable of doing a good job as well as qualified folk who've somehow got through and are not, but Rich's point is also valid and I've known plenty of experienced mountaineers who (like me) could still benefit from some training and assessment.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Any instructor, course provider etc.. will see what level a person is at, then teach them new things, try some different methods, alternative device, refine what they already do. There is plenty of scope within ngb courses to cover the syllabus and expand beyond it for those people who have lots of mileage already.

If you consider MIA training, 8 students with at least 10years experience in the hills sharing knowledge; many different instructors with at least 15-20years each - some double that.. . That's a few hundred years of shared, knowledge and skills.... no single person is likely to match that. It's impossible to not come away knowing more and being a slightly safer or better mountaineer in some respect or other.

In reply to Dingerbell:

I'd have thought that the older the person, the better an instructor or leader they would be because they would be able to put aside their ego and make judgments based on the conditions and the ability of their client, not based on what they wanted to prove.

In reply to StuLade:


I don't have any attitude towards qualifications. I'm merely pointing out what I see as the situation, in a dispassionate manner.

I'm happy to accept that a qualification should demonstrate both knowledge of the subject, and the ability to impart that knowledge to others (i.e. teach).

In reply to summo:


Other people share knowledge and skills, too, outside of instructor courses. Courses are a way of getting an intensive period of skills and knowledge acquisition, in a formal teaching environment.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

The biggest idiots on the mountain that I have known - to the extent that I wouldn't want to be on the same crag as them - were both retired.
In both cases their egos were the problem.
And one of them was a qualified Mountain Leader !

In reply to Dingerbell:
Interesting comment, above. I have a little teaching experience and I have come to the conclusion that the best teachers are those who can turn off their own pride and ego and find a way of engaging their pupil while ensuring the pupil actually enjoys the process of learning. However at the age of 61 I can quite clearly see that it's difficult striking a balance between demonstrating genuine experience and demonstrating arrogance. This applies in all areas of life, not just teaching or instructing.

End of the day if anyone thought they knew better then a ML instructor they wouldn't need to hae a guided walk anyway.

In reply to captain paranoia:

In the case of Mountain Training and BMG schemes that's not the case, you're wrong. It's not 'only', it's the substantial experience to get to the scheme entrance, the training, the aspirancy, the assessment, then the CPD that makes the qualification. I stand by my statement.

As to your second point, there's no argument there, and this could be the case for many professions. For example: an EMT with loads and loads of current ski patrol experience may have better first aid and casualty management skills than a Doctor, working as a GP, many years since medical school. In fact I've known this case.

In reply to Rich W Parker:


By 'formal assessment process', I meant a more general use of the word 'assessment', to include prior experience and aspiration. I did not mean simply 'Assessment', i.e. the 'field exam'.

Is training mandatory for all qualifications?

Continuing development is good for everyone, professional or otherwise. It's always good to keep up to date with best practice. In my profession, that happens largely by simply working in a technology that is constantly advancing. Sometimes training helps to kick-start that development, but it is prolonged practice that really drives development, allowing one to master new techniques.

In reply to captain paranoia:


You can submit your logbook for excemption from SPA and ML training. MIA and MIC training is compulsory and part of the process. Years ago possessing the MIA/MIC would exempt you from a few days in the guides training programme, but not any of the assessments and I'm not sure anyone actually used it as at MIA/MIC/guides level the training elements are fantastic experiences in themselves and are too good to miss.


After 3 years membership of the assoc. Of mountain instructors you have to accrue personal development points through their training and refreshers sessions to continue your full membership.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Training mandatory for IML, MIA,MIC and BMG IFMGA. Regarding the ML, I think those applying for exemption are few and of those I would guess most are from the armed services and have mil quals.

In reply to summo & Rich:

Thanks for that.

My only concern with mandatory courses for qualification is that it can be a bit of an incestuous job-creation scheme. That's more of a nagging doubt in the back of my mind than anything.

In reply to captain paranoia:

It isn't like that in reality though, the fact is that for the vast majority of people a training course prior to assessment is absolutely vital, otherwise the pass rates would be worse than they already are. As part of the Mountain Training climbing awards review this is being looked at, as first time pass rates at MIA are not good.