In reply to timjones: Hi Tim, Andy’s taken a lunch break so I’ll answer this. (At least he was on one when I started writing this – I see he’s back now!)
There is one ‘gap’ that you feel should be ‘filled’, namely that between the SPA and the MIA, but I don’t feel that criticism can be levelled at all Mountain Leader Training schemes.
If one considers the Climbing Wall Award to Single Pitch Award, or the Walking Group Leader to Mountain Leader, or the Mountain Leader to Winter Mountain Leader, then I don’t see these as large gaps between awards. On the contrary, in each of these examples, the latter award builds upon the former.
I think that Mountain Leader Training do offer ‘accessible and relevant’ award schemes, but the very nature of a practical qualification requires that competencies are defined to ensure that everyone knows what is, and is not, covered. As there are no laws requiring people to hold awards such as MLT’s, then they can be viewed as enabling qualifications. They enable the holder to demonstrate competence in x, y and z.
The decision that has to be made is the degree to which awards cover either a range of activities, or are more fine-grained.
In your last two posts you allude to the teaching of summer lead climbing being currently included only within the MIA syllabus. Andy has mentioned that the public side of the Mountaineering Instructor scheme review will soon be launched, and that will provide an opportunity for you to get your view known.
The more Mountain Leader Training is made aware of what people desire in a qualification system the better.