UKC

Well, I don’t know about the rest of you but I thought Friday’s forum with Jon Garside and Andy Say was both lively and informative. It is also interesting to note outside of the forum, that on the one hand, BOS could be said to be lowering instructing thresholds (Severe for MPA applicants) while the Mountain Instructors Committee (the MIC of suitably vetted MICs) has unilaterally decided to raise the standard of a ‘real’ MIC from winter Grade III to Grade V.

I would love to see a Question Time format forum, hosted by UKC, with Jon and Andy invited back and representatives of BOS and the MIC also invited. In Question Time style, each would be required to comment on posted items and Jack Gerald could moderate.

Personally, I think it would be a great starter for the pending MIA review and far more entertaining than the more recent Great Grade Debate.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
I'd be up for that - but in fairness you really should invite the Association of Mountaineering Instructors as the body which more then 1000 MIC's, MIA's and those who have completed training have elected to be members of. The Mountain Instructors COMMUNITY, (current membership 28?) would certainly add some spice to the proceedings!
Glad you enjoyed Friday - my eyes were sore after the day!

In reply to Andy Say:

Having the AMI and the MIC on the same forum would probably be more like The Jerry Springer Show than Question Time, “Bring it on” I say!

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Sad or what, I’ve replied to myself.

I have done so because, while I’m pleased that a few hundred people have taken the time to read my post, only Andy has replied. I had hoped that people would take the opportunity to express an opinion on the current awards system and who or what they would like to query or challenge.

This isn’t just aimed at climbers who don’t like long walks with big packs so can’t teach leading. What about all you ace navigators and long distance walkers who would like to instruct or assess ML awards. Fine if you like technical climbing, bummer if you don’t!

I would also like to say that my comment as to possible antipathy between the AMI and the MIC was posted a bit ‘tong in cheek’. I’m sure the Mountain Instructors Community stance on instructors personal climbing standards might rankle in some quarters. However, I am also aware that some MIC members deliver CPD courses to lower level instructors, encouraging them to use the remit of their awards to the fullest possible extent.

I can’t say for sure at this time but it is quite possible that this forum will take place and that, if sufficiently considered, the feedback it generates will, in some small way, influence future awards for years to come. It is more likely to go ahead if there is demonstrable interest now.

So, if you read this post, please make some comment, be it for, against or indifferent. If you think the idea is good but the body you would like to challenge isn’t included, say so. If you know someone who might be interested, please point them at the post.

If you don’t and some time in the future you find that you’re involved with MLT (being trainee or trainer) but the way it works doesn’t suit you, you’ll know whose fault it is, won’t you?

Thanks for your time,

Paul

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

It would help get a reponse if you had some detail as to your background.

In reply to george mc:

George,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I’m not sure my background is actually relevant as in a democracy anyone from a prince to a pauper should be able to ask for a debate. As it is, I’m not even asking for one as such, just asking the climbing community if they would like to see one prior to the MIA review commencing.

However, I have no objection to being asked. I’m a full time professional engineer who loves climbing and also a part time instructor, working for a large climbing wall and also around the Peak District on occasion. I’ve been registered with MLTE for 25 years; hold the ML(S) and SPA. I also completed my ML(W) training at your establishment but was never sufficiently into winter climbing to progress it. I also worked full time at a number of centres in the 1980’s, did a little international walking leadership before the IML was even an idea and still have friends in the business, including AMI members.

Regards, Paul

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Well, one comment I was going to make but never did because I didn't know how relevant it was, is: suppose someone who only ever wanted to teach leading on Peak District crags decided to bite the bullet and go through their ML and MIA (is that the right one?) awards, and then went back to doing what it is they really want to do. Their walking boots go mouldy, their backbacking kit sits unused in the attic, and they forget all their carefully acquired miconavigation skills. After all, walking up hills in the rain isn't their thing. I can't see hillwalkers getting all snooty about "an MIA who hasn't been up a hill for years" as some people were about MIAs who don't climb on the other thread.

In reply to fimm:

Fimm,

Thanks for joining in. Your point is precisely relevant. Not everyone has either the time or perhaps inclination to be an expert all rounder. I believe many people who have sufficient expertise to work within a limited remit at a high level are currently restricted by the current framework.

Regards, Paul

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

If the MIC award threshold was raised to V from III would existing ticket holders be re-assessed at this grade? I always thought III was very low (but I don't have either MIA or MIC so what would I now).

For my complete ignorance why do we have Mountain Instructor Certificate and the Mountain Instructor Community? Is this just some new in-fighting thing or is there something else going on? Please tell.

Anyway instead of setting a set grade why not "grade set" instructors to there abilities and there abilities to operate and coach at this grade rather than a set grade, and regular intervals allow the person to be re-assessed to increase the grade threshold or decrease it? I know in Norway the Fjellsport 1 and 2 certificate have a grade set at Norge 6, but you can only continue to hold this certificate if you are a regular climber and if you do not climber for a et period you qualifications become redundant, or you require re-grade setting.

ttfn

Jamie

In reply to Dark Peak Paul: I thought the crux of this issue evolved around the Instructors personal 'current' climbing grade. Any person going for assessment should really be personally climbing 1 or 2 grades above the required standard. being VS - E1 for MIA or III to V for MIC. At the assessed grade people should be cruising up routes in their comfort zone, regardless of conditions on the day. How else can an instructor take a client out and have any credibility, if they make a meal of a pitch, it won't fill their client with confidence and you need to consider what they are actually paying for. Plus, if the client is slow at 2nd fasting leading will help keep things on schedule with out the client feeling any additional pressure. Even more critical there should be as close to zero risk of the instructor falling as possible, as you can't really on the 2nds belaying ability or their rescue skills.

Finn, Which then means how do you assess currency? Most MIA /MIC who don't push either their navigation or climbing ability to its highest level at all times, probably don't actually work that part of their remit.

It has always been the case that all qualifications are taken in conjunction with logbooks and it is up to the employer to assess currency. This won't happen with a client booking someone for 2 days on the Ben, so a client needs a means to know their guy or girl is at the top of their game before they fork out £100 plus a day. Whether this means is the AMI or MIC Community remains to be seen, but there can really only be one, otherwise there is confusion.

In reply to Jamie Simpson - Alpine Dragons:

Jamie,

I take it that's a 'yes' in favour of a debate. As for the MIC I suggest you have a look at www.themic.org.uk or read the article in the current Wales area BMC news letter at www.thebmc.co.uk

Regards, Paul

In reply to Dark Peak Paul: If you raise the bar for the MIC where does this leave the guides carnet? Currently you must be climbing in the IV-V range to sit your guides Carnet, raising the MIC would therefore also mean raising the bar for this, which would mean that our level would exceed international requirements.

In reply to mike kann: I was of the understanding that no one every did their guides ticket who was not cruising VI mixed and beyond, which again means they cruise the bench mark VI/V on assessment.

In reply to summo: Of course. But the required level for acceptance is 50 routes at III, 20 of which must be IV/V. So raising the assessment level of the MIC to V does not make sense. Of course to be climbing IV/V comfortably you really need to be at VI. Thats not the issue...

In reply to Jamie Simpson - Alpine Dragons:

Jamie,
I've not really got the leisure to get sucked in to another day's Q and A (the day job calls!) but would make the following points.
1. The required grades are to be demonstrated on the day, under scrutiny, with plenty of spare capacity. I recall doing my MIA personal climbing day when I was regularly leading E2/3; I still worried about my performance level! Same for the MIC; I was regularly climbing IV/V but was well on my toes 'demonstrating' III.
2. The awards are the 'Mountaineering Instructor Award' and the 'Mountaineering Instructor Certificate'. The Mountain Instructor Community are a small group of instructors who explain themselves on http://www.themic.org.uk/
3. Instructors, and others, are free to operate at the level they wish. It is assumed that once someone has demonstrated the competence to gain even the ML or SPA they have the judgement to operate appropriately. Some MIA's will be more than happy to take you up E4's; some MIA's limit their work to lower grades. So long as they are competent and skilled at what they do; is there a problem with that? It's pretty self-regulating. No-one is going to work on a route that might kill them for £150 a day.....

In reply to summo:

Summo,

Thanks for getting involved. Well yes, I did start off focusing on the personal climbing grade issue. However, in a very short time, it was brought home to me that the issue is actually much wider and also effects people who may not rock climb at all in the technical sense.

The true issue, for me, is does the mountaineering community wish to have an open forum before the MIA review to make their concerns with the current system known. I believe the MIA is so closely woven into the whole structure of MLT awards that any changes make pretty wide ripples.

Regards, Paul

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

What an annoying comment...!

"Not everyone has either the time or perhaps inclination..."

Yes life is difficult for everyone. Finances, deaths, disabilities, injuries, health, family, jobs etc all get in the way. You have to make sacrifices and a commitment whatever career choices you make in life.

If you want to do the job you get the hillwalking and climbing experience and background over a number of years beforehand and then think about doing the qualification not the other way around which is what now seems to be happening more frequently.

The grade people climb is irrelevant apart from showing that they have made a commitment to the sport though a minimum standard is reasonable. I do think a general outdoor and hillwalking background is absolutely essential if instructors are to introduce others to the sport, it's history and it's values.

In reply to Ron Walker:

Hear hear Ron...........totally agree

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
It does not really effect other people,as Andy has stated above, if you have been motivated enough to gain an award then you will probably only work in the areas you are competant at.


Why should the mountaineering community care? If they are not aspirant MIAs, or current MIA/ MIC how does it impact on them at all? There is no UK climbing qualifications above MIA for Summer and MIC for winter, so there is no automatic grade creep upwards. The guides scheme is so fundamentally different and the MIA is so far above SPA there is no impact on either. If you progress into the MIA/MIC world you will discover there are other debates over how a grade increase will make the instructor quals. more acceptable in Europe.

I don't think the ripples will be big at all, if someone is struggling with the current grade standards then perhaps the world of mountain instructor is not a natural career choice for them. It's harsh, but there has to be some standards somewhere.

In reply to summo:

I say that the MIA award makes wide ripples for the following reasons;

All climbing walls have MIA technical advisors, as do local authorities, voluntary groups etc. If you are doing some climbing instructing, walking leading, gorge walking etc. then somewhere along the line a MIA was probably involved. The outdoor transition courses offered by your local wall will be influenced by their access to an MIA. If you don’t believe me, see where you can do a ‘rock to resin’ compared to a ‘learn to lead’.

The remit of all the MLT awards and the content of all the MLT training courses are ultimately anchored to the MIA/MIC. Any change in direction of the MIA must have a knock on. With courses such as the Irish MPA and the MLTUK pending Climbing Wall Leading Award occupying previous MIA only territory (or territory that could only be entered under the ultimate guidance of an MIA) then this link becomes tighter. Want to register as an MIA candidate? The SPA is not required but is recommended. If more intermediate awards are brought in, will they also be recommended?

Now I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I’m just saying that the MIA/MIC community is the peak of a very large mountaineering community (in the sense understood by the BMC) and that some downward consultation would be a good thing.

And thanks for getting involved whether you agree with me or not, this is what we need.

In reply to Ron Walker:

Hi Ron,

I’m glad I annoyed you, nothing like it for getting people involved! However, I believe you have misconstrued my meaning. I chose the word inclination to mean that to which they are inclined, not the sense of that with which they can be bothered.

The fact is, not all climbers want to lead high level camping trips and not all competitive fell runners like big drops. That’s not to say they wouldn’t make very good instructors, at a high level, in the things they do like.

Now, I know this idea is a bit of a can of worms, so let’s have an open debate.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
But regardless of the grades of the award, they will still hire a MIA/MIC for what ever work it is, the grades they will have climbed to gain the award will have no impact on how they perform for their client.
>" The remit of all the MLT awards and the content of all the MLT training courses are ultimately anchored to the MIA/MIC. Any change in direction of the MIA must have a knock on. With courses such as the Irish MPA and the MLTUK pending Climbing Wall Leading Award occupying previous MIA only territory (or territory that could only be entered under the ultimate guidance of an MIA) then this link becomes tighter."
I fail to see how moving the assessed grade up 1 or 2 notches has any impact on courses that MIA/MICs provide. All it is does is marry up the personal climbing grade to the assessed grade.

If the number of qualified MIA/MICs goes down over time because of the grade increase, that helps guarantee work for those who are, or helps maintain a standard. It is all but impossible to pass a MIA/MIC having not climbed beyond 4c or III, so really the grades that are talked about, are all but in place.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Sadly, the world today wants to make it possible for everybody to do everything. It is crazy to create a qualifications system for every niche aspect of mountaineering, it would be even more complex than the kayaking scheme. If the system now is complex enough that a person looking from the outside in can't recognise who can lead or instruct what, then it is already too complex.

There might be several large ability leaps between the various levels, but that's life, if you are motivated and passionate about the outdoors, as well as possessing some level of ability then people will find the time to progress through the system, regardless of the climbing grade level, level of navigation, mountain walking days..... required.

In reply to summo: It does seem as though Paul is confusing the issue of personal grade with that of your teaching abilities. In reality during an MIA assessment you don't spend an awfully large amount of time proving that you can climb to the required level. It is, I would have thought patently obvious to the assessor whether or not the candidate is capable of the grade or not. What IS expected is that you are able to teach and make points whilst climbing at that grade, and as most of the bread and butter students an MIA has will be climbing at up to VS, I would say that it is an entirely appropriate level to be assessing at. I would have thought that the same applies to MIC.

In reply to mike kann: Yes, It will vary on course director and centre, but the personal climbing day and the rescue skills day will both be done on VS terrain. So in a pair you will obviously swap leads, leaving you with 1 day each leading VS 4c. The assessor will expect to cover a fair amount of rock, one to assess your climbing, quality or gear, stance management and secondly to gain the height to carry out the improvised rescue exercises.

Depending the needs of the clients(on the client days) you could well be leading VS again, or soloing lower grades rigging. So it pays to be more than happy at VS and above.

Hi everyone,

Just to attempt to clarify:

I am not advocating or suggesting anything other than I think a public forum on what people want or expect from the MLT award schemes, prior to the MIA review, would be a good thing. The idea of this thread is to see if there is enough interest to make canvassing for such a debate worthwhile. Looking at the responses to a parallel thread posted on the subject of the SPA, I think it is.

The fact that I posted on ‘ROCKTALK’ may have polarised the issue a bit. I have already inferred that this is not just about climbers but all stakeholders in the field of mountain awards.

When I started this thread I was thinking specifically about the emergence of the MPA (which is happy to have multi-pitch leaders climbing at Severe) and the MIC as an organisation who have raised their own bar unilaterally. Hence, the title of an ‘Instructing Grade Debate’.

However, in retrospect, I now think this title is doing the issue a disservice and tried to have it changed. That’s not how this forum works however, so I have to ‘run what I brung’ as they say. My views are not the issue; I am just one of many. I want to know if you want our views heard and debated on a wider stage.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

No they and the don't have to have either. There are more walls than you imagine that don't have a technical advisor, and also trained staff for that matter!

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
Just wondered, is there anything wrong with wanting to get an Instructor level qualification that allows you to:-
- teach multi-pitch, but only to beginners or lower level improvers?
- take people scrambling on grade 2/3

Much of the MIA syllabus is aimed at ensuring you can guide two clients, instruct two clients and most importantly, rescue two clients on multi pitch. Also the skills in safely moving together on easier ground.

None of this requires a very high level of personal rock climbing ability.

Competence at VS4c is required and I think this is a good minimum standard. But you don't need to be leading at E3 to take people up "the slabs" or great mountaineering routes like Amphitheatre Buttress. You do need all the skills I mention above. Pushing up the personal climbing standard required is likely to exclude a whole bunch of people who would make perfectly good instructors for beginners who want to learn leading and multi pitch climbing techniques. While at the same time making it the preserve of people who may not be so motivated to teach beginners.

There are also other elements such as Nav teaching and environmental considerations.

Not everyone who does, or plans to do, MIA wants to take clients up "E" grades. But they will want to do more than the SPA syllabus/qualification allows and be able to operate as part of a professional body for UK instructors - AMI.

As Andy Say points out - MIAs are very unlikely to take on work that puts themselves at risk - it's just not worth it.

I'll be very honest and state my own personal position.

I am a mid forties bloke, who has decided on an (eventual) career change. I've climbed to what was a reasonable standard in my day, but is now probably thought of as middle grade (lead E1). I'm Winter ML and IML qualified. I primarily teach navigation, but I also want to introduce beginners to the joys of rock climbing, but not just top roping and abseiling on single pitch crags. I am told I provide "a good day out" and am a "good teacher". Some of this comes from being, shall we say, a bit mature in years. I think I could provide a valuable service to the clients I would like to work with at the grades I want to work at. Why would it be necessary for me to demonstrate a personal climbing standard far in excess of what I would want to operate at with clients?

In reply to Gerald Davison:

Nice post, Gerald!

Seems close to my thinking from the 'Q&A - Jon Garside and Andy Say' thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=357801

Quote
--------------------------------------------------
But MIA's about far more than just how hard you can climb [...]

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

[...] There's a whole area out there that's beyond ML/SPA but below instructing 'hard rock', and MIA has to remain appropriately rigorous (on which note personal climbing grade is merely part of the picture when you consider the overall remit/syllabus) but attainable if it's to cater for those who need it for that. By all means introduce some kind of further endorsement for those who 'need' a badge to say they can climb E2, E4 or whatever, but not to the detriment of those for whom MIA as it stands says enough.
--------------------------------------------------
Unquote

In reply to mike kann:

Mike, sorry for this slight aside - is it really still that? It was that 25 years ago, don't you think it should be increased? Next you'll be telling me the rock climbing assessment standard is still only E1 5b. Whatever next...?

In reply to jon: Haha! Yes its still E1 5b, and you still only have to climb 10 TD Grand courses and 10 other Alpine peaks, but you have to to do 30 days ski touring with 15 on linked tours which I believe has increased. Personally I doubt I will ever get there, which is a shame. However as has been discussed elsewhere, teaching ability is absolutely independent of the grade you climb - I know high grade climbers who would make rubbish guides, and I also know low grade climbers who would make rubbish guides. At the end of the day I think that the grades need to be a reflection of the individuals ability to cope with whatever is chucked at them if the do-do hits the fan - and this ability is directly related to experience rather than technical prowess.

For myself whilst I may not be a Rockjock, I do know that in a crisis I can handle things and to some extent control things before they go downhill too rapidly. I also know that I have patience with learners and I also know that I can push people in the right direction even if their ability exceeds mine. To me these are the qualities which should be valued in a guide rather than a list of routes - whilst they are important to prove experience I think they are a long way from the mark of a good teacher. But then guiding isn't about teaching is it

In reply to jon: Well it has gone up a bit...
http://www.bmg.org.uk/index.php/eng/Guide-Training/Pre-requirements

In reply to mike kann and graham F:

First of all I think it is debatable whether a public forum is the medium in which to air this type of discussion. However, as the BMG makes public it's pre-requirements...

I believe that the standards should increase. I thought that 20 years ago (and I certainly wasn't alone) and I still do. To be fair, I suppose, the BMG link does suggest that it would be best to be able to climb E3 5c to be at ease at E1 5b at assessment, but that seems the only thing that is different from over 20 years ago - assessment then was E1 5b. (And, OK, a few more work experience days with a qualified guide/mentor.) I don't mean to put down climbers who aren't climbing at astronomically high grades, who would make excellent guides, (and here I mean rock, alpine and Scottish winter), but for an association that represents the highest mountain award possible, it seems ridiculous to not keep up with the times - just a little... If people see this as elitism then so be it. To own a guide's badge is in itself a form of elitism anyway.


Whether the MIA and MIC standards should increase, well I don't know, and as I hold neither of those awards I don't think I should even have a say. That should be up to the governing bodies and the members. One thing's for sure though, if they want parity in France then they'll have to. Maybe that should be a 'bolt on' module...

In reply to jon: I hear what you say. I think what you're neglecting is in reality what is required is for you to be a steady E3 leader - I had a conversation with Mal Creasy to that effect. Just as it says VS on the MIA form, in reality you need to be around the HVS/E1 mark, and by this I do not mean climbing the odd one or two but doing it consistently. The truth is that most aspirants, whilst maybe not the best at any one thing, they are extremely good alrounders. Why do you think we as a nation should increase our entry levels when in reality it is already a tough course and completely in line with all the other Alpine nations?

However it should also be noted that parity in Europe IS becoming a reality. MIA's and MIC's are now permitted to operate within their remit after having held their ticket for 2 years. Whether an MIA is equal to a Moniteur d'escalade is a somewhat moot point - they are two totally different qualifications with diametrically opposed priorities which reflects their nations ethics and style of climbing - how they could ever mesh is beyond me. What saddens me is that although Md'E is held in high esteem here (mainly because of the high level of personal performance required), the same is not true of the MIA there. Why this is I am not sure, but I suspect it is very much to do with the nature of the client in the respective countries. British clients are usually there to be instructed and taught with the aim of autonomy, whereas the French emphasis is on being guided - having been with both I can vouch for this. Perhaps with time this will change?

In reply to mike kann:
What saddens me is that although Md'E is held in high esteem here (mainly because of the high level of personal performance required), the same is not true of the MIA there.
>

Mike, I think the answer to your question is in the very nature of of the French as a nation. For instance, something like 230 people apply each year to start the guide's scheme. This has to be reduced to a manageable number. The ONLY way they can think of is competition. This is the way their brains work. It is a part of French life. Just drive on a French road and you'll see that... This is why they sneer at VS 4c and hold up 6c, 7a as a shining example of the way things should be done. Now that's elitism for you.

In reply to Gerald Davison:

Couldn't agree more.

I would love a change of career - but i'll never be able to lead at the required standard to pass the MIA assessment to be allowed to take beginners on easy, multi-pitch routes. Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.....

Excuse my extreme ignorance, but what is the MPA qualification? How do I get it and what does it allow me to do?

In reply to jon:
I think i am write in saying (but probably not in spelling) that the Frence provitoir (selection process) is not how far you get on 8c+ but is their eqivalent of E1, 5b and it how smoothly you climb it.
Feel free to shoot me down, as this is a distant memory from talking to a bloke over a beer who had just done it.

I think that whilst an ability to climb hard in many disiplines is important, as it will allow you to work in comfort with the volume turned down so to speak, it is more about your ability to guide, instruct and manage people.

The various training awards/ qualifications don't show you how to climb hard/ competantly etc, it is a given that you can do all that before you turn up, they teach you the other bits that you don't get from a life time mountaineering with your mates.

Interesting thread, i'm getting into this rocktalk lark as the winter and alpine forums are quiet...

James e

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Do I call you Mr Walrus? No Matter.....

The MPA is an award available in Ireland through BOS and MLTNI. It appears to require the SPA and some multi-pitch experience as a prerequisite and is aimed at leaders taking relative novices up multi-pitch climbs, the standard is Severe as with the SPA. Not for instructing leading and presumably not major cliff territory.

If you check out last Friday's live chat with Andy Say and Jon Garside, you will find a little about MLTE's slant on it. Google BOS MPA for more info.

Regards, Paul

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Mr Walrus would be fine - I certainly have a look at the MPA qual. It would certainly suit the likes of me if it were to be introduced over here...

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

BTW, is the NPA valid over here??

In reply to James Edwards:

No shooting down required.

First of all comes an interrogation by a panel of experts into the candidates list of routes making up his/her pre-requirements. Usually someone is eliminated at this stage. The probatoire follows and is held over a number of days. It is divided into several disciplines, each of which can be eliminatory. They are skiing, ice climbing, rock climbing and movement over rough ground. All are against the clock and against other candidates, and score points. They have to score more than 12/20 in each, though if they score really high in one then a slightly lower score in another may be overlooked. Unlike the Moniteur d'Escalade, the rock competition takes place on 'natural' rock. To arrive at exactly the grade they want, masking tape is used to eliminate holds. The routes are 'designed' to give an escalating grade. If I have missed a bit out I'm sure I'll be corrected...

The Moniteur competition takes place on a climbing wall and candidates have to climb against the clock and have to succeed on two out of three routes. They must do a 6b and 6c (women) or a 6c and 7a (men).

I don't uphold this for a second. I'm simply explaining how it works here in France. I totally agree that climbing hard is not a measure of how well someone can teach or guide, other than, of course, a client is not going to be impressed by an instructor or guide that struggles on the route they are guiding.... However, my point is that surely in twenty odd years, the guide's pre-requirement and assessment standards (UK) should have increased a little to keep up with the general rise in climbing standards.

In reply to jon:
Interesting Jon. I am genuinely interested (in an absolutely non adversarial way) to understand why you feel it is necessary for the Guides scheme tests to increase in difficulty. You very eloquently explain the French scheme, with its combative element. But then appear to suggest that the UK scheme needs to move up in requirement.

Just because the "average" rock climbing/ice climbing grades are moving upwards, does not mean that the type of person who is planning to use a UK Guide needs their instructor to be able to climb at a higher standard.

There are people who hire guides specifically for very hard routes - I can think of a few high profile examples, such as Ran Finnes on the Eiger. But the majority still hire Guides as an introduction. So why should the guide need to be so far in advance of the requirements of the majority of clients?

Surely it makes sense to have sufficient well motivated Guides who want to teach and enjoy the people aspect of the work, rather than try to increase the base standard so far above that which is needed to satisfy the demands of the large majority of clients?

Virtually everyone working in the outdoors will only do what they feel capable of - so you will always find the one person who will be willing to take you up the classic Eiger Nordwand route, but stood alongside them will be a dozen others who are more happy teaching basic Alpine skills and leading trips up classic 4000m peaks.

The French scheme encourages entry level "grade inflation", but just because they "stick their hand in the fire" it doesn't mean we have to.

As you say, it encourages people who have very high personal performance standards, but does little to ensure that the people with excellent teaching and interpersonal skills also prosper. So why should we follow suit. Beginners are beginners, their standard hasn't increased, so why the need to have higher entry and assessment requirements for those that teach or look after them?

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
If you look at the guidebooks containing UK Trad climbing it becomes apparent that a competency at VS4c allows for access to a huge variety of locations and routes of excellent quality.

It also allows for a margin of safety and skill that puts you above the average beginner who may be coming to you with high technical skills from the climbing wall, but little or no outdoor ability.

These people can reasonably expect to be completing outdoor leads at S/HS in a couple of days, so you do need to be above their standard by at least a small margin.

Competent and fluid progress at VS4c seems to me to be a good basic level to allow teaching to this group, which I suspect makes the majority of people who come to Instructors for tuition. These people want to learn the building blocks of safe lead climbing, which can be done on a VDiff to HS as well as an E3, probably better in fact on the easier climbs.

There will be a group of clients who want to climb harder and be "guided" rather than learn techniques. Let the MIA/C who wants to do this take them on!

In reply to THE.WALRUS: Is that really true though? Will you never be able to lead at the required standard? Climbing HVS consistently is something that could be attained pretty easily I'd say. I mean I'm a total loafer and I climb HVS most weekends... If I had the time to put my mind to it I'm sure I could get better, but it would mean relocating to feel a bit more inspired, getting a steady better paid job, so that I could get away more etc... at the end of the day they're all excuses. If you really wanted to be an MIA I'm sure you could be - it's not a mystically unattainable goal... So flap your flippers and get to it I know you have an added elemnt of difficulty - can't be easy climbing with them flippers

In reply to jon: I didn't realise the level for Moniteur was 7a... I'm even more baffled now as to why they look down on MIA... even I could get myself into a position to be onsighting 7a on plastic...

In reply to Dark Peak Paul: Steve Long (MLT) is coming on the forums on Friday (tomorrow), I'll send him a link to this thread.

Interesting topic.

Jack

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Thanks Jack,

I intended to join in around lunch time!

Regards, Paul

In reply to mike kann: There is a big difference to plastic and rock 7a. It's interesting reading through this thread. There are some valid points from current instructors ranging from SPA?ML to MIC, not to mention those outside this apparent tight cirle of top instructors.

The MPA that runs in Northern Ireland does have limmitations. There are many areas you can not go with this award, and it is only a guiding award. This does mean that if you want to teach (leading) on multi p[tch ground then it's MIA.

VS as a minimum standard does the job at the moment. This is only French 4/4+. If you want a career instructing then this is not too much to ask to get yourself to what is a modest standard and is already climbed by about 50% of the climbing community at least.

The arguement of instructors still climbing the minimum standard after assessment is one that will go on for a lot longer I feel. We don't get re assessed and are just meant to keep a log book. That is surely to prove that we are still at the minimum standard. Most other coaching qualifications are re assessed every 3 or so years. MLTUK and AMI continued professional development courses are great resourses to further knowledge or discuss topics, but don't address any of the standard issues that have been talked about lately. It is fair to say that you will work on the grades your comfortable, but is that client getting someone that is current (still at the same standard or above they were assessed at). Most other proffessions change and improve with the stardards and trends of the times. Our profession has had the same standards for a long time and times are changing and clients needs are moving forwards thanks to modern facilities. I don't know the answer, I have my our opinion which I don't think is appropriate for me to share on this forum as a professional in this area. I can understand the confusion that people mention when wanting to hire an instructor. As a member of AMI and the MIC community I'm trying to give the best account of myself so that potential customers can have the needs met.

I hope this helps explains a veiw from (sort of) from inside the circle so to speak.

Adam

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Well Mr Walrus,

Here is a quote from Andy Say of MLT on that very subject;

Paul, Richie.
The MPA administered by Bord Oiliúint Sléibhe is an award which builds upon their SPA. In so far as you require no particular qualification to work in the outdoors in the UK the MPA may well be regarded as a valid means of 'demonstrating competence'; you might need to go a bit further and illustrate why it is relevant to precisely where you are working.
It's maybe worth flagging up that the HSE recognise four routes to competence and MLT subscribe to that concept totally.
1. Have gained a relevant NGB award (MIA from MLTUK)
2. Have gained an equivalent qualification (MPA from BOS?)
3. Have recieved equivalent training and assessment (the Technical Advisor route mentioned above)
4. Experience. You've done it a hell of a lot and can demonstrate that your experience has given you the relevant competencies.

As Jon [Garside] has previously suggested we would see our qualifi cations as 'enabling' people to demonstrate competence rather than acting as 'licences to operate'.

er, yes it does! Whilst I agree that "beginners" are still "beginners", the average ability of clients is increasing, and I regularly have clients who climb at French 6b, WI5/6, ski 40+ degrees.
Modern equipment, skis and ice tools, climbing wall fitness, etc all mean there are plenty of very capable clients around.

In reply to akhughes: Absolutely - the exam is on plastic, hence why I was saying I could get myself to this standard, having onsighted consistently at 6b+ on plastic. I guess my point is - if Britains emphasis was on sport climbing like Frances is, I think we could expect many more Britons to be onsighting 7a. Therefore, considering my personal emphasis is on trad and I am still near the required standard, despite climbing sport once in a blue moon, is the MIA standard really so very different to the Moniteur? It would be interesting to hear from a moniteur who is also a trad climber, what sort of level they climb at on trad... I suspect many French moniteur's will hardly ever climb trad and have very little expertise in this area. Furthermore as they don't require anything like an ML to sit it, it seems that there is a gaping hole in their expertise by comparison to what we must achieve, despite being at a high technical standard. So considering France grudgingly deems the Md'E to be roughly equivalent, should we raise levels?

In reply to mike kann: It's not always on plastic. You only have to get up 7a without relying on you belayer. You can rag on draws or clip into them for a break if needs be. You don't really want to be doing this.

You would be surprised how many MIA's can not onsight 7a. A number of moniteur's I've worked with are exceptional trad and alpine climberr's as well. There award covers more aspects in common with ours than I would have thought. they just use them in different settings, Canyons and via ferrata, as well as climbing. I have heard a number of current instructors complain they have no chance of gainning equivelance at the moment as they can't meet the standards the french have set.

In reply to akhughes: Fair enough - I've never had a chance to look at the syllabus. On the subject of grades though, how much do you think the level at which our instructors onsight to in Britain is affected by the countries obsession with trad? I would have thought that most MIA's if they put their mind to it would be able to raise the bar to onsighting 7a if they really wanted to and trained for it... saying you can't do it because you've never tried is quite different to saying you can't do it when you've been going at it for years...

In reply to mike kann: I Agree. I'm a firm believer that anyone could climb E1 and 7a if they really had the commitment to do so. I was a trad only guy up until the last couple of years, only on sighting sport routes, never redpointing. Since embracing the dark side my grade has shot up in both sport and trad. It is so easy to say that stardards are to high in a sport. We don't say the standard is to hi for a doctor's training and assessment, but they are responsible for peoples health and safety as well, but their environment is far more controlable.

In reply to akhughes: Well now you just make me want to climb a 7a onsight to see whether I could do it

In reply to mike kann: Get on it man! It will come quicker than you think. enjoy!

In reply to mike kann:


Does the standard for the Guides have to sit above that of MICs? There is not a heirachy between them, they are seperate awards administered by different bodies for different environments!

FWIW I suspect that there have historically been clients who have hired guides rather than MICs because they see them as better able to drag them up the Point. For this type of work the distinction between being comfortable on III versus V is relevant. For learning to lead Dorsal Arete I suspect that it is not!

In reply to Gerald Davison:

Firstly let me point out that I was not describing the French scheme, just their selection tests. My point was that competition is the only way the French can find in selecting their candidates and was therefore mildly taking the piss. By the way, Britain doesn't need these tests as there are never enough candidates to require them. Interestingly, however, a few years ago the British pre-requirements were higher than the French (this is probably still the case, but I'm not sure). The difference is made up by the French during their aspirant phase when they are expected to climb long hard Grandes Courses as part of their assessment.

I think you are wrong in your idea that clients are beginners - maybe they are for SPA, and a little less so for MIA MIC, but guides clients are often committed climbers who for one reason or another can't find the time or partners to climb in a normal relationship. This goes for all the disciplines of guiding - climbing, skiing, alpine etc. I rarely do anything more than AD+ with clients as I value my own life. I do, however, get requests for harder routes which I hand on. I have clients who rock climb at F7a, and have in the past guided clients on E5s. This is not willy waving, it's fact. How silly would a guide look if he/she had to sheepishly tell the client, no, it's too hard for me. OK, I can hear you saying, what if they wanted to do an 8a... I can't answer that.

I understand your argument. I have heard it before. It's the argument of the faction of the hierarchy of guides who are opposed to change. I don't agree with it. Period. If standards had remained the same as they were when the British guides were accepted into the UIAGM in the 70s, they would now be lamentably low. They didn't, they increased, so why now let them stagnate for more than 20 years? I remember a conversation back in the mists of time with Pat Littlejohn on just this subject. Pat was of the same opinion and thought a more realistic rock grade would be E3 6a... I thought this was too high, so you see even like minds will find it hard to agree.

As Graham F points out, modern equipment in all disciplines means people can operate at a far higher level now. The professional associations have to move forward and let their standards reflect this.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Of course there's a hierachy! MIC is not the highest qualification you can gain - Guides is... If MIC was the same level as MIC then what would the point of MIC be other than for people not interested in Alpine climbing or Skiing. And lets face it, what kind of a weido would you have to be to not enjoy getting up at the crack of dawn to go get scared s**tless on a cold dark north face, or skinning up a mountain with your lungs about to drop out?

In reply to mike kann:

As Jon has stated above I think you are merging 2 very different schemes, which offer a different service or product. The guides will generally guide and teach / coach what is required to achieve their goals (I know lots of Guides do teach / instruct / develop their clients ). The MIA/MIC is generally more about Teaching and Coaching (hence being SPA, ML etc. providers), with a 'lower' emphasis on purely guiding someone up a route. Their respective titles and syllabuses say it too.

It's about where on the Teach-Coach-Guide route do the quals aim at, then the climbing standards have to match up. Any grade setting needs to work backwards from what the clients' needs are, perhaps an internal survey of clients route choices and average ability would be better way to approach grade setting. That way the schemes produce mountaineers who match the markets needs.

As has been said already the world has moved on, those that are cash rich / time poor, no longer want to just stand on the cioch or have a climbing experience, they want some of steeper harder stuff because they saw it on TV, a mate at the wall/gym did it last year, so they have climbing ambition that their proper job prevents them fulfilling.

In reply to mike kann:

It's all about equivalence. For a British guide to work in France, despite being the proud wearer of a badge, he needs a Certificat d'equivalence issued by the Minister of Sport. Not many people bother, but it is the law. The UIAGM accepted the Brits way back due to the hard work of John Brailsford, and by being members of the UIAGM were accepted in France. The BASI dragged their heels and we all remember the ski instructors getting thrown out of French resorts. BASI rectified that and had to do a module where they raced through slalom gates chasing a ridiculous time... (I think this is now all handled very professionally 'in house'). This may not have much relevance when teaching a bunch of school kids, but they have gained acceptance.

There is a part of the Moniteur's course where they have to climb Terrain d'aventure - trad. Whether they continue after the get their ticket is up to them, but it's wrong to label them as entirely sport climbers. It's quite hard for a moniteur to make a living entirely from climbing, so many turn to the easier options like Via Ferrata, ropes courses and Canyoning.

In reply to summo: I do realise that - that last comment was a touch tongue in cheek though. But that is the public's perception though very often isn't it? That Guides are the be all and end all of mountain instruction? I absolutely agree with you that the personal climbing grade should reflect the likely customers. Of course you will have anomalies with clients climbing very very hard, but that does not necessarily mean that the standard in general is much higher. Instructors as you point generally deal with scrambling through to VS in an instructional situation, maybe harder if guiding. Maybe what needs to be introduced is a system of distinguishment so that MIA/C's who also coach at a very high level carry an extra title to indicate this to potential clients, a bolt on if you will, indicating a higher level?

In reply to jon: Potentially this could also be a way of gaining better recognition from the french too? People wanting to operate abroad would have to sit an advanced exam, maybe demonstrating a higher level at lets say E1 and 7a onsight, thereby making it directly comparable?

In reply to mike kann:
I think a 'bolt on' advanced module is not a silly idea... but are you sure you mean E1 and 7a, Mike? Or is that tongue in cheek too?

In reply to jon: Screw it, why not... F7a though... not going anywhere near English 7a...

In reply to mike kann:

I was referring more to your equating F7a and E1...

In reply to jon: Well if you climb E1 then surely you should be able to redpoint and develop you way to 7a onsight? Of course they are not directly comparable, its sports vs trad, but if you're going to embrace the French method (a sentence which puts the fear of god in girls the world over ) then you might as well embrace it. If thats what Monituers do, then I guess an MIA+ would involve what they do... Plus E1 would indicate a rock ability approaching that of a guide.

In reply to mike kann:
Not required, if an instructor receives an email or phone from someone with a request they can't fullfil (for what ever reason), they will generally recommend or pass the work on to someone else by name, rather than just decline the work.

In reply to summo: Of course they would, but what would actually be the harm in this? It could be purely based on personal performance, or combined with a performance skills coaching module. This way your average climber could still attain the MIA, and those wanting greater recognition could take the extra exam? It solves a grade creep problem and defines the individuals skills better, and also allows the MIA to really understand the mechanics of performance better so as to enable him/her to convey this better to the client...

In reply to mike kann:

Ah.

In reply to jon:


Surely that is illegal under EU legislation on mutual recognition of professional qualifications? If a German doctor is qualified to work in a Portuguese or Finnish hospital, surely a British mountain guide is qualified to work in Chamonix or Courmayeur?

In reply to mike kann:
It adds another tier to an establish qualification and confuses the novice climber client even further?

"This way your average climber could still attain the MIA,"
It should be hoped that an MIA is NOT your average climber, but one operating in the top few percent of the mountaineering world, otherwise whats the point of the whole thing? How could they train and assess with any credibility?

"It solves grade creep problem"
There is no grade creep problem, it is a question of do the schemes move their standards upwards in line with the general progression of the mountaineering world. Many years ago, your MIC training course was also your assessment, all done in a oner over a week. The scheme progressed on from this to seperate courses, a grade change is just progressive evolution, not a problem creator.

" and also allows the MIA to really understand the mechanics of performance better so as to enable him/her to convey this better to the client..."
If the grade was bumped up one or two notches would the aspirant MIA not then have a greater understanding of improving climbing performance, as they had to take those steps themselves to meet the pre-requistes?

In reply to mike kann:

I've onsighted lots E1s on different rock types and including long Norwegian mountain routes, but can't touch 7a on a top rope! I regularly fall of 6a+ and 6bs.

In reply to mike kann:

Do you think then, in principal, we could have an SPA+ (CIA ) for SPAs with MIA like climbing/instructing abilities who are not given to the more general mountainous aspects?

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

Sounds good, perhaps limiting them to 1km from a main road, 250mabs and in good weather, with straight forward approaches and descent routes. Sea cliffs with beaches? or do we create another qualification for that too?

Better still, why not create 1 million different schemes, to suit everyones needs, then no one is denyed the chance to get a qualification? Why should climber X who does not like naving, scrambling or hill walking be prevented from becoming a mountian instructor, it's against his human rights..

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

More seriously, how will instructor deal with rescues or problem solving scenarios, navigate to and from the crag, deal with scrambling approaches or decent routes?

In reply to summo:

Presumably, in the same way the BOS MPAs do? Come to think of it, if they have the same remit as an SPA bar the single pitch bit, then there won't be much to the navigation, shouldn't be any scrambling or tidal worries and I presume multi-pitch evacuation will be part of the training.

Or maybe we should scrap the SPA to keep a common remit for all outdoor instructors?

In reply to summo:


You know what I mean. I would consider myself as a climber of average ability. I am part way through my assessment and I hope to complete it soon. The MIA IMO should be a qualification which anybody with the will power can attain, rather than an elite squad, so that they can train at the average level at which people learn in the UK and on the types of routes and rock which they will most likely experience.



What I meant by grade creep creep is that client standards are improving. An advanced MIA should currently have no problem becoming an MIA+ were it to exist - there are loads of MIA's out there who climb E1 and beyond every day! That doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of others out there who couldn't be teaching low grade climbers they require. Whats so wrong with a level of distinction?


Of course but this doesn't address the issue of performance coaching which is currently lacking in the basic course. I know from having done BASI courses that there is a world of difference between what MIA's are currently taught in training and what a low level BASI Instructor is taught - there is not really much understanding of the deconstruction of climbing movement, balance etc. which would be an entirely appropriate thing to learn. Yes you can do it afterwards through AMI, but thats not the point. If you add it to the training it gets even longer, and I'd say is not entirely necessary to teach a beginner to lead etc. So really my suggestion would be on two levels, that by developing your personal climbing in a formalised environment (i.e. a course and exam) you could be taught to coach more effectively. Plus for those people interested in teaching abroad it would bring their qualification into line with others. Anyway its only a suggestion, and I am kinda thing out loud...

In reply to TobyA: Alright Toby! I know what you're saying. I think my point is that as a steady E1 climber, you would in reality be climbing E2/3 on a good day, and you would be able to climb any E1 that was thrown at you. If you can do that then 7a surely wouldn't be a great leap would it? Especially if you trained for it?

In reply to jon:
I fear I have confused you Jon - I'm sorry.

I was more aiming my comments with regard to the UK MIA, rather than the Guides scheme.

My impression (from discussion with others) of what makes up more than 50% of MIA work is the initial training of relative novices in leading outdoors, particularly on multi-pitch. Many of these people have started out indoors, or done some outdoor top roping.

They are seeking training in safe techniques in the use of trad protection, organising and setting up intermediate belays, systems for retreat etc.

Other "bread and butter" MIA work is in traditional navigation training and scrambling.

It is this "market" I seek to work with.

I believe that someone operating comfortably at a personal level of UK VS4c, with the necessary skills in the techniques above (plus a lot more of course) would be able to provide a safe course and meet clients requirements.

Only a relatively low percentage of the work an MIA is called upon to do is "guiding" on higher graded routes. There are plenty of MIAs and Guides who do want this work. I wouldn't be one of them......

In reply to mike kann: My problem with the MIA+ idea is it is just yet another qualification. The whole of the mountain qualification scheme is too complex for those looking at it from outside of it. BELA, WGL, ML, IML, EML etc.. You can be an MIA without doing SPA, but you can then train / assess it. You can work on an ML(summer) course as an ML(summer) but not direct it. You can work as MIA with out a winter ML, but need it to direct ML courses and on it goes. Then add in If you draw them out on piece of paper, they don't flow or progress, it is just line all over the place, apart from MIC at the top. Introducing yet another tier would just confused. The one thing the guides scheme has, is the straight line progression through and statements of exactly what you are qualified to do at each stage.

You could run a compulsory 2 day coaching workshop which the aspirant MIA has to attend prior to assessment, but that's kind of the same thing.

I think the system should be just like we preach our stances to be and keep the whole system clean and simple, that way everyone understands what is going on.

A comment just came up at work; how many people climbing in the UK were taught by folks with no qualification at all?

Not for a moment suggesting that the various awards have no value, far from it, but it sort of puts things in a perspective.

In reply to summo: I see what you're saying. However the way assessments are run is a bit of a wierd point to make it with - the only time you would look at this is if you were doing them! BELA is not MLTUK so why that's in there I'm not sure, EML is now the IML, so really you are left with SPA, ML, MLW, IML, MIA and MIC. MIA+ would be a bolt on to MIA, thereby not devaluing the MIA that people already have but as a mark of the highest quality MIA there can be - effectively the levels suggested would be tantamount to guide in the grades debate. You would still be an MIA though... If people like Gerald felt they didn't need this extra level then that would be up to them - like he says he wouldn't take on that sort of work anyway. It doesn't make them any less capable of teaching what they need to teach though.

Really what we're at logger heads over is not the need for the implementation of a higher grade, but how that occurs. Without revamping the whole system and the ensuing confusion I don't see how it will ever be that neat or simple, unless we go back to the old days of MI's which the whole thing being one big course!

In reply to mike swann:
I'm one of them Mike... but then again my belays left a lot to be desired until someone more knowledgeable put me right! The first time I had to ab off was the first time I thought about how I would manage it.

I survived this phase (nearly 30 years ago now), but I wouldn't recommend it.

Ah the impetuosity of youth!



/off topic

In reply to mike kann: I think the only thing that can be done is increase the grade and leave the rest alone. Adding in additional quals will cause confusion.

The holders of the highest summer and winter qualifications need to be clearly at the top, there can't be a split within a qual.

You can apply your VS/E1 theory to the MIC qual, how many are happy teaching on I/II terrain with no desire to take clients up harder routes.

At this risk of repeating myself, it is cruel world but there simply can't be a qual. to suit everyones needs. Some people may be deprived of a particulary avenue of work but is that really justification to create another tier. What about those that might want to assess MLs as a director, but aren't motivated towards the climbing, a special Navigation Tier? it could be endless.

In reply to mike swann:

I was one of them too, nearly got the chop a couple of times, went to PYB on an modern ropework course and enjoyed the next 25 or so years a lot more!

In reply to summo: I certainly wasn't suggesting splitting it any more than it already is. I personally don't quite see the point of SPA... it seems restrictive enough to prevent any real teaching without going outside the remit. I've always felt that it is partly responsible for this big myth that there's a big difference between single pitch and multipitch climbing - other than stance management is it really that different? Personally I would be in favour of extending the SPA remit to MPA remit, raising the standard to VS 4c and calling it quits. You would not need an inbetween level, and would prepare you much better for MIA. Ah ok how about this for an idea: You do the above, you make it compulsory for MIA training, and this then removes some of the requirement in the MIA training to do with multipitch just like Nav plays a much smaller role as you have already proven that you have attained particular level. This then leaves extra room for performance coaching, and you raise the bar for personal climbing to lets say HVS 5a. This retains the number of awards. SPA's could be converted to MPA with a course, giving them the freedom to teach non remote, easy access multipitch (lets say for example Avon Gorge or the roaches) but also ensures that the standard is moved on a notch.

In reply to mike kann:

So in your view what is the remit?

In reply to mike kann:

Mike,

I would deffinitely see this as a positive and liberating step. It still leaves the teaching of leading question of course, an area which appears to be reaching a sucessful conclusion for the CWA.

In reply to Paul at work: Climbing in any single pitch environment in which a second can be safely lowered to the ground without a second rope and in which that second will then be safe without further assistance from the instructor. I.e. non-tidal, non mountainous and generally non serious, without the requirement of teaching to lead. My difficulty with it is not so much with that in principle but in pratice - lets say for example you go to the Froggatt and lead somebody up Valkyrie. It is perfectly safe to lead a second up this - you can lower them to the ground, its flatish ground at the bottom, you're 10 minutes from the road with a great big track along the top. But it's "multipitch". There are lots of cases like this around. So as an SPA to you a) lead the route in one pitch - then its in your remit with a load of rope drag, thereby showing worst practice or b) climb it as a two pitch route knowing that you're going outside your remit...

In reply to jon:
I disagree with your comment 'Not many people bother', in regards to members of the British Mountain Guides having a certificat d'equivalence. I think you will find that almost all BMG members regularly working in France have equivalence.

In reply to Jon Bracey:

Sorry Jon, I stand corrected. There was a time when very few guides did as it was a real struggle to get one. It took Fred Harper months - he was the first to apply. It's good to see people doing things correctly.

Your reply might go some way towards providing an answer to Toby who seems to think that it's unnecessary to have one.

Jon

In reply to mike kann:

Valkyrie would be a poor example, as you could climb that in one pitch using two ropes, and extending well. Which would then still be inside your remit.

There are various single pitch routes that I have climbed that are better split in to two pitches. Likewise there are a few multi pitch climbs (not Valkyrie ) that would be better climbed as single pitches, or are used frequently by SPA holders.

There is a great range of ability with the SPA, from those with an only just scrapped through pass, to those people who are operating at the very top of the grey area of their award. Why is it so grey at the top end? So that people that are in that position can make their own judgements and hence their own calls on what they are doing, depending on their experience. As Andy Say said the other day (try saying that several times, really fast!) an award is only one of the ways to showing relevant experience.

The two most important words that any climbing instructor (NGB qualified or not) of any level should know are - depends and judgement.

In reply to mike kann:

Mike, I think routes such as either of the Valkyri (?) are excluded from the SPA remit by virtue of being decribed in two pitches in the guide book. Also Black & Tans, Black Velvet, Great Slab, Great Harry ........

Caveat 2 of 5, section 2.3

In reply to Dark Peak Paul: That was my point! Surely if you are experienced enough to think you can teach, you should be able to responsibly take a second up a simple multipitch route. I find the who differentiation between multipitch and single pitch a rather contrived one, unlike remote/serious and non remote which is patently obvious. Because a guide book says how a route has been traditionally pitched, does that make it the only way to do it? There are any number of routes you could do which are more or less a straight line but have been split into 2 or 3 pitches for historical reasons (e.g. short ropes) but which are still recorded as such, despite technology moving on...

In reply to Paul at work:


I personally think that S is a very low standard for someone to be climbing at to then go an and teach people - as such you could gain the experience extremely quickly resulting in people "scraping through"...

In reply to mike kann:

In which case, make your decision to the way that you are going to climb it, and do it with your clients.

Tidal cliffs are also not included, in the SPA scheme, but you see plenty of SPA holders and the like climbing at Three Cliffs Bay on the Gower. It is often used for SPA assessments, as well.

In reply to mike kann:

The scraping through has nothing to do with their climbing grade. Its normally down to their lack of ability in selecting the best set up for the location that they have chosen to use with their clients. I.e. Judgement.

In reply to Paul at work: Well OK, if you want to keep it wooly, why not include simple multipitch then? There is no ambiguity then... the remit would be climbing in non serious or remote situations up to one rope length from ground level. Its far clearer that way - you retain the lack of self rescue requirements, and you open up possabilites. I would have though it might add a days to training which would be a hardship

In reply to mike kann:

Then we can argue about what counts as remote or non serious instead Cos that will be different to different people.

As far as the climbing grade requirement, my personal view is that it makes no difference. There are various people around that haven't passed their MIA, who are climbing well in advance of grades that you are talking about. And its not their climbing ability that let them down.

In reply to mike kann:

I get your point entierly but you were specific in using the term 'within your remit'. I was just pointing that out for clarity. It cuts both ways, if a route is described as being climbed in two pitches but you run it out for expediency, strictly speaking it wouldn't be eligable as a representative climb for inclsion on an MIA application, as I read it.

The devil is in the details.....

In reply to mike kann:

But what about the people at the lower end of the scale then? You need to some have some rules to keep them rained in.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:
strictly speaking it wouldn't be eligable as a representative climb for inclsion on an MIA application, as I read it.


Those aren't really the sorts of route that you would want to include in an application surely?

If they are, then include them as you have climbed all the pitches.

In reply to Paul at work: You make it harder to pass?

In reply to Dark Peak Paul: Yep. But then the core of your MIA application should be based on a series of multipitch routes which ARE remote and serious, i.e. outside the gritstone edges of the Peak District For example, some of my routes in Cheddar were deemed as on the edge of what was required despite climbing through heaps of rubble and ivy, where as if I went to Idwal and climbed Tennis shoe and then original route, that would count...

In reply to mike kann:

So then you have lots of people who do the training and not many people passing and what would the point of that be? You will have the same situation as currently, but with a few extra people who can lead on multi pitch routes.

n reply to mike kann:

Agreed.

>For example, some of my routes in Cheddar were deemed as on the edge of what was required despite climbing through heaps of rubble and ivy,

Yeah but how many did you include from Cheddar?

>where as if I went to Idwal and climbed Tennis shoe and then original route, that would count...

No they wouldn't, sub VS 4c, if you are talking about personal climbing experience.

Anyhow I feel that we have become sidetracked slightly. Back to the main point, ask the MLT how many people get deferred or failed for their climbing ability, compared to other reasons.

In reply to Paul at work: What's the point of having SPA's if they're not up to the job? SPA's, MIA's - whatever level you look at they should be experts in within their particular area. Just because you train for something doesn't mean you should pass automatically does it? And I say that as someone who has been deferred. As for a few extra people, how many extra do you think would take the opportunity to lead up multipitch routes if they knew they could do so within remit and safely? Loads...

In reply to Paul at work: I had a third in non remote areas and 2 thirds elsewhere, mainly on seacliffs. Original route is VS 5a... my point is that you could motor up the A5(M) and get a VS which is far less serious than in an area which is deemed as "non-serious". Utopia feels serious when you're swinging from the ivy cornice at the top

I have no doubt that more people fail through complacency - I did. But then is this also not a little odd, that people waltz through their personal climbing but are unable to perform the tasks as required by the syllabus? That to me indicates they has spent too short an amount of time gaining experience. Case in point on my ML assessment there was a chap doing it having only 30days in the mountains. Ever. He was utter cack, he couldn't navigate, his rope work was nil, his personal skills were intrusive and annoying and he kept trying to poach other peoples nav answers. He was deferred on the basis on an extra 10 days when he would be allowed to have his ticket. This was at a very reputable centre. In my eyes the guy was not fit to be taking anyone out, but he still effectively passed...

In reply to mike kann:

Those that pass are, according to the person /s assessing them on that particular day. What is the role of the SPA? Well it start with safe sessions to novice climbers, all the way up to working on SPA training courses. Thats a wide range of ability. Do you really that a new driver, could pass their driving test on Monday and then on Tuesday become a Driving instructor?

>SPA's, MIA's - whatever level you look at they should be experts in within their particular area.

No they shouldn't they should be able to do what their particular client requires of them, there is no way that I would suggest that I was an expert, nor would many of my friends who are MIA holders.


True, but the proportion needs to be right, otherwise for a start assessment courses won't run, as people decide not to go on to assessment, because they hear its too hard. etc.


>And I say that as someone who has been deferred.

Are you will to share the reason why?

In reply to Paul at work:

Those aren't really the sorts of route that you would want to include in an application surely?

If they are, then include them as you have climbed all the pitches.

Whether I would want to include them is irrelevent. I'm just being pedantic Mike to illustrate that the remits of the awards are very specific. So no, climbing all the pitches in one go doesn't count (presumably neither would soloing them!)

Def 2, Section B, Appendix 1, Page 24, MIA Handbook 2006 (Honest)

If you wish to operate under Clause 4 of the HSE deffinition of competence, apply common sense by all means. Operate under Clause 1, read the handbook carefully I say!

In reply to summo:

And I think that you're just so wrong...

In reply to Paul at work: Yeah sure. My mountain scrambling day was underpar, not helped by the fact I turned up without waterproof trouser (mainly because I didn't have any after mine ripped a few weeks before and I was skint) which showed a lack of judgement and my teaching skills were lacking finesse. I have absolutely no problem with the standards being high - to me that's the point of a qualification. The process gave me a clear idea of what I needed to improve on.

In reply to mike kann:


Thanks for sharing that. The scrambling catches a lot people out, as its so easy to make a mistake, that's the one that got me when I went to my assessment. When are you going back?

In reply to Paul at work: Either the end of this summer or early next year. It was a funny one because I did ok until the heavens opened. Obviously this is when the trouser thing came into play, and we then went to the top of Idwal slabs and were scrambling down to get to the standard route off the slabs. Now if I have been in that situation with a client I would have used my experience and not been anywhere near that area when it was pouring down, but obviously that's not an acceptable answer! So what let me down was dithering for too long choosing a ssafe route, trousers and not wanting to be there in the first place!

In reply to mike kann:

That's a fair comment, I suppose - just because I don't doesn't mean that I can't.

Like you, I probably need to pull my finger out...

In reply to jon:

>

I just wondered - I'm not a lawyer, but I work on other areas of EU policy so know that in principle under single market legislation, professions have to be recognised in other member states. See: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/index_en.htm But reading around slightly I found that France in 2000, along with seemingly Italy, Austria and Germany had applied for a derogation for ski, diving and parachuting instructors and the Commission had granted this - http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/qualifications/general-system_otherprof... It doesn't mention mountain guides though.

I don't actually know, but what often happens in various areas is that member states keep enforcing previous national legislation until someone sues them and it goes to the European Court of Justice, that finds against the national government (thinks Bosman ruling in football or various case on car taxation and importation around Europe).

Hello to Jon Bracey as well - you were still at Leeds when I did my masters there. I remember you trying to show me how to do problems on the wall that I continued to hopelessly fail on!

In reply to TobyA:

Thanks for that. I suspect that if it includes skiing it will also include mountain guides and mountain instructors as they all come under the auspices of Jeunesse et Sports and in turn, trained and assessed at ENSA in Chamonix.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

To those suggesting scrapping the SPA or making the required grade harder may I point you to the BCU and their changing of their award scheme?

Most outdoor centres require people with a wide range of skills, not specialists. The new L2 is aimed at long term coaching and the new L1 does not have a high enough remit to be able to work in most situations. The new L2 takes longer to achieve in terms of cost and training.

As a result centres are starting to use an in-house assessment instead of getting their staff through the new L2. Moving the grade to say VS would have the same effect. By having the SPA we have a standard that is consistent and transferable.

By all means make the assessment tougher in terms of ropework, but let’s not forget about instructors who rarely use their award for anything other then top roping and are unlikely to ever need to lead for work.

In reply to Duncan_S:

Now, I may be wrong, but somewhere above I thought Mike Kann mis-spelt 'scraping' and indeed wrote 'scrapping'...

In reply to mike kann: Mike, I process all the MIA registrations and can assure you that I would certainly allow "trad" routes on Cheddar.

Ironically it would appear from what you said later that more time spent on Idwal Slabs would have helped your mountain day go more smoothly, leaky over-trousers or not! But neither of these venues is remote in the way that Carnmore, Llech Ddu, Esk Buttress are; these are the sort of routes that we really like to see within an application.

In reply to Steve Long: Yep - it was my big mistake. I figured spending a lot of time one alpine routes would help a lot with it, but underestimated the difficulties. Part of my problem is getting up to the mountains often enough so practice was not easy to come by...

I s'pose it's just a bit of an anomaly as on paper Cheddar is not a serious place, whereas Idwal is. Most of the time though I feel 100% comfortable at Idwal but often not the other way round! Hey ho! I'll get it this time round I hope... might see you soon!

In reply to all: interesting discussion, now a good few people may raise an eyebrow when I admit I have been thinking about gaining qualifications whether MIC or BMG, now one thing perplexes me about the UK based stuff. There seems to be a huge emphasis on navigation, to be honest I think the last time I used a compass in scottish winter was in the early 90's, so why the emphasis? The BMG is clearly focused on experience, but the UK focused qualifications appear to focus on this less so, surely experience is the most important mountaineering 'skill'?

In reply to Erik B: How do you assess experience? Ask them to carry out a task, say navigating in poor weather or at night, whilst leading a group in winter and let their experience and ability shine through?

In reply to Erik B:
>UK based stuff. There seems to be a huge emphasis on navigation, to be >honest I think the last time I used a compass in scottish winter was in >the early 90's, so why the emphasis?

Part of the role of an an MIA/C is to teach navigation. Whether you as an MI teach that or not, it's part of the award syllabus and fits in with the other schemes.

>The BMG is clearly focused on >experience, but the UK focused >qualifications appear to focus on this


So, to get to an MIC, you'll have had to have done (absolute minimum) 40+ days hillwalking in charge of a group post-ml; 50+ Mulitptich VS 4cs; 20+ days teaching rock climbing, 30+ days leading hillwalking in winter, 40+ grade IIIs; plus many days teaching winter climbnig. You'll have attended four training courses and four assessments. Does that not count as experience?

I've always viewed the most important part of my "qualifiation" is my log book, not my bit of paper that says "pass".

As far as I am aware, Guides have to pass a navigation test, too.

In reply to Davy Virdee: cheers Davy, very informative. Obviously requires full commitment, something for me to ponder as I sit at this particular set of life's crossroads

In reply to Erik B:

In the office the morrow - if ya want gives a call at the Lodge. Happy to chat about it wi you.

Cheers fur noo
George