UKC

I'm thinking of going into business for myself as a Climbing instructor and Mountain guide. Very small scale with small group sizes etc.

What kind of insurance do you use and how much is it? Do you pay per trip or monthly and what does it cover you for?

If I drove a normal car do i still need a mini-bus license to transport customers etc.

How much red-tape does a pro-climber have to face?

Any help would be greatly apprieciated...

In reply to Gus Mayor:
You will need Public Liability Insurance from one of the industry suppliers such as perkins Sl;ade (not the only insurer)If you are a member of AMI, BAIML, BMG, you will be able to get an insurance deal through your professional organisation - not sure about the association that Mls and SPAs join.

You will also need to think about loss of earnings insurance, health insurance and kit insurance although these are all optional - not a legal requirement like your public liability.

AFAIK you dont need the minibus licence for the car but if you are charging may may need "hire and reward" car insurance like a mini cab driver.

Re red tape - you will need to keep logs and create a paper trail for all your ropes and kit. If working with under 18s you will need to get an AALA licence (they have changed the acronym now) and maybe a CRB check.

If you get in touch with the Institute for Outdoor Learning they produce a publication about careers in the outdoors.

Good luck

In reply to Gus Mayor:
Plenty and hurdles ... insurance varies join one of the associations ( you will have to hold the qualifications to do that to get the deals) and you will get a better deal.

When you take the step of qualified membership you will see the costs and benefits.

So start the journey and join us ....

PS

There is no compulsion or need to be qualified to work in the UK, but thats OK if you don't mind losing everything in a court case cause you decided to guide and instruct unqualified and had a claim against you.

best to follow the right path from the word go tread carefully and confidently and don't forget to enjoy the journey too.

In reply to Gus Mayor: Hi, I got some recently through the MLTA, it was about £135 for the year. Hope that helps

In reply to LT35:

Where? I can't find any links on there web-site.

In reply to Gus Mayor:

Here you are

http://www.mlta.co.uk/docs/insurance.php

In reply to LT35: I've heard operating under a company name raises the cost of the insurance is that true?

We are currently paying ~£600 for 2 ML's to work under our company name. Need to sort that out next year, and joined the MLTA to take advantage of that offer.

In reply to IainRUK:

I know that under my AMI insurance, it doesn't matter if I use a company name or not, the price is the same.

It would probably be cheaper for you Iain to be individually insured.

In reply to Gus Mayor:

Don't forget life insurance if you have a mortgage. In the past I have been quoted ridiculous figures such as £180 per month for being a professional instructor as opposed to £20 / month as a non climber.

Rich.

In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

Thanks! Are you sure this is annual cover or monthly premiums...

In reply to Ian McNeill:

Not that old chestnut again. You pro's really do like your scaremongering don't you?

In the event of an accident you will be judged on your actions, not on a few worthless pieces of paper!

In reply to timjones:


....and if those actions include taking the time to go through a nationally recognised qualifcation scheme and adhere to recognised guidleines within that scheme you will have a solid basis for justifying yourself.

Qualifications are only 1 way of showing competence but they are not worthless. They are often the simplest transferable way of showing what you are able to do to someone who has to make a judgement about you as they provide a set standard you have been measured against.

(and yes I do have some outdoor quals).

Al

In reply to AlH:

Rubbish.

If you have an accident a judge, employer, insurance company etc will examine what you actually did and whether you made any mistakes or errors of judgement. It is your actions that will come under scrutiny, whether or not you passed an exam at some random point in time is of very little relevance and cannot be allowed to protect anyoe from rigorous scrutiny of your actions on the day.

You are correct that qualifications are not worthless, if used carefully they are an effective marketing tool. They're an aid to selling your skills to clients or employers. They may even get you discounts on insurance premiums.

However they are not and never should be regarded as a get out of jail free card if you screw up. They do not absolve anyone from liability for their own mistakes or from close strutiny if a client has an accident.

It is wrong and foolish to suggest that qualifications will protect you if someone is killed or injured due to your own negligance. At the point when an accident occurs your qualifications cease to matter and should be disregarded by anyone who will be judging your actions.

In reply to timjones: Tim, your qualification allows potential clients to have a quick guestimate of your experience. Not the be all and end all. But a great safety feature to prevent people being duped in by cowboys.

When you are sick do you go to Jim in the pub or a qualified Dr?

In reply to Gus Mayor:

Annual Premium.

In reply to IainRUK: I don't think that is the point he is making. He has acknowledged that it can help you get business.

In reply to Deek: No I mean it benefits the client as well as the business.

In reply to IainRUK:

Exactly an accreditation scheme, AKA a marketing ploy.

My objection was not to this but to Ian McNeills quote earlier in this thread

"There is no compulsion or need to be qualified to work in the UK, but thats OK if you don't mind losing everything in a court case cause you decided to guide and instruct unqualified and had a claim against you."

It's complete and utter bollocks, nasty unfounded scaremongering! Does he honestly believe that a qualification can protect you if you f*ck up? To claim this is dangerously naive and irresponsible. It shows an elitist attitude that award holders are above mistakes and reproach. No qualification can be held to absolve an instructor from responibility for their mistakes.

Your insurance cover is what will safeguard your home, qualifications may get you a discount on your premium but they cannot and should not influence the outcome if you are unfortunate enough to have to make a claim.

Qualifications are cheapened when people start citing them as an arse covering excercise!

In reply to timjones:


Even if this were true, it would be nice to know that one's liability insurance would actually be valid and would pay out in the case of a big claim against you. If you are working beyong NGB remit this is unlikely, hence the supposed "scaremongering".

In reply to timjones: No Tim not a ploy. Not about Marketing. It allows the client to pick who they want and have some confidence that the person they select can offer the service.

In reply to Jamie B.:


If you're working within the terms of your insurance then it's of absolutely no relevance whether you have NGB quals or not.

In reply to IainRUK:

I thionk we'll have to agree to differ on this one. Do you really think that private clients have that much awareness about NGB quals above and beyond what the seller chooses to tell them? How do you think they know this other than through active marketing by providers?

In reply to timjones:


Really? My understanding was that most if not all policies would only insure the instructor for working within remit.

In reply to Jamie B.: That was my understanding. My insurance has a clause something like

'assumes the client has all the relevant national Qual's.' or words to that affect.

In reply to Jamie B.:

If the NGBs have got it sown up that tight it can only be bad for the industry. It's tantamount to creating a closed shop and should be challenged by everyone in the industry IMO.

In reply to timjones: Why?

Why is the ML scheme any different to a medics qualification or a mechanics?

In reply to timjones:


It's not the NGBs that draft insurance policies; insurers are by definition very good at evaluating risk and if they will only insure people for working within remit it does tend to suggest that collectively they have a greater respect for said awards than yourself.

In reply to IainRUK:

The skills are a lot less complex and diverse than those needed by a doctor. IMO it's fine for a competant insured mechanic to work without formal qualifications. Most of the best mechanics I know, the ones I really respect, are unqualified. They just have an aptitude and feel for the job. Also many farmers are better large animal vets than the vets themselves but have to kowtow to vets because of the protectioniust attitude of the veterinary profession.

Likewise there's no need or justification for a compulsory accreditation scheme to be pushed in by the back door. To insist on it or promote it is exclusive and elitist. It stifles competition and makes it necessary for those with natural aptitude to jump through needless hoops.

If someone chooses to sign up to the scheme that's fair enough. I like to use the MLT schemes and other similar schemes in other areas as an audit of my own skills and standards. However I would hate to see it become in any way compulsory.

In reply to timjones:
I hope you dont mind me saying so Tim - but you do come across as rather bitter towards our award schemes. Have you had a negative experience with the schemes or with a guide or instructor?

I thought that our mountain guides and instructors are generally a well thought of bunch - many of whom are not just professionals earning their living in the outdoors - but also cutting edge activists.

So why all they negativity - this is not an attack on you - just genuinely interested.

David

In reply to Jamie B.:

Of course awards can be used to evaluate risks in a fairly limited imprecise manner, discounts for award holders or members of clubs/associations are fine. The effective exclusion of those who don't hold an award that does no more than state that they passed a test some years ago is to be discouraged IMO.

In reply to timjones:
The effective exclusion of those who don't hold an award that does no more than state that they passed a test some years ago is to be discouraged IMO.


Sorry Tim - you are wrong here - most employers would want to see a current logbook and would also give you some kind of a practical appraisal or know you through "reputation".

Also the higher level awards MIA&C - IML and maybe guides are heavily into CPD - indeed this is mandatory in BAIML if you want to keep your carnet current.

Cheers

David

In reply to David Hooper:
>

It's not an attack on the schemes so much as the attitudes displayed by some award holders.


Qualifications are fine until you start believing they bestow mystical powers upon you

I have a bit of a tendency to bite when I see elitist "qualified" people spouting utter bullshit!

Do you think that stating that non-award holders would lose everything if they were involved in an accident was anything other than pretty major ill-conceived bullshit?

In reply to timjones:


Although you have mentioned before that you wish the MIA was easier..


If two week(+)-long residential courses plus an intensive period of logged personal development has not bestowed some powers on you I'd be very surprised...


I thought we'd established (at some length) that this was not bullshit as said plaintif would not be insured.

In reply to David Hooper:

We were talking about insurance for self employed instructors, until someone bit at my belief that you can work very competantly in this area without awards.

I have already stated that employers may well use the schemes in selctions processes. However a good current log and up to date knowledge with no award is better than a poor out of date log and an ancient award.

I'm not againest the schemes. I am very much againest the belief that everyone has to hold an award and the awards are the bees knees.

In reply to timjones:
... you can work very competantly in this area without awards.

Not in the Alps you cant - someone guiding or acting as an accompagnateur without the relevent bits of paper will end up in nick or with a hefty fine or both. But yes in GB anyone can set up without quals as long as they can get the insurance.

So Tim....if you feel that you can work competently in the area of an MIA or in winter as an MIC then where and how did you aquire the sets of skills needed - who developed those skills - who taught them to you -

In reply to Jamie B.:

WRONG. I wish it could be done in a modular fashion over a longer period. I also wish there was an interim climbing award, maybe once ahlf the modules are completed. Thats very different to wishing the MIA was easier, do try to keep up


Bollocks! A two week course is no harder or better than 7x2or3 day courses with the same logged experience.


If you've set up insurance that doesn't require an award and paid the premium you're insured. Just because you have a restrictive policy it doesn't mean you can't get a less restrictive policy at a higher price.

In reply to David Hooper:

So woukld you want an alpine system over here. I know I wouldn't and thats not for personal gain!


If you think I'm going to say an MIA or MIC you're going to be disappointed

In reply to timjones:
No I wouldnt want the french system - I think they are protectionist - but I would like to see equivalency between the awards in different countriesd - it is slowly happening.

So go on how did you develop your set of skills that allows you to work in the arena of the MIC or Guyide ?

In reply to David Hooper:
Dear Tim

Im off now as Im snuggling up with Liz to watch a film but I really would love to know how you have aquired the skills and knowledge that it takes many people years of toil to aquire through the Mountain Instructor or Guides schemes?

Cheers

David

In reply to David Hooper:

That depends on whether it improves our system IMO. Equivalance doesn't always lead to better more inclusive and achievable schemes ;(


First and foremost, you're the one suggesting I'm up to MIC standard. I'm as alarmed as I am surprised at my sudden elevation

The way most climbers used to learn i guess, friends, fellow climbers, books/magazines/leaflets with purchased gear, practice, experience, observation..... Good old fashioned trial and error, "I wonder if this would work", "bloody hell what a tangled mess of rope"

Most of it before the recent development of "best practice" but somehow most of it developed to equal what is now perceived as best practice. I believe the mistakes, confusion and tangles were as valuable and informative as being taught the "one right way" first time by a paid instructor. I still think some of the "best practices" aren't necessarily the best options in many situations and that we are losing wider sets ofskills and experience in our pursuit of a one size fits all tickbox awards.

In reply to David Hooper:

There is no shortcut, it takes many years and I wouldn't claim to have got there. I just don't learn very well by being "taught" in either classroom or field situations if you see what I mean.

I'm off too. The Caucusus (sp?) are on the telly

In reply to timjones:
I'm not going to get heavily involved in this one - I'll just watch with interest.

BUT...In mountaineering/climbing there is NO NGB. There are representative bodies (BMC, MCS, MCI)and awarding bodies. We don't tell nobody what to do (apart from governing the process of our qualifications); although we may well give as much advice as they can take! The MLT boards are fully signed up to the HSE notion that there are 4 routes to competence: nationally valid qualification; equivalent qualification; specific training; experience. You want a nationally valid qualification - we got 'em.
Progress through an MLT award involves training in a range of skills and techniques that often will not be acquired simply by 'doing' but can enable someone to cope much better when it starts going pear-shaped. At the end of the process candidates demonstrate their ability to use these skills. But it is 'the person' and their breadth of experience coupled with those 'back-up' skills that makes a good leader/instructor; and legal precedent suggests that appraisal over and above simply looking at a, historic, pass page is a damn good idea.

And somewhere in the thread the phrase 'best practice' appears. We prefer 'good practice' as it avoids the implication that there is always just one way to skin a cat as opposed to a range of solutions that can be selected from.

Toodle-pip

This Timjones fella really don't like the mountaineering industry and I think discussing it with him will get nowhere as he apears closed to any suggestion that being qualified in this industry is worth anything.

I have hundreds of clients who will agree with me and none who will agree with tim - enought said!

tim of you reply to this, you really don't need to 'quote' different sections as I know what I have written!!

In reply to Andy Say:
>

Interesting, not doubting you as you obviously have some experience of the award

But I'm fairly sure my insurance quotes something like 'has the relevant NGB awards'..reffering to tme MLTB qualifications.

I've always just assumed, obviously incorrectly that the MLTB's were the NGB of the profession.

In reply to IainRUK:
They think we are......but if you compare us to BCU or BOF you'll see the difference. OK; I'm being pedantic as 'NGB' is shorthand for a lot of things and they know what they mean when they use the phrase.

But in reality we (and I include the BMC here) dont regulate or govern what goes on out there; we're not like mainstream 'sports'. There's a bit of overlap between BMC, MLTE and AMI/MLTA/BAIML and the ways in which they try to enhance and consolidate good practice but the crucial thing, that many who phone the MLT offices find a real surprise, is we don't tell them what ratio they can work with, where they are 'allowed' to go, what qualification they 'must' have to do x y or z. That's normally down to Insurers, management structures or H&S officers and most importantly the good sense of competent people who work responsibly within a changing set of parameters.

In reply to timjones:

You are very very wrong if you think instructors teach "one right way" to do things or you have met some crap instructors - the way I have been taught and the way i teach is to offrer people a range of techniques and alternative ways of doing things - a set of building blocks if you like which can be put together differently to meet the demands of different situations - one "right" way of doing things is wrong and potentially dangerous.

You have learned through dipping iunto books and through trial and error and having the odd epic - great and very valkuable.

But there are a whole range of professionals out there - discussing ideas, comparing techniques , coming up with simpler and better solutions to problems - and if you are not accessing that world though courses, skill sharing and training meets or whatever....well thats your choice.

But please please please dont insult and dismiss the guides carnet, the MIA, MIC and IML as worthless bits of paper - that shows an i9ncredible ignorance and arrogance on your part to the people who dedicate years of their lives and large amounts of money to achieve these highly professional and respected awards. It took me personally from 1982 to 1995 to work through the schemes and achieve my MIA and IML. A long journey where I learned a hell of a lot, was taught and mentored by some amazing people such as Libby Peters, Allan Fyffe and Nigel Shepherd whom I still look up to and admire.

I have some superb (and well known) hard climbers attend my SPA and/or ropework courses - people whom I could never compete with on the crag BUT they always go away amazed at how much they have learned from me.

Ive never met you TIm and not having seen you in action am in no position to comment on your competency as a mountaineer - but have you heard of "unconcious incompetence" not knowing that you dont know how to do somethingt? This is followed by "concious incompetence" realising you cannot do something - that is when people may think about taking an award or attending a personal skills course.

I do hope Tim, for the sake of your climbing partners or any clients that you get the insurance to take out that you dont fall into the catagory of "unconcious incompetence" - after all....just how would you know?

So to finish please,please please, Tim stop your arrogant, ignorant and undeserved bad mouthing of our certainly not perfect, but still very wonderful mountain training schemes

best wishes

David Hooper MIA, IML, B.Ed (hons)Outdoor Education - and very very proud of all those "worthless bits of paper" behind my name ;O0

In reply to bryn:

You guys really are jumpy about the value of your awards aren't you

Once again I don't say they have no value.

I joined this thread to refute the erroneous suggestion that practicing without an award placed you at risk. Do any award holders really believe that an award will protect them if they f*ck up? I'm sorry but it would be totally wrong if this was the case. Iwas merely pointing out that they don't place anyone above error or reproach. It then all deteriorated when some other contributors got a bit over-protective about their awards.

In reply to timjones:

Come on Tim - dont be disingeneous - you dismissed the awards as worthless pieces of paper - dont go back on what you said now.

In reply to David Hooper:


FFS do you really have such a big problem with my suggestion that no award places anyone above the law or liability for their actions? That the existance of award schemes should not exclude others from working as instructors?


If you or I wound up in court our qualifications (or lack of them) could not be allowed to cloud a judges assessment of our actions on the day. Awards son't prevent accidents, mistakes or negligence case accidents. Awards should be held as worthless as a defence in this respect for the sake of our fellow climbers and/or clients.

They are not necessarily worthless as training/development opportunities or as an aid in marketing your services, but different people will use these areas to differing degrees so their worth is highly variable.

In reply to David Hooper:

Are you sure you're not being disingenuous by not taking my quote in context?

My quote in full was:

"In the event of an accident you will be judged on your actions, not on a few worthless pieces of paper!".

Once an accident has occured your paperwork is worthless as a defence, if you made a mistake you made a mistake and no piece of paper can be allowed to disguise that fact. If it comes down to judgement everyone is equal.

In reply to timjones: Oh this has kicked off a little.

OK cards on the table I'm progressing through MIC with MIC assessment in March weather permitting. I'm forces and have loads of military quals. I'm RAF MRT and have paper trail all the way through a highly structured training for 14 yrs. Every hill day on duty, every climb logged. Bomb proof credentials.....still didn't stop me turning 180 degrees around when setting off after a snack the other month on a munroe...thumb up bum time.

I'll stick up for Tim, as I think he didn't meant to have a shot acroos the bow's of quals but highlighted that it is your action on the day, not previous that will hang you.

One of the best guys on Skye, mrt & mountain instructor has no formal qualifications whatsoever. I have trusted him with my life during rescues, paperwork or not.

They help, they train, they guide, they support. But qualifications won't stop the rock falling off or a bit of bad luck...

Having said that back to the orginal line, get them as soon as you can, insurance discounts, peer advice, in fact, I've gained as much info and advice from the fellow students on the courses as the course providers.

Timmy Two Shits (sat in the desert, no mtns, no hills, no snow!)

In reply to timjones: I do agree with you about how things should be judged in court - Smiler Cuthbertson a renowned alpine guide and now president of the CC was a famous case in question (although the wrong verdict in my opinion - but not the place for that here)- however your sentence would still have made perfect sense had you omitted the word "worthless" a negative slur on the awards I hold dear and that mountaineers and clients respect the worth of.

and once again I repeat my question to you - if you Tim want to gain insurance and take clients out mountaineering - as you have a perfectly legal right to do in GB - if you have taught yourself and not been "peer reviewed2 or assessed by those at the cutting edge of our profession how do you know that you are carrying out good practice - notice I didnt say best practice - and that you dont carry any glaring unconcious incompetencies with you?

Anyway Im off to the climbing wall now

In reply to timmy-ts:

Thank god someoone's got it

In reply to David Hooper:


Safety in climbing is not exactly rocket science! A little knowledge, a sound analytical mind and a strong sense of self preservation can take you just about anywhere and get
both you and your climbing partners back home safely.

Just how dumb do you think the average non-award holder really is? Maybe it's this attitude in award holders that knocks sparks off us hoi-poloi

In reply to timjones: An ML, an MIC and a Guide approached a mountain lake/lochan/tarn/llyn (delete as appropriate). The Guide, without breaking stride, walked across the lake/lochan/tarn/llyn to the far side. The MIC hesitated slightly, took a compass bearing and walked across the water to the far side. The ML took a deep breath, stepped forward and disappeared beneath the surface.

The MIC winked at the Guide and said,'its Ok if you find the stepping stones isn't it?'
The Guide smiled down at the MIC and said, 'what stepping stones?'

Of course, without a qualification, the lake could not have been found at all.

Here you go folks of Capel.

In reply to timjones:


Do any award holders really believe that an award will protect them if they f*ck up?

You have hit the Nail on the head Tim...

NO !

BUT an individual by holding the award has had their personal ability assessed by an more than one independent assessor who at the time of assessment has seen that the individual has met or exceeded a set of criteria laid down by the governing body as the level at which that particular award can be awarded.

This gives the individual, employer ( read this as private clients also, as this is how I generally get paid) the benchmark for where they are reference experience for delivery of a given service, the log book further adds weight to this assessed benchmark.

Basically the employer will have an indication of what they are buying into rather than a hit or miss process, there is one notable professional individual mentioned on these fora who has operated without a guide carnet and who's web site documents accidents with guides.... BUT how many non qualified people work and hurt people ? I bet its a higher proportion than those who are...

A person without these check does not know where they are operating in relation to other professional people in the field, same as CORGI vs non CORGI for plumbers and the IRATA scheme for Industrial Abseilers have you tried getting a job without your Level 1 in rope access in 1989 you could have

SO back to uninsured side IF anyone were not insured they would lose everything if they had anything worth pursuing in a claim against them, especially if they were assessed at a given level.( it this clear or garbled ? anyway I hape that you get the gist.....



Any way ... I sure more can be said.... © 2007

In reply to Andy Say:


nice one did you read my joke of yesterday

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=269779&v=1#3990407

In reply to Ian McNeill:

SNIP


Phewwww. Someone else who can see which nail I was trying to hit

Does your last paragraph hint at the interesting possibilty of increased culpability if someone has training and qualifications that indicate they should have known better. If so that's a huge can of worms. My gut feeling is that training shouldn't increase the burden of responsibility if things go wrong, a mistake is a mistake!

In reply to timjones:

not sure which one you mean --- I'm full of cold .... so not working to full speed....

In reply to timjones:

I agree with you in your summary above. However I've observed and been involved in a number of incidents where Public Health have investigated incidents at climbing walls and (right or wrong) when it came to establishing whether individuals involved made good judgements their qualifications were examined as 1 factor (of many) as to how sound their decision was. There seemed to be an assumption that because their judgement had been assessed to a recognised benchmark the non climber responsible for judging their actions could assume that their was reasonable chance that their decision was sound. Note none of these cases went to court or beyong local pulic health dept. level and I'm not saying that this 'swung' a decision one way or another but it did seem to be 1 contributing factor. I agree with you that any case should be judged on its merits I'm just reporting what I've observed. I agree with you that tickets are not (and shouldnt be) a magic shield/ticket to assume omnipotence but I honestly dont personally know any holders of these awards who view them as such.

I value my tickets as a personal benchmark as much as anything and having been trained and assessed by other people helps give me confidence in my abilities and has been a fun and interesting process. But I have also learnt things from many 'unqualified' people. I'd be against any form of restricitve practise (and I work overseas despite having no Guides/IML carnet, just experience).

Al

In reply to timjones:
Hi Tim Jones
Back from climbing and see thast this thread is st5ill trundling on.

Ive checked your posting history and you really do have an axe to grind about the awards system dont you?

You seem to use the term hoi polloi quite a lot and assume that qualified people look down on you - I agree that whilst there are some arrogant egotistical guides and instructors out there (whats the difference between a mountain guide and God - God doesnt thinkj he is a mountain guide)most who Ive met are genuine passionate enthusiasts for their sport who love what they do and working with and passing on their skills to other peoiple in the hills.

On a good course I can pick up new approaches to doing things from my students and am often humbled by peoples abilities.

That being said - when I am out and about on the crags I do see an awful lot of poor belaying and general poor ropework - Im not saying that yours is - Im sure you are very experienced and competent - but wehat yardstick do you have to measure yourself by?

A little knowledge is enough you say - but what about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing -

if I had to choose out of 2 climbers to take my son out - everything else being equal I would choose the climber with a lot of knowledge - not a little.

Back to your postings - you self evidently feel passionate about the award schemes from your posting history and have some intelligent and thought provoking points to make.

Why dont you join the scheme - take some awards - volunteer to sit on a board anfd change policy if you dont like it - far better to take an active and constructive role in changing a system that you have problems with rather than negative sniping (ie worthless bits of paper)from an interent chat room

Cheers

David

In reply to David Hooper:

I've kept quiet about my own quals and experience as it has little relevance to the thread IMO. FWIW I have signed up to the scheme and passed an SPA, attended a FUNdamentals workshop and last years MLTA conference, I'm also signed up to and am very much looking forward to this years MLTA conference. All self funded and all in the name of being an unpaid volunteer instructor.

The question is where do I go from here, I commit an awful lot of time as a volunteer instructor with the Scouts, as well as being a full-time self employed farmer and father/husband.

I want to progress in my own training/development as a climbing instructor BUT week long courses are quite simply not a viable option. I need to spread the time and cost commitment. There seems to be a somewhat entrenched belief that it's not possible or viable to run modular higher awards. Anyhting is possible if there's a will to do it. It would involve more work, time and expense for the candidates in the long run, but it could easily be the key to encouraging more of the voluntary sector to embrace and benefit from the higher awards whilst also benefitting the groups they commit so much time to.

It's a simple enough scenario, whoever sets up to run modular courses and assessments in the right locality gets to pocket some of my hard earned money. I may not succeed in completing the awards but I have to pay for what I do so it's a win/win proposition for the course providers .Surely that can't be such a major imposition

In reply to timjones:

I broadly agree with you there about the modular thing - I think a block of learning like the MIA at BYB or MIC at Lodge is a great and valuyable experience - but as you say people have different time contraints and budgets - so why not offer modular as well - Im sure Andy Say has views on this.

Strangely enough the upcoming Climbing Wall Supervisors Award (which I hope to provide after Xmas BLATENT PLUG) can be run as a single course or modular ie 4 x 3 hour evening sessions over a month.

Did you find the Fundamentals worthwhile - I need to attend one of those I think?

In reply to timjones:

Tim, to some degree sympathise with you - I've just spent the last four years working towards my MIA - I work full-time as desk-jockey, and now part-time as an instructor and I also do volunteer work with the scout association. The ONLY way I've managed to do it is through vast amounts of my time and money (although the SA paid over 50% of my MIA training). A good proportion of my holidays for the last four years have been training and assessments or taking days and days off work to get log-book days in for my MIA - sometimes paid, mostly not. I'm surprised my wife still talks to me! But, in the end I had to make a choice like you.

I see where you are coming from, but it's the way the qualification schemes are - if you want the benefits, you have to in the end play the game until you are in a position to change it.

Davy

In reply to timjones:

But unless things have changed in the last few years, it is possible to run ML courses in shorter blocks (over 2 or 3 weekends) - my husband did one, as did a friend. From what you've said, this would be your next "step"?

In reply to Carolyn:

Spot on. It's been possible for a good few years now to do your ML in modular fashion, over 3 weekends. Check the MLTE website for courses.

In reply to David Hooper:

Funnily enough the CWA is one of th main reasons for me wishing to step up my quals. In our county we've been providing an almost identical syllabus to scout leaders for almost 3 years now, we can honestly claim that we were there before MLTUK. The logical progreesion is for us to be able to issue the CWA, unfortunately no MIA means we can't do so.

The CWA could be a big opportunity for MLTUK to get voluntary organisations on board if it can be agreed that it could be delivered by a lower level qualification than an MIA. A large proportion of the MIA syllabus is not required to train and assess to CWA standard, if only we had an interim award between the SPA and MIA I'm sure some major progress could be made.

FUNdamentals is probably the most valuable days training I've done when it comes to coaching kids in climbing. It's so good that I'm saving my pennies to try and do it a second time, I'm sure I could gain as much or maybe even more from doing it again. One thing it has made me realise is that there is a real shortage of bouldering facilities in the Midlands pitched at the vital level where kids come into climbing looking for a fun activity. Has anyone got any suggestions for good child friendly bouldering walls before I build my own?

In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:

That's fine if it's only an ML you want. However if I'm only doing the ML as an entry requirement for an MIA it's no good staring until I can be confident that the MIA will move the same way. Much as I'd love to do an ML time is precious and I have to prioritise, tilting at unachievable targets provides poor returns for both myself and the yougsters I'm trying to help ;(

In reply to Davy Virdee:

The choices could be harder, as a desk jockey I'd probably have the luxury of 4 weeks paid holiday plus 110 extra days off (AKA weekends and bank holidays) in which to train and do my scouting. Do you think you could achieve an MIA without those holidays?

I have a strong will to manage this but realism has to step in somewhere ;(

There are a lot of people out there who have found the MIA an unrealistic target, the step from SPA to MIA is hugely disproportionate and a lot of people could be working at a higher level to the benefit of both youth and climbing as a sport if only this was addressed.

It's very hard to understand why MLT perceived a need for the CWA but refuses to address the yawning gap between between SPA and MIA.


True enough BUT should a scheme exclude someone merely because they can't take 10 days holiday at a time and should the rules only be influenced by those who've already done the award?

Hi Tim,

In reply to timjones:
>

I've had this conversation with colleagues who are all excellent climbers who struggle to get their MIA beacause they prefer to develop their climbing as it suits their coaching than to get the ML requirements of the MIA.
My personal view, espcailly operating almost exclusily in Scotland, to teach and guide on multi-pitch rock up here you need to go into the mountains. The pre-requisite for leading folk inthe mountains is the ML and all the skills that go with it. the ML provides an aspiring MIA with the group management and bed-rock mountain skills to add on the rest of a Mountain Instructor's tool kit. I don't think an SPA gives enough group skills and "risk assesment" training as an ML - MLs can operate in remote areas with help hours away - SPAs can't.

Maybe in other parts of the UK a multi-pitch award may be appropriate in (NI they have one)- but then it ceases to become a UK wide award. Even descending from an fairly "safe" multi-pitch crag may require skills and judgements that go way beyond that of an ML and SPA.




It's really hard lines, Tim - I feel for you becasue you obviously want to push ahead but feel the system is letting you down. I'm sure if you found enough people to lobby the providers you could influence them to run modular training courses - but the real benefit from the MIA training is spending 9 days back-to-back with trainers and trainnees - it then becomes the greater than the sum ofthe parts. I'm also not convinced that the three providers of the MI awards would want to run them unless you could make them viable for the providers.


(On the subject of the Scouts - we've our Scottish Scouts Mountains Assesor's workshop this weekend with MLTS - we'll be discussing the CWA and other things - drop me an email if you're interested )

Davy

In reply to timjones:

We all have to give up something to achieve what we want. Stop coming up with excuses and make a change. What work do you want to do? Teach lead climbing outdoors or bouldering in the midlands?

As far as a gap between SPA and MIA, well I can't see how you can squeeze another award in for people who can't be bothered doing the ML.

You should contact PYB or the Lodge to ask if they can offer MIA(T) as a module - it's nothing to do with the MLTUK.

The MIA is only unrealsitic for people who will not make changes to their life in order to commit to the scheme and really if you are up to the standard then there should be hardly no time to put in except for training and assessment.

If your motivation for doing MIA is so you can run CWA then I think you need to re think your plan. You can still be a provider and have a MIA as director then you work along side them on the courses.

In reply to Davy Virdee:

A quick reply before I fly out of the door. Please bear in mind that any discordant notes are as likely to be due to rushed typing as anythig else.


That sounds like me, apart from the excellent climber bit

I'd love to do it all, but have to be selective at present ;(


Do the remote area skills and the multi-pitch skills have to be held by the same person? Could a multi-pitch climbing instructor walk in with a good ML? Two volunteers sharing their skills for the benefit of the group. It may even be suggested that there are advantages to the skills being held by different people, if the climber is injured the walker is off the crag and can summon help?


Funnily enogugh I almost highlighted Scotland as an example but fought shy of such an arbitrary dividing line. Scotland must have multi-pitch crags as cloe to the rad as the rest of the UK? I'd be worried about any highly qualified instructor who couldn't identify such venues, Maybe lower quals encourage more thought regarding venue selection. I know that the scouts terrain system has highlighted a whole host of valuable low risk walking options.


I strongly disagree with that. Scouting is just one example of a body that achieves effective progression in bite sized chunks. The two methods are certainly different but to my mind saying that a 9 day course is superior hints at inadequacies in those delivering the courses.


This is really gets my goat! I can see where it's coming from but financial viablility is not the key in the voluntary sector. If the administering bodies want to work with the voluntary sector they must be free from commercial constraints and show no bias to the paiod sector so that they can work to benefit everyone and not just those who are in it for the money. If money is a yardstick that is allowed to define the system then the voluntary sector has little choice other than to go it alone with their own schemes. We need a system that works for everyone, if someone wants to make money from it they have to work out how to do it rather than trying to dictate the rules for their own gain.


Normally I'd jump at this sort of thing as we really need more of it. Unfortunately I'm already booked for a day "mentoring" some of our keener scout instructors on real rock. If you have anything similar going on in future I'd love to hear about it.

In reply to bryn:

I wasn't aware I had to choose on or the other. Just how much do you really know about instructing climbing?
If you have managed to scrape an MIA with this attitude I really hope you don't treat your clients with such contempt.


There's nowt so blind as those who will not see ;(


MLTUK could offer help and encouragement in this area?


So anyone who won't neglect their work and piss on their partner and kids isn't suitable to become an MIA?


Maybe it's MLT that need to rethink tehir plan?

Why should a voluntary organisation be forced to line someone elses pockets in order to help their members develop? Don't you think it is a little selfish to deny volunteers the opportunity to give their time and run the course at lower prices than the commercial sector demands?

The CWA is not rocket science and setting the bar for providers artificially high is unjustifiable. I don't know about you but I can safely navigate to and from the local climbing wall without needing any ML skills

Just how hard is it to run a course to licence people to deliver the CWA? I'm somewhat shocked to discover that the MLT and the pro's out there seem to think they are incapable of doing it!

In reply to timjones: I'm trying not to get involved in this rubbish again but as usual I have read your posts with a mixture of amusement and disbelief. If you think anybody's pockets are being lined by the MI schemes in general then you haven'y looked into the prices very carefully [although I have a recollection that they were carefully explained to you on a previous occasion on which, as usual, you were the one whose eyes wont be opened]. As for the image of the climbing instructor and the ML walking into the crag together to cover all the bases, indeed one to rescue the other, I think I'm beginning to see some resonance in David Hooper's comment about unconscious incompetence.

In reply to Gus Mayor: Gus - sorry that your thread has been hijacked. Its actually a very nice industry to work in and a wonderful way of life. Here are some answers to your questions:
Insurance - I am a member of the Association of Mountaineering Instructors. Before joining my Liability insurance was over a £1000 - it is now a fraction of that and is paid annually. I also pay the BMC for personal accident cover and recommend that my clients do the same.

Car - you will need to notify your insurance company that you intend to carry passengers and pay an additional premium. I do not need a mini bus licence but the law is different if you were to carry passengers outside of the UK.

I don't know about red tape for pro climbers.

I would recommend the MLTUk qualification process, It assures clients that you meet a minimum standard, it opens your eyes to everything you didn't know before and you will meet lots of interesting folk that you can go climbing with!

All the best

Rob (MIA, WML, IML)

In reply to timjones:

I sympathise with your situation, the system as it exists doesnt meet your needs but....


In my experience many of Scotlands multi-pitch roadside crags (Dunkeld, Glen Nevis, Creag Dubh) offer significant challenges in managing parties safely at the crag top and in descent. The same sort of techniques applied coming down mountain scrambles in fact.

I'm not sure whether that is fair Tim. Maybe you are right and there is a lack of will from the powers that be. I prefer to think that its more a case of tight funding and time. The providers of the higher awards and the Boards arent exactly major money making concerns and the smaller providers pay for their services just so that they can exist. It would need a real paradigm shift to restructure the existing system to do everything on a basis that suits voluntary bodies as the exisitng systems ARE more biased to commercial providers. It would be interesting to speculate as to what numbers of people you think would be interested in a modular award. As far as I know the CWA was driven by and pitched at a level to maximise the number of people who would be able to access it. The admin for creating and overseeing a new award has a critical mass of numbers needed to make it viable. Likewise to create an approval system for the SPAs who have the ability, judgement and desire to run CWA may just not be viable in terms of costs (time and money)?

Al

In reply to timjones:
>Two volunteers sharing their skills for the benefit of >the group.

I really don't like this model - there are knowledge gaps and therefore the decision making process is not as clear cut nor efficient. It just wouldn't work in a normal teaching scenario, either.


Of course it does, but the *best* MP climbing up here is on nice big cliffs in the mountains!

>I'd be worried about any highly qualified instructor who >couldn't identify such venues..

I think to look after students well at MP venues, you need a good, all-round mountaineering background, not just a multi-pitch add-on to your SPA.

>The two methods are certainly >ifferent but to my mind >saying that a 9 day course is >superior

Have you attended an MIA training course? it's a fantastic holiday!! - for £700+ you get full bed and board, 1:2 instruction, you get to go climbing, drink beer in the evenings with other climbers, talk climbing all day and night if you want, have a laugh, learn loads of stuff and make new friends! It's one of the best things I've done.
£700 for 9 days is buttons compared to the cost of some IT courses I've been on!


>sector so that they can work to benefit everyone and not >just those who are in it for the money.

Glenmore Lodge is a SportScotland organisation and is therefore profit free. As far as I know, PYB is similar.
In fact - look here:
http://www.glenmorelodge.org.uk/courses/course-display.asp?id=465&TypeI...
they're running FREE courses!!!

>system then the voluntary sector has little choice other >than to go it alone with their own schemes.

Scottish Scouts try and do encourage every leader to take an NGB for leading in the outdoors. It is seen by us as the preferred route. We can and do pay for leaders to attend training assessments.
We have the same UK wide permit, in which we assess leaders competency - we are working closely with MLTS and others to make this robust and also in line with MLTUK guidelines.

But as an advisor/assessor I *strongly encourage* all leaders to take SPA/ML/whatever as I think it benefits them more and ultimately the scouts. I *personally* see the Scout Association scheme as an enabler rather than a substitute for an SPA/CWA/ML/WGL whatever.

In reply to Kendal47:

Don't you feel that vesting all the necessary skills in one person is just as likely to be retrospectively judged as unconcious incompetence?

You can't cover all the bases but as long as all the skills exist within the leader team you're pretty well covered. the reality is of course that both leaders would very often have all the necessary skills and the only differences would lie in their paperwork. Therefore by having two people you're in effect providing extra safety cover not lessening it.

As for nobodys pockets being lined it's ocvious that some people draw an income from this sort of work and others don't. The terminology may offend you but the facts are pretty plain to see.

In reply to Davy Virdee:

Thats really down to the skills and team work of the individuals!


In your average school pupils are taught by a number of teachers each day. It seems to work quite well!

>

I'm not looking for a holiday. If I want my perfect holiday I'll go to the Alps. If I want a few beers and a good laugh I'll go to the pub. If I want to learn skills or be assessed I have to go to the coorrect area to do that and seeking a fun holiday with the boys could compromise the real aim of the course/assessment.


>sector so that they can work to benefit everyone and not >just those who are in it for the money.

I know. I haven't applied because unless I can see real potential for it to lead on to the qualifications that I can and will use regularly it seems selfiah to take a place off someone who is going to get some real mileage from a summer ML. The only way I'm likely to use it is as a pre-requisite for an MIA.


Unless I'm mistaken we're going to hit problems with the "need" for an MIA to assess if we accept all of their guidelines.


Nothing I can't wholeheartedly agree with in that paragraphs

In reply to timjones:
Read what you've written again, think about what's involved with teaching/ guiding in a multi-pitch environment and then tell me if you really are serious about this???
The Brenin and the Lodge who run MI courses are non-profit organisations and as far as I'm aware MI courses are subsidised quite heavily. Yes the staff who work on the courses get paid, do you have a problem with that? Disgustingly some of us chose to make a living from working in the hills I'm afraid.

In reply to timjones:

Indeed - one of the things to be discussed at this weekend's workshop.

Davy

In reply to Kendal47:

Yes I'm serious. Did I suggest that the "walker" would even step onto the climb, would it be necessary for him to do so in many situations and could this provide opportunities for people with the right skills to work together?

I think you're oversimplifying the vast range of climbing opportunities that exist within the UK and supporting a very crude one-size fits all solution. There are people who are missing out on these opportunities because of the current scheme and we should all be working to plug those gaps.



Thats always one of the grey areas of subsidy and the requirement that it's not used for personal profit. We could debate that forever but it's really not the issue we're discussing here. The issue is how you get pro's and volunteers to mesh together into the same scheme.

I have no problem with people being paid as long as they respect the varying needs of different candidates and the environments they work in, the candidates are after all the people they derive their income from either directly or indirectly.

Do you have a problem with the fact that alterations to the scheme could be hugely beneficial to volunteer organisations and their members?

Why do you oppose any alterations to the scheme and dismiss out of hand anybody who suggests change?

Totally off topic and not to be taken too seriously. Isn't "The Brenin" an incongruous anglicisation of Plas y Brenin? BTW I'm not a Welsh Speaker, just mildly confused

In reply to Davy Virdee:


Awwwwwww, don't make me even more disappointed that it's at the far end of the country ;(

In reply to timjones:
I have been instructing climbing for over 30 different establishments since the age of 13, and running my own business for that last 5, with regular clients, and also getting out climbing for myself lots too - more than your 1 day this year looking at your log book. You wouldn't stand a chance in hell getting through the MIA with your stinking attitude! My Pass page on my MIA says 'a very good pass' - think that is a scrape?

The only people wanting to make the awards easier are the ones who can't be arsed going out and then use the award requirments as their reason.

Excuss number 1 - blame all the other choices you have made in life. Come on Tim, you talked about going to the Alps climbing, down the pub - all ways of neglecting work and home life.

Price had nothing to do with safety and quality.

>
But you will have no experience of training or assessing any NGB awards with SPA - and can't teach lead climbing issues with an SPA, which is required on the CWA.

In reply to bryn:


What was the anme of your company again. I'd hate to accidentally book a course with some so judgemental and inflexioble in their outlook ;(

I'm not asking for anything to be made easier. I'm just asking for it to be broken up into shorter modules.


Wow do you have a whole list of numbered excuses to aid in in your blinkered pre-conceptions?

Trip to the alps 4 days WITH the wife. Trip to the pub a couple of hours. A 9 day course takes ......

well I'll let you work it out hopefully you've got enough fingers


Nobodys suggesting that it has. Jacking the price up won't improve the quality any more than a volunteer giving their time for free will lower it.


I didn't say it should be done without any further training did I?

I'll ask again. Why do you have an issue with the concept of enabling people below MIA level to deliver CWA, indoor leading, single ptich leading instruction etc ?

In reply to timjones:


I dont! But it has been hard to find out what it is you want to be able to do which isnt currently covered by either SPA+site specific further training (indoor leading), the MIA, or by your organisation employing an MIA (via a grant?) to direct the CWA for you.

I am confused as to why your personal difficulties with the demands of the schemes as they stand mean therefore that all qualifications (and therefore all instructors) are crap, and if you believe that, why would you want to be a provider for another "worthless bit of paper"? It sounds like you think they are crap because at the moment they arent viable for you - not a good argument to make as if they are crap whats the point of whinging about them?!

In reply to bryn:

Do try to keep up.

How many times do I have to highlight the context in whcih I used the "worthless bit of paper" quote. I won't bother to explain again you can either go back and look it up or let it.

The awards are not crap, they serve a purpose for many people. They are also not the definitive answer. The attitude of those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of adding an extra step is crap IMO.

In reply to bryn:

Site specific training is fine until you add up the 3 indoor sites it would have to cover, what are the odss of them all wanting individual site specific training. Then those same climbers soon want to progress outdoors to lead, how do you suggest covering that?

We could employ an MIA to direct CWA courses but with at least 3 courses a year and the current stance that the MIA would need to be physically present on each course just how much would you quote for the work?

It's just not cost effective, how big do you think our budget is? The answers you so blithely suggest would at quadruple our costs at best estimate ;(

I'm not asking to instruct multi-pitch lead climbing on remote mountain crags tomorrow. Is the fact that by default I have to train to do so realistic or practical?

In reply to Rob Johnson expeditionguide.com: Thankyou!!!!

In reply to timjones:
'Site specific training is fine until you add up the 3 indoor sites it would have to cover, what are the odss of them all wanting individual site specific training. Then those same climbers soon want to progress outdoors to lead, how do you suggest covering that?' quote

I would suggest that you would be hire an MIA to do that work someone who has worked hard and made those personal scrifices, invested money in and works hard to make not a great deal of money. If you wish to carry out courses then you should have the ticket required or use someone that has it otherwise you start to ubdermine an industry that people work hard in and have made that 'lifestyle choice' ! Do you think that the Guides would be pleased to hear that folk are guiding on Mont Blanc because instructors and the French had struck a deal that if they did some site specific training then they could guide on it, NO they would protect their livleyhood !
Its really clear make some sacrifices and get out cragging and do the award but if thats to much for you then hire someone who has put the time in !
regards

In reply to Dan Goodwin:
Dear Dan

This is the best, most sensible bit of posting on what has become a sadly degeneratin, mudslinging and bitter thread.

Dear Tim

Talk to your wife, apply for some funding from scouts, Charitable Trust, Career Development, whatever (I got £400 toward my MIA back in 95)and do the course - it will open your eyes, be immensely enjopyable and reflect on your day to day climbing practice as well as your professional volunteering - its easy finding excuses not to do something - be positive and work with the system we have - Im sure you will an asset to your scouts

In reply to David Hooper:

Yeah but Tim still hasn't done his ML, and I have offered to help with that one before.

And Tim, I know that you mean well!

In reply to Gus Mayor:
Go for it Gus! It's a lifestyle thing - but if you like the lifestyle - you'll love it.

Rob has answered your questions really but rest assured that the red tape and paperwork certainly shouldn't put you off and I doubt its more than you face in many industries nowadays.

The biggest draw is the variety and the chance to meet great people - today I was out with a group of families who wanted to have a go at climbing for the first time then tomorrow it's one lady who wants to 'push her grade' on gritstone - every day is different!

Go for it - you won't look back.
Feel free to get in touch if you want to chat things through and good luck.
Cheers,
Paul

In reply to Dan Goodwin:

The fact is that by doing this stuff as a volunteer I'm going to undermine the "industry", the outdoors is not an industry and never should be. The level of qualification that I have or the processes that were involved in gaining it are irelevant. The awards aren't there to protect the financial interests of the pro's.

In reply to Paul at work:

That's nothing personal, it's entirely due to the time constraints that I'm working under ;(

In reply to timjones: Tim....I'd vote for you. Any smell of a closed shop puts me off. But I've always preferred to learn by experience, but then we are all different I guess.

In reply to David Hooper:

Why on earth do you folks keep banging on about excuses. I don't need to make excuses, I'm not making some sort of apology. I'm explaining why I believe that a bit of
fine-tuning could give an award scheme that could be of greater benefit to a wider section of the climbing community.

To my eyes the excuses seem to be coming from a section of that community that are terrified of any sort of change to the framework that they currently work within.

In reply to timjones:
Tim, with the utmost respect, its kind of hard to take your comments about the MIA/MIC/ guides schemes as seriously as you obviously feel about them, as you havent yet done them. So its not surprising that people with quals are getting offended as it seems like you are belittling their hard work (which I am sure wasnt your intention).

I honestly believe there is a lot of very valuable things to learn on the training and assessment schemes, even about low level practice stuff, having now climbed with a large variety of different people, both qualified and unqualified. I can honestly say that the quality of gear placements, ropework, navigation and so on of very very experienced but unqualified people is quite different to that of higher qualified instructors. I can only speak for the people I have climbed with but from my point of view, I can see the value of those quals and realise why it takes so long to build up to that level.

I hope you get the issues for your scout group sorted.
Rebecca (Bryn's wife on his account as I dont have one!)

In reply to bryn: Hear hear Becs
BTW how is Dinorwic House coming along ?

In reply to bryn:

That is exactly why there is a strong feeling that those who have done the higher awards are trying to maintain a closed shop. We all have a stake in climbing regardless of our quals, no-one should be able to claim the high ground on any climbing issues merely because they have already got an award. Their whole atitude looks alarmingly elitest.

In reply to David Hooper:

Hi Dave,
Long time no see - would be good to catch up at some point so give us a call!
We are now in the house - only took 5 years - pop round some time and we'll go for a route on slate then a brew.

Bryn & bec

In reply to bryn:
You must have posted just before we bumped into each other SPOOKY

In reply to bryn:


Hmmm, been instructing climbing since the age of 13 years old, so I bet you have also been instructing other outdoor activities since 13 years old as well?
You have to be 18yrs old to be able to attend the relevant NGB training /assessment courses and im sure you can't do the MIA training untill your at least 20 something, Dont realy care when you did actually get your NGB awards, but hey you had been working outside remitt from the age of 13 years old, wow.

You must be the most experience instructor in the world? we must all hail to Bryn for he is God,
Grow up young boy, you have a lot to learn about a lot of things.

In reply to Anonymous:
Dear anonymous.
You can't work outside the remit of qualifications that you haven't done; and there's no law that says you have to do them.
I started posting a load of stuff about popular misconceptions about 'remits' but then deleted it as a waste of my time.
Any fule no that the most experienced instructor in the world is Vin Machin; but then again most anonymous snipers can usually be categorised as 'fule'.

In reply to Anonymous:

Anus.

In reply to Andy Say:
Vin is a caver and very good at it too, he's not the most experinced instructor in the world compared to some young youth who has been teaching since the age of 13.

Since I assume that you are one of bryns peers you should rein his ego in.

In reply to SuperTed: Yes I can quite happily admit that at some pints in my life I have been an Anus, hasnt everyone? but its better than claiming such utter bullshit as claiming to have been teaching climbing in over 30 establishments since the age of 13 years old.
I think you would agree that that would be classed as being an Anus.

In reply to Anonymous:

I've certainly been a complete anus on many occassions. Apologies for the direct insult, the "grow up young boy" angle just sounded a bit patronising. Bryn's quite nice really.

In reply to SuperTed:

Not knowing bryn but only judging from having read through his profile and a lot of his past postings Ill take your comment ,above, as the fact that your opinion is that 'once you get past his self centred ego and tolerate it perhaps?' then he is a nice chap.

Perhaps some day I will meet him, hopefully this will be when he is a lot older, wiser, mature and more experienced.

Thanks
Peter Griven


found this website by chance, there is quite a lot of twaddle on it isn't there?

In reply to Anonymous:

Most of it's complete bollocks, but it's strangely addictive!

In reply to timjones:

I have held an interim award between SPA and MIA for the last 9 years (Forces Climbing Instructor) and 2-3 years ago I would have strongly agreed with you.

However, I now don't. I think the decision with regard to MIAs delivering CWA assessments is quite correct.

Firstly, I was at the first MLTE workshop for CWA providers and the censensus of everyone involved was that this needed to a rigorous qualification that every climbing wall MUST accept. Even at MIA level there was some concern that this level of confidence would be hard to acheive.

Secondly, having started my progression through the MIA award I find that even though I am a very experienced climbing instructor I have a vast amount to learn in terms of training and particularly assessment skills. Therefore even if there was an interim qualification covering skills like teaching leading on single pitch crags, I doubt it would be sufficient to enable the individual to become a course provider.

HTH

PS IIRC one of my 'ideas' about changes to MIA was to allow completion of ML assessement after MIA training rather than before. For many people that could reduce the overall time taken to progress through the awards.

In reply to Anonymous:
Vin would probably not be best pleased to be categorised simply as 'a caver'. And at a youthful 139 he is far more experienced than most of us - even Bryn (I'm not a peer; I only started teaching climbing at 16 but I'm much, much older now)

In reply to Andy Say:


Err, you did have a qualification, didn't you?

Mick

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

That's interesting. Why is there such a lack of confidence and who at this workshop expressed this concern? Is it really possible to engender confidence in an award merely by setting the award level of the providers so high? Surely it would be better to put in place an good solid training process for providers and audit their courses regularly?



Training and assessment skills are an entirely seperate thing to technical skills. There is no reason why we could not have seperate training and assessment modules, that are equally vaid for all the awards. The technical skills needed for each award are different from good solid training/assessment skills.


An interesting thought but not one that is likely to be popular amongst current MIA holders from what I've seen! I'm not sure that I'd be keen on it, it would surely create some confusing overlaps in logged experience and could potentially allow the MIA to be passed with less logbook experience. I don't see any future in watering down the MIA, I'd just like to see some extra steps that allowed people to qualify and specialise in their chosen areas rather than having to become a "jack of all trades" by default.

I'm sure that there will be changes in the future, they're just unlikely to happen on the sort of timescale that will allow me to utilise them ;(

In reply to timjones:

My point was not that there is any current lack of confidence (the award hasn't been launched yet!), but that there is a POTENTIAL risk with regard to major commercial climbing walls fully accepting CWAs assesssed by other course providers.

The issue was raised by various people including the senior instructor of an ABC climbing wall. Whilst everyone was generally happy with the award syllabus, specific concerns including the assessment of supervision ability in busy environments where discussed in depth. Generally the outcome from the workshop was very positive and may have resulted in minor changes/amendments to the draft guidance notes.


Yes. It will certainly help. Also having looked at the application process for being a provider, it amounts to a lot more than just passing your MIA and getting issued a book of stickers from MLTE.


That is also being done. The workshop I attended was the first stage of that. I will hopefully also have the chance to observe at one of the pilot courses being run under direct MLTE supervision. Additionally all providers will be subject to initial audits much regularly than with well established qualifications like SPA.

One final point that came across very clearly was that CWA complements rather than replaces site or organisation specific schemes. If you are involved in a such a scheme then there may be no reason you need to change.

In reply to Mick Ward:
O levels in English; History and Sociology. Failed French so didn't sport climb.

In reply to Anonymous:

Dear Peter,
Well done in finding the ukclimbing website – it must be a big step forward going from stone and chalk to using a computer – oops! Was that an ageist comment? Please forgive my youthful immaturity, I’m sure when I grow up I will stop acting so immaturely.

I have found folks who get wound up about young professionals usually hold a some sort of jealous anger towards them, I have had a lot of this in the past, which helps me to feel proud of what I have achieved, so do please keep it going as it is good for my ego.

Regards,
Bryn

In reply to bryn:
Hey Bryn

Whats the difference between an MI and God ?





















































God doesnt think he is an MI

In reply to David Hooper:

Nice one!!

How do you spot an MI at a party?

You don't, they come running over to tell you

In reply to bryn:
The wont always run as they will have to do a risk assessment first ....

In reply to Mark Stevenson:



A large proportion of MIA skills are not really relevant to training and assessing the CWA. The areas that are likely to be of concern to wall management could easily be covered without the need for a full MIA. Provided the other elements of the application process you refer are good and well administered it should be perfectly possible to ensure a robust and effective scheme without excluding non-MIA holders from the provision of the award.

The real key to the value of the scheme for wall owners will lie with the way they choose to utilise it. The majority seem to see the SPA as a certificate to photocopy and keep on file, they don't bother to check recent experience or even the insurance cover that outside instructors hold. If thats the way they plan to use the CWA many of the potential problems will lie within their own systems and no award can solve them.




There is little reason for us to change as long as MLT etc don't persist in suggesting that our trainers/assessors should be more highly qualified and then fail to provide realistically staged awards that allow us to progress through their schemes. The existance of disproportionate gaps in the award scheme means that volunteer organisations struggle to use the same schemes as the rest of the industry without seriously reducing the numbers of youngsters they are able introduce to the joys of climbing. Would you rather see a mish-mash of different schemes across a range of organisations or a practical and progressive scheme that can be utilised by all?

Compare our schemes to those of the BCU and then ask yourself why climbing is regarded as a poor choice for the DofE award.

In reply to David Hooper:
Surely that's 'guides', Dave? MI's are a humble breed in my experience.

In reply to Andy Say:
I did nick it and adapt it from a Jagged Globe meet

In reply to David Hooper:

Surely a MIA is Missing in Action – not seen winter climbing.

And a ML is just a Mountain Learner.

A SPA is only a Simple Person (Aspirant).

In reply to Norrie Muir:
MIC = Muppet in crampons?
And a guide gives up independent development eventually....

In reply to Andy Say:

I never use the expression 'muppet' about a climber, however, you could be right.

Very few 'guides' have developed much in Scotland that is worthwile climbing.

In reply to bryn:

Hello bryn, there is nothing wrong with a person feeling proud about their achievements, Usually these achievements bring with them other attributes, those of a greater understanding of the world and life as well as the ability to see things in a clearer, steadier and more mature way as well as the most important attribute that greater learning gives us, that of Modesty, Not ego and never the attitude of " I am ".

Regards
Peter.

To those who posted the jokes about Guides,MI and God, I assume that they ring true with outdoor instructors or those that know them,,, a sad reflection of some of those that work in the outdoors then??

In reply to Anonymous:

Pleased to see you're back Peter. I warned you.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

There, and I though SPA stood for Sexual Predator Award.

In reply to David Hooper:
I am not an instructor and do not make my crust from it.
Still i got drawn to the topic. I think that Tim may have been rather more aggressive that he really meant ... and yet sometimes a bit of healthy cynism can be of use.

It always amazes me that all those years ago, guys like libby peter or Alan Fyffe... did learn on their tod.
May be because they did not have a choice (no NGBs) or may be because that was the accepted way to do it.
What I gather from Tim's successive posts is that he values as much or more personal experience above qualification... well I can see his point, though do not completely agree.

Qualifications are not so elitist since they create a portal, a medium for some individuals (goal...) to get outdoor and may be scrape a living out of it.
One does wonder, though, why at an assessment of say SPA, the assessor still needs to ascertain whether or not you are a climber. If you climb enough to think you want to instruct you will know about grades, history, ethics...

I do not want to sound pedantic, ignorant,... and I am sorry that poor lad got his post hijacked

In reply to riquet:
Libby might not be best pleased at the suggestion that she is a 'guy' nor that she is contemporaneous with Allen Fyffe. She also completed her summer ML, winter ML, MIA, MIC and Guides carnet on her way to where she is now!

In reply to Gus Mayor:

Well I thought it was funny!.....

So these two mountain guides meet up at the base of a route and one notices that the other has new ice tools. "What'd ya pay for those?" he asked. "Nothing. I was climbing the other day and this beautiful woman walked up, threw down her new tools, stripped off her one piece and said I could have anything I wanted" "Oh. Good choice," said the other guide. "Her one piece would never have fit you."

In reply to Andy Say:
Ah... but does the lovely Libby have a ginger beard like Fyffie ?

In reply to peakpaul:

True story....

I was at a meeting at the Brenin with various luminaries sitting around the big board table in the map room.

Someone mentioned the name of a certain "handsome" mountain guide who used to work at Planet Lodge.........this was enough to launch one of those present into a spluttering, vitriolic, foul mouthed, hilarious character assasination of said guide...who for the sake of this post we will call "X".

"X......f*cking X......he's not a guide ....he is a f*cking premnium rate phone number..."Hi...Im X...(said in faux sexy Scottish accent).....most guides carry an avalanche shovel down the back of their sacks when they are on the hill.....that c*nt....he carries a full length mirror in his...."

My how we laughed..

In reply to David Hooper:

Hi David,

Love the story but of course the big question is....... who's the mystery X ?!

Cheers, paul

In reply to peakpaul:


Brilliant - that good it needs repeating.

In reply to timjones:


They don't!

It may seem like that because the BCU scheme fits in nicely with their, you must do this and that before you can do this approach. Where climbing, until very recently (but others have tried before) didn't have a nice badge collecting scheme.

In reply to peakpaul:


I know, but - aargh!

Mick

In reply to David Hooper:

Hhmm err no, but then Fyffie does not have a ginger beard... Think you are getting a bit confused

Cheers fur noo
George

In reply to peakpaul:
I couldnt possibly say - its someone I like and admire - and even if I didnt - they are dead 'ard

In reply to timjones:


The BCU has the star awards that canoe sports do have climbing does not have the equlivant ( whos to say why they can't )
Bodies of water is much more widely accessable in the UK than single pitch crags, canals, lakes, rivers and sea... swimming pools etc. all help canoe sports edge over climbing skills and courses.

Climbing is just trying to make a start with the climbing wall award award and other FUNementakls etc etc.......

Im sure could say more but its late and Im out early again in the morning ....

toodle pip ...

In reply to Ian McNeill:


You may wish to have a look at what the ABC are doing - http://www.undercover-rock.com/_nicas//default.aspx

In reply to Paul at work:

Morning,

thats what I meant also but my main point is access to the medium where the activity takes place - there is much more water than rock in and around our Island nation...


the skills are also more easily measured....

draw stroke across the canal.... or Egyptian you way up that route ?

do you get my drift ?

In reply to Paul at work:

It could be a good scheme, do you know where it's possible to get a download of the handbook?

Is it likely to run entirely by ABC members or is it going to be possible for independent coaches to offer the award?

In reply to Ian McNeill:

You'll need a tin hat if you're going to tell a paddler that they have better access than us


It may be easier to draw stroke your way across the canal but in paddling just like in climbing you use a selection of strokes/moves to make your way down the river/up the wall. In either sport those moves can be taught by a good coach.

An effective coach will be able to identify opportunities to learn and use different moves at a wall or crag. Some of this would need a different approach to route setting and maybe even dedicated areas for youth coaching, but I'm sure I've mentioned that before


I get your drift, but I don't see a problem. I see a set of missed opportunities

In reply to timjones:
As far as I am aware the scheme will be run at approved ABC member walls. The staff those walls use will be at their discretion but subject to approval/monitoring by those administering the scheme. I don't think there is any intention that independent providers can deliver at this stage. Levels 1 and 2 and probablypossibly 3 look 'doable' by SPA/CWA; levels 4 and 5 are going to need additional training/skills I would guess.

In reply to Ian McNeill:
Ian - I just don't have the time to create 57 new qualifications just so we can keep up numerically with the paddlers.

But think of the income stream..............

In reply to Andy Say:

And the opportunities that volunteer organsations could give to their members

In reply to Andy Say:

I think the FAQ says that you don't need to be an ABC member to offer the scheme. Maybe this means that as a Scout County we could offer it at our own walls and towers, maybe even running the scheme at a number of different venues to allow wider experince for our climbers?

There is of course a potential problem with the indoor part of the award name as we can't always afford a roof over our walls ;0

In reply to timjones:
Depends on the definition of 'climbing centre' I guess.

In reply to timjones:

The handbook is mentioned at the bottom of the 'scheme' page, I believe you can down load it from the link there.

In reply to Paul at work:

Unfortunately the link won't work for me

In reply to george mc:

Umm....just reading back sounds like I could have been making a double entendre - not the idea although I am sure Libby could take the joke.

Im sure I remember Fyffie having a beard - I thought it was de rigeur for all you gnarley Scottish Winter hardmen - stick on beard issued with the relevent winter award? Iain Peter, Andy Cunningham etc......look at all those beards in "The Handbook of Climbing"

Actually Im dead jealous cos I can only grow stubble on one side of my face cos of the radiotherapy - bit of a nuisance on expeditions

In reply to timjones:

send me an email Tim.

In reply to David Hooper:
I have mailed you a picture of Mr Fyffe so you will know who it is if he bites you; not that he does that anymore.....

In reply to Andy Say:

He was my WML assessor and I have admired his interpersonal skills at close range

Brilliant bloke.

In reply to Andy Say:

what else are you up to that means you dont have time ....

the scouts and D of E need a scheme to follow....

May be you could retire next year......

<JOKE no harm intended, where theres a demand theres a pound or two to be earnt .... way to go choose the MLM or Franchise model and well License to print money you choose >

In reply to timjones: Hi Tim,
the idea is that there will be a number of 'Primary Centres' (major ABC walls) who can then assist local walls to run the scheme themselves at a level appropriate to their facilities and staff experience/quals. The scheme is to be run as a charity so Primary walls are putting up the money for an initial print run of handbooks which they can then sell on to the walls they are overseeing. These walls will also be expected to attend a workshop on providing the award. For more details contact Guy Jarvis at Undercover rock.

Al