UKC

I believe it is, however in a chat at work today their was a clear 50-50 divide between staff who believed it was and those who didn't. Just interested in general opinions. Cheers

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

IMHO if you take a rope and plan on using it, then you're out of remit, if you don't plan on using it and you're comfortable with that grade of scramble then I'd say you're ok. Personally I wouldn't be happy taking clients up there, but that's just a personal thing.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I remember asking this exact question on ML training as was told if you (the ML) thinks the client(s) are capable of it and everything's right on the day.

Dunno though, I'm not an ML.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

Yes. It's a grade 1 scramble that shouldn't need a rope.

..... but I'm not an ML. Yet.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

Depends what they are like for exposure imo. I took a friend up there earlier this year he's done a bit of indoor bouldering but never anything outside he was fine with the scramble but the exposure got to him a little

In reply to Kassius:

Thanks for responses so far, may be worth putting the conversation into context and mentioning that we were talking about ML assessment and whether or not it would be a likely venue used on the assessment itself.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:
It's certainly an assessment possibility...

I would say it's ok for an ML to take clients on it if they themselves are very confident on that sort of terrain and have suitable experience, plus the clients themselves must be capable.

I've taken people over there on ML trainings, but not on an assessment - I haven't avoided it on purpose, just hasn't happened yet.

I guess the question is that if things went wrong, would you be happy to justify your reasoning for taking clients up there?

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I've been along it with a group of school students guided by an ML. It went well and the kids loved it. Earlier on the same trip, they'd done some other easier scrambles so they'd worked up to it and the ML had got to know their capabilities a bit.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

Yes
Maybe
No

The answer could be any of those three depending on weather conditions, ML experience and group ability.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I would say absolutely not.

If a person slipped would they die? Yes, or be critically injured
Does an ML summer have the skills to prevent that person slipping? No

It is that simple.

All the talk of if they were confident, group ability, good weather, dry etc.. is irrelevant. It is the risk/consequence, versus the training and qualification of the individual. Curious what quals these 'staff' hold or do for a living, scary in fact.

EDIT, on an ML assessment you will not be on Crib Goch, naving around Cwm Glas in the dark perhaps.. maybe doing your ropework on a little outcrop in any of cwms around Snowdon, exceedingly likely. Crib Goch is MIA assessment/training territory.

In reply to Luke90:


that is quite scary really. Were they from an accredited centre(AALA)?

In reply to summo:
I've taken umpteen scouts across Crib Goch, Sharp Edge and up North Ridge of Tryfan and Bristly Ridge. Never had a moment to doubt doing it again.

edit: not in one day, obviously, that would be a long one.

In reply to summo:

"Does an ML summer have the skills to prevent that person slipping? No"

Would an MIA? How do you prevent a person slipping if you're escorting them along an arete, unless you have them on a rope? Which isn't what grade 1 scrambling is about.

In reply to XXXX:


Slightly worrying post there I feel. If you have really taken "umpteen" scouts on those scrambles without "a moment of doubt" then I would hope you have skills and judgement at or near MIA level in this aspect (and even then - perhaps especially then - you would have moments of doubt in relation to some groups in some conditions). I appreciate that the Scouts may not actually require ML or higher (eg MIA) in order for you to do this - at least they didn't a few years ago - but that is is also worrying.

Martin

In reply to Welsh Kate:



yes, you could rope then across, using various techniques depending the terrain. You might have them on and off the several times. Who says grade 1 scrambling isn't about being on rope?

In reply to XXXX:


But if one said I'm going to fall, has a confidence failure, somebody knocks something onto them, could you honestly say you did everything to keep them safe?

In reply to Martin Hore:

The way the Scout Permit Scheme works is that people are given personalised Permits based on their skill levels, which can if necessary even be down to the individual mountain level. There are 3 "Terrains" which roughly map to the 3 levels of NGB award to ML, but the NGB awards themselves are not required (and if they were, Scout outdoor activity would near enough stop).

Scrambling for the last few years has been outside of T2 (to bring it closer to ML) and requires special authorisation based on skills but does not require MIA (again requiring this would mean almost no activity taking place).

Is it worrying? I don't think so - the Scout Association in recent years (after things were tightened up following a number of high profile incidents in the 1990s) has a very good safety record on outdoor activities.

In reply to summo:

The ML Handbook (at http://www.mountain-training.org/walking/skills-and-awards/mountain-leader ) talks about steep ground:
"It is difficult to define 'steep ground' exactly but it is generally broken, often vegetated with a fair proportion of visible rock, some loose, where the consequences
of a slip or fall might be serious."

"It is important that you develop good judgement skills and are able to choose routes through or around steep ground which are suitable for the group and do not require the planned use of the rope, which is beyond the scope of this award."

"However, situations may arise where the rope is necessary to safeguard members of the group."

To me, that makes it sound like it'd be entirely reasonable for a competent ML to judge that a particular group will be happy on something like Crib Goch and to feel that they've got enough ropework skills to deal with a situation where one of them has an unexpected confidence failure.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I'd say its the very opposite of worrying. Good judgement and relevant experience is the only issue as confirmed by the track record on moutain walks and easy scrambles. The TED talk from Tommy Caldwell is the ultimate answer to Summo's cotton wool approach.

The biggest preventable killer of this generation of kids is looking like problems around obesity. More topical the scandal of city pollution due to diesel emmisions will kill more kids than all of the UK outdoor activities combined.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Competent ML, but ML makes no assessment of a candidate ability to judge a person scrambling ability. The rope work isn't design to be used during the course of the day, it is an emergency measure.

A confidence failure in ML terms means confidence roping, or a sling, or even just holding their rucksack waist belt, talking to them, guiding their feet, educating them about foot placement etc... It isn't about being 10 or 15m above them, belaying them. Given that the summer ML involves no harnesses, helmets, climbing gear... only the simple use of a rope. Generally the concept when confidence roping is that should the person slip, the worst they would get is a dirty back side, it isn't short roping. The risk is of injury should be zero, otherwise the ML has chosen the wrong route.

It isn't about how they feel, it's about what the qualification has trained and tested them to do. There is a big distinction between a group of adults going for a scramble as friends, and a person with an ML taking control or responsibility of a group etc..

In reply to Offwidth:


It's not cotton wool, it's about people taking responsibility for other peoples safety within their own remit and skills. Good judgement is very judgemental, that's why there are specific skills assessed.


But, that's a different argument. An ML should be able to take some kids in the hills and give them a fun day, without it being high risk or near death. You are suggesting that because one activity or inactivity kills more, it's OK for a few people to die because their leader was out of their depth?

In reply to summo:


So when the Handbook says you should choose routes "through or around steep ground which are suitable for the group" it doesn't imply that an ML should be making precisely that judgement?


Where on Crib Goch can you even get 10 or 15m above someone?


Again, this is flatly contradicted by the ML handbook, which says that on "steep ground", "the consequences of a slip or fall might be serious" but that an ML may plan a route "through" steep ground if they consider it suitable for the group.

In reply to summo:

I'm hoping you don't really mean that.


I'm hoping you don't really mean that either. That suggests that a box ticked is better than experience and sound judgement.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Personally I've never consider that it is about selecting a good scrambling line.


perhaps a slight exaggerate, but there are places where you climb down and to do with 100% safety (ML requirement), you would need to belay from above.


it's a curious line as it implies it is OK to risk their safety when the leader doesn't have the skills. I would interpret this as perhaps a few rock steps, ie two climbing moves and it's over, where you can shadow each person from underneath. Not a long rocky, exposed ridge.

In reply to tony:

ML is walking qualification, why should there be any real hazards?


Of course not, the experience is a prerequisite of even getting on the course in the first place. But, the course tests specific rope skills, confidence roping, emergency lowers and belaying. None as a means of travel during a normal day.

In reply to summo:

"The risk is of injury should be zero, otherwise the ML has chosen the wrong route."

Don't agree with that.

As an experienced ML I took lots of people over Crib Goch.

As an MIA I still do, I still carry the same "emergency equipment" ie a rope plus a sling and krab. I wouldn't take harness - helmet unless we were specifically teaching something that dictated we should.

Is Crib Goch right for every client type? No.
Is Crib Goch right for every ML? No.
Does it depend on lots of other things, such as weather? Yes
Has this topic been discussed by ML types for years? Yes

And ultimately the question was:
Could you conceivably go there on an ML assessment? Yes

Obviously none of us have any legal requirement to posses a qualification to take clients hill walking / scrambling / climbing.

In reply to summo:


Is there such a thing as zero risk when you're walking in mountains?

In reply to jezb1:


but your ability to read the ground and improvise with a rope, is far greater than an average ML.

In reply to tony:


all accountable risks eliminated then. If you want to increase the risk then you wear a harness and helmet etc.. perceived risk, is different to real risk.

In reply to jezb1:

But, if you advertise as an ML, take the work then lead a person across Crib Goch, you are implying you have the skills to solve all problems en route, to keep them safe, but a standard ML wouldn't, unless they had a lot of other experience outside the ML remit.

In reply to jezb1:

I worked for many years as an assessor and director of assesment and find myself very much in agreement with your comments. Crib Goch appears in many mountain walking guides and as the award relates to mountain walking it would be reasonable to expect an assessment candidate to feel confortable on this kind of terrain. This does not mean that all ML holders would lead groups on routes of this nature, the decision being based on the leaders own capabilities together with those of the group and the likely conditions on the day. Some of the previous posters also need to remember that ML holders do not work exclusively with groups of young childeren.

In reply to summo:

Solve all problems?

What does that mean?

People slip and die on chalk cliffs in south. Which is lowland leader grounds. Judging by the danger level never really works.

I think it is ML grounds.

As leader I would be happy to take client out on arete if I would think they are up for it. I would make sure that nobody has vertigo and they are sure-footed. Smaller group. Maybe 1:6 ration. And not out from London for a first time.

In reply to tony:

When I lived in Snowdonia, until recently, I uses GC as an early morning training route - out & back. The No of kids I saw being taken across when they were clearly terrified is beyond counting. Surely they need to be enjoying it with a bit of adventure thrown in not just some idiot ticking his achievement boxes.

In reply to jezb1:


everything you said up to this point was spot on, but in the above you are wrong.

once holding an outdoor qual of any level, you do have a legal requirement to stick to the reemit of that qual if you are accepting payment of any kind (includes a few pints in the pub!) and therefore taking out 'clients'. of course anybody can take out friends or colleagues into the outdoors and if no payment is agreed then you have no legal responsibility towards them (other than that of being a decent human being).

if you hold no quals then you can take anybody out and charge as you like, but if something goes wrong you will have zero legal cover and expect to be sued and potentially imprisoned.

In reply to Webster:

That's not my understanding, but always happy to be proven wrong.

Can you link to anything that says that?

In reply to jezb1:

I don't believe he is correct either.

The AALA does apply to commercial provision of some outdoor activities, but the qualification requirements are not as he says (that I'm aware of).

In reply to Webster:
In summary, no.

I know there is the adventure licencing scheme for kids stuff but I don't know anything else about it so I will ignore that.

There is no legal requirement to guide in the UK. Ever. For anyone (outside the kids stuff). Having a qualification _may_ (depending on the situation) place a higher duty of care on you for your clients, but you don't need a qualification. If you have a qualification you don't need to stay within its remit.

What your insurance says is entirely between you and your insurance company.

Anyone can sue you for anything. This would be a strictly civil case, with no bearing on criminal law whatsoever, and consequently cannot possibly result in you being imprisoned. Whether they win or not depends on the facts of the case, not on whether you have a qualification or not (with the caveat given above that if you have a qualification you are potentially more likely to lose, as you should have known better).

Where on earth did you get the idea you could get imprisoned for taking people out without a qualification?

In reply to Martin Hore:

That's not quite what I said. I said "Never had a moment to doubt doing it [b]again.[/b]"

I have actually had relatively few doubts on those routes because I know them well and I know my scouts well. I've had more doubts on unfamiliar mountains on walking terrain when I had a group of scouts who had only just joined. But those doubts I've experienced on routes haven't led to me questioning doing it again the following year.

It's a judgement call isn't it? I know the routes really well so am able to provide adequate reassurance and anticipate most problems. People don't fall off Crib Goch when they are freaking out with exposure as it's a ridge, they just hang on tight. They don't fall off when they're being careful. They do fall off when they are overconfident and overstretch themselves on the pinnacles, for example, or messing around which is a problem for 14 year old boys, so I make my expectations clear early and stick to them.

In reply to Webster:



Civil liability insurance is up to the individual. I know at least one very competent and successful mountain guide who has no formal qualifications and doesn't seem to struggle to get insurance. Similarly, you are no more likely to be sued or imprisoned if you have no formal qualifications (all else being equal). If anything, formal qualifications will make it easier for the prosecution to prove gross negligence.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


it means that if one of your group lost confidence, you could help them for a few hundred metres coaching 1 to 1 etc.. but you could still safely manage the remainder of the group at the same time, possible on crib goch? Nope.

In reply to nigel n:


there is a slight differentiation between under and over 18yrs, but if you are employed as a professional (holding a qual) to take a party across Crib Goch, there is a presumption on the clients part, that the person would be appropriately qualified and trained for such a venture. I don't see this differing between adult or child.

I appreciate it is a grey area, often debated.

In reply to summo:


That's a generic group management skill, not a technical one.

In reply to summo:

My friend did his ML training with Plas y Brenin last November and they went over Crib Goch with full expedition packs before night naving to Llyn D'Ur Arddu.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I think it depends, if the party of competent it very much is and I guided it many times.

However as said if not and you plan on a rope, then no.

In reply to summo:

It's hard to work out why you bother to climb at all with such a daft attitude. Any mountaineering is a risk activity and the small amounts of risk invoved in ML style work commonly have massive benefits for the clients involved. You have been told by several experts its OK in the right circumstances (qualified ML or not) and yet continue to argue?

In reply to Webster

Go do a bit of reaserch on the BMC or mountain training sites before spouting such nonsense here: all the legal aspects are covered there, guided, non-guided, in loco parentis, etc.

In reply to Offwidth:

Indeed, let's look at page 1 of the ML Handbook, the Participation Statement:
"Mountain Training recognises that climbing, hill walking and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions. Mountain Training has developed a range of training and assessment schemes and associated supporting literature to help leaders manage these risks and to enable new participants to have positive experiences while learning about their responsibilities."

No doubt that's another strange wording, though, and by "accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions" it means "expect your guide to eliminate all of these risks".

In reply to jezb1:

Im just going by my recent - june - ML training at glenmore lodge (which i would therefore expect to be pretty reliable). no i cant link to anything as it was word of mouth by the instructors, and i cant be assed to try and look, you can google as well as i can.

>Where on earth did you get the idea you could get imprisoned for taking people out without a qualification?

well obviously only if something goes wrong... a very extreme end member but potentially manslaughter, and at least wilfull neglect. partly depends if you are claiming to be a 'mountain leader' or not in which case deciet may enter into the equation.

your all making good points though on having a qualification making it easier to be sued (due to higher duty of care), but it also makes it less likely for the case to be successfull, because as long as you did everything by the book you have no case to answer, even if somebody dies. to my knowledge no uK ML has ever successfully been sued?

If you are guiding formally (ie paid) and something goes wrong then you have no proof that you are adequately trained to deal with the environment you are claiming to be able to guide in (yes ukc logbooks may be good enough to us climbers, but i dobt they will stand up in court).

In reply to Webster:

There are two overlapping possibilities... Glenmore lodge are teaching badly or you are a bad listener. I know what my money would be on. In any case its all in black and white on the numerous bodies websites: go and read (and it will even help you qualify). ML allows easy scrambles with the usual risk assessment provisos.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

"by "accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions" it means "expect your guide to eliminate all of these risks".

No it doesn't, it means participants accept the risks and take responsibility for their own actions. It is not possible to eliminate all risk when undertaking outdoor activities. Volenti fit non injuria.

In reply to Webster:


I'm not going to google it, you're mistaken.

There is no legal requirement to have a qualification in the UK, nor is there a legal requirement to stick to your remit,

I am in way suggesting that I think it's a good idea to operate out of remit though..!

Different in other countries, such as the France where I could be locked up if I started guiding routes there.

In reply to Webster:




If you are claiming experience or skills you haven't got, then that is indeed potentially deceitful/fraud. But it has nothing to do with qualifications you may or may not have (e.g. if you have ML but got it 30 years ago and have forgotten everything vs not having ML but having the skills).


I was told recently that an SPA had been sued after an accident, and this was the first successful suit against an SPA (second hand information though). Your argument is a bit off though - you are assuming since you have a qualification you didn't make a mistake, whereas if someone dies then chances are you have... but in any event your qualification will not protect you.


How familiar are you with court proceedings to make the claim that UKC logbooks wouldn't stand up in court? In any event the court won't really care - they will look at the facts of the case first. Were you negligent or not? Given the experience/qualifications you have claimed, should you have done things differently?

Your qualification will not protect you (except in the somewhat more useful sense of helping you learn how to not kill people in the first place, of course - which is the whole point!)

The fact remains that your initial statement (that working outside of the remit of a qualification, once you had one, was illegal) remains false. If I have a swimming qualification, does that mean it is now illegal to work on the mountains?

In reply to andrewmcleod:

That's one of the things about the NGB awards - you also need to have an educated read of the logbook to know how current they are. If they became a legal requirement, in my view a formal renewal process would be necessary to give them any credibility.

(I'd rather it was left as it is though as I don't see a problem.)

PS BMC insurance will cover pretty much anyone teaching/instructing anything anywhere in the UK as long as they are doing so as a volunteer, whether they are working within or outside the remit of any qualifications they may or may not possess

Even Mountain Training state somewhere on their website that qualifications are one of something like 4(?) ways to gain competence to guide/lead/instruct, another way simply being through experience.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Does the CPD process for MIA/MIC (about which I know nothing except that there is one?) change this a bit (for MIA/MIC)?

In reply to Welsh Kate:



Sorry, missed the <sarcasm> tag there - that was an attempt to characterize summo's position, which I disagree with.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Probably, though I don't know what it is either

In reply to Offwidth:

We aren't talking about climbing, it's a walking qualification. You will find a lot of mountain instructors who think it's beyond the remit for MLs, I'm one of them.

Accepting risk in your own mountaineering, is very different to accepting responsibilities for others.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Ah, ok, no worries! At least I got to quote the Latin

In reply to andrewmcleod:

not really, it's early days for CPD, you can gain your CPD points by attending specific meetings, doing botanical courses and many other subjects connected to the outdoors, but often those not directly assessed during a person's initial qualification. I see it more as way of getting people to stay in touch with each other and the organisation.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:
If you are leading clients professionally, a client's expectation would be that you are operating within the scope of your advertised qualification. The ML award ( summer and winter ) is designed primarily as a mountain / hill walking award and is not designed for leading groups over graded ground as a planned trip, this would fall into the remit of the MIA or MIC in my opinion.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


Not to keep the award valid, no.

If you're an AMI member though, you need to get CPD points to stay a member.

In reply to summo:

So how do we cater for the teacher/youth leader/scout leader/ club leader who has led and trained a group over a period of time and maybe gone through the ML scheme to get some external feedback on their practice. Clearly it would be unreasonable for those in this kind of capacity to gain a higher award.
Are they to be criticised for undertaking this kind of trip or effectively forbidden from doing so?
Are they to hire a "professional" instructor (which would probably render such trips impossible on cost grounds and in any case sounds suspiciously like jobs for the boys).
Where does this leave the summer ML (where successful candidates should be able to operate in any mountain area) when large areas of the Highlands have mountains with similar terrain. Is it really any different from the WGL (in its current incarnation)?
Incidentally, on a more personal note I know a number of ML holders who I would trust to lead family members over Crib Goch in the right circumstances but also know several holders of (considerably) higher awards who I would not!

In reply to alec roberts:

You can get from one end of crib goch to the other without using your hands. Ergo it's a walk, although quite a tricky one.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

From what I can see yes most definitely. Had part of our ML assessment on Fiacaill ridge. Aonach Eagach and even Curved Ridge are ML ground. Client and conditions, however, may determine whether they're a good choice.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Neil

I have some experience in this area having been Outdoor Education Adviser for Suffolk County Council for 25 years. In that role I had to decide whether to allow schools to undertake adventure activities at Scout Association centres or led by Scout qualified leaders. I was also involved in advising on the establishment of the Adventure Activities Licensing scheme. Admittedly my knowledge does not extend to developments in the last 4 years as I have been retired.

I have to say that I was always worried about the Scout Association's decision not to adopt NGB awards. You say that if that were done, Scout activity would near enough stop, but that in itself is worrying. Does that imply that there are large numbers of Scout Leaders leading mountain activities that would not be sufficiently competent to obtain the relevant qualification (say WGL, ML or SPA) or that they would not have the time to do so? And if the latter, which presumably implies the Scout permit system is less time-intensive for leaders, is it sufficiently thorough for the job?

The key factor for me when I was making decisions on school activities with Scout Association leaders was the qualification of the technical adviser who signed off the permit. I was happy with a permit to lead in certain specific restricted circumstances where a leader did not possess all the ML skills or experience (eg excluding wild camping) but the person signing off the permit should be qualified to assess the full award (ie an MIA holder). It seemed to me that the Scouts seldom met this requirement in relation to the qualification of their technical advisers - indeed sometimes the person signing off the permits had no NGB qualification at all. Perhaps this has now changed.

Martin

In reply to summo:


And how exactly would an MIA prevent somebody from knocking something onto them? Crib Goch is a very moderate scramble, of course it's suitable ML terrain. Let's not start placing ever more absurd restrictions on the ability to get people out and enjoying the hills.

In reply to XXXX:

How do you get over the Pinnacles without using your hands?

In reply to Steve-J-E:

Pogo stick.

In reply to alec roberts:

Really? If so presumably you mean your best advice for a client considering this rather than your opinion of an ML's capability under the rules intending an unroped crossing?

ML is suitable for rough mountain terrain where use of a rope isn't planned (as I always understood it); albeit I can understand why some would prefer a planned roped crossing with an MIC and why a safety rope would be often carried by an ML (say in case a client panicked unexpectedly) or even why someone (especially an MIC?) might recommend an MIC for the crossing.

In reply to climbwhenready:

I always used to have to hold the stick

In reply to Webster:




An interesting bit of scaremongering!

I'd like to see you back those claims up with hard evidence?

In reply to XXXX:
Yes , you might, I might and I'm pretty sure Jonny Dawes could - but general consensus suggests that it is a grade 1 scramble and not a walking route, especially for those participants who feel they would require a professional or 'qualified ' leader.

In reply to Martin Hore:

A bit of both, but not in a worrying sense.

Scout Permits are personalisable, which means that someone who is assessed on only specific skills can be issued a Permit to use those specific skills without needing to hold others. While CWA has to some extent plugged that gap, an example of where it is very common to use this is someone who climbs only indoors/on artificial walls being able to be given a Permit only for use on artificial walls.

It used to be the case (though CWA has improved things, of course) that you'd otherwise need SPA - a totally unnecessary overskill that was in the end accepted by Mountain Training by the introduction of the CWA and CWLA. Another similar one would be single pitch lead climbing on rock - do you *really* need the navigation skills part of MIA to safely instruct this? (I personally think there should be an "SPLA" to fill that gap as CWLA did). A Scout Permit can be issued for that alone.


Scouting's safety record post-1990s would seem to back up that it is.


This one is more controversial - Scouting typically uses the "leadership" NGB award as the assessor qualification. So, to assess single-pitch climbing the assessor has to hold SPA. This seems silly in some cases - but MIA is an incredibly difficult award to gain (only effectively available to career mountaineers or those who dedicate their whole life to it) and is in my view overkill for situations that don't involve the "ML" side of it (or vice versa).

The key to it all is that we are a voluntary organisation full of people with very limited time. We presently provide safe outdoor activities for young people and have a good record of doing so in recent years (following procedural changes after a spate of accidents in the 1990s which has not recurred). Why regulate us further, and reduce activity, if that is actually working?

Additionally, when looking at the Permit Scheme, why do people always assume all outdoor instructors have NGB? Many don't. There is heavy use of site-specific qualifications, and those qualifications are basically the same principle as our Permit Scheme.

In reply to Offwidth:
The ML is designed primarily as a mountain / hill walking award, see Scope of the award below:,
" The Scope of the Award
The Mountain Leader scheme offers the opportunity to gain technical competence in leading walkers in the hills and mountains. It does not provide a rock climbing qualification, nor does it cover the skills required for the planned use of the rope. Completion of a training course, without a pass result at assessment, is not a qualification in itself. "
From their website: http://www.mountain-training.org/walking/skills-and-awards/mountain-leader

I'd suggest Crib Goch is a grade 1 scramble and not a mountain or hill walk and, therefore, as a planned route is outside the scope of the award. This is my answer to the original posting: Crib Goch - ML terrain ?

In reply to alec roberts:
Good question avoidance. Is this 'rough walk' in your professional opinion completely out of the ML scope?

Or as I suggested is it on the overlap of the two qualifications where a roped crossing is recommended by you whilst recognising an unroped intent to cross by an ML having assesed their clients as suitable, is not in breach of the upper limit of the ML award.

The vast majority of crossings of course are unroped.

In reply to Offwidth:
You describe it as a rough walk - I'd suggest most people would describe it as a graded scramble and therefore outside the remit of a walking award, as a planned objective - I have nowhere mentioned or recommended the use of a rope.

In reply to Offwidth:

Surely the MIA who assesses their group as needing a planned rope crossing of Crib Goch should be telling them that they're not going to be going on Crib Goch....... ?

In reply to climbwhenready:


No way! I could have two clients looking to push themselves and I could happily manage them across with a rope. Maybe they've had a burning desire to do the horse shoe for whatever reason, but decide they need roping up due to confidence for the Crib Goch section.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Thanks Neil for the comprehensive response.

I should have said that I have no problem with site-specific qualifications as are used by many commercial centres. Obviously a person supervising single pitch climbing only on Southern Sandstone doesn't need to be able to place nuts, for example, nor I would suggest to have led a prescribed number of Severe climbs. But I still think that the skills that are relevant should be held at SPA standard, and for the assessment of that I suggest you do need someone deemed competent to assess SPA (ie an MIA holder) or at least have someone with this qualification closely involved and taking responsibility for the standard and robustness of the assessment process.

Yes, MIA is a difficult and time-consuming qualification to obtain. But commercial centres frequently buy in this expertise from outside their own organisation, and I think the Scouts could too. I believe this is what the Guide Association did, and in the process had their permit system recognised (at least during a period around 10 years ago) by the MTB.

By the way, I don't hold MIA myself. For assessing in-house qualifications for employees of Suffolk County Council (eg climbing wall supervisor before the introduction of CWA) I bought in an external MIA as technical adviser. As well as validating the in-house award this had the advantage of bringing a fresh eye from outside to something which could easily suffer from a degree of incestuousness.

By the way, 50 years ago I was a Scout, and 40 years ago I was a Scout instructor leading Venture Scouts (as was) on Alpine Mountaineering trips with only (or at least!) the old MLC qualification (plus a fair bit of personal Alpine climbing experience). But times have moved on.

Martin

In reply to alec roberts:

Does it explicitly specify anywhere in the ML literature that it's a walking award and hence graded scrambles are out of remit, in the same way that it specifies that rock climbs are?

If not, and if graded scrambles are intended to be absolutely out of remit with any group regardless of whether or not you expect them to need a rope, it seems a bit odd not to just state it in those terms rather than leave everyone to debate the meaning of "through or around steep ground".

In reply to Steve-J-E:

Good balance.

Just trying to keep the thread light hearted.

In reply to alec roberts:


So how about the Carn Mor Dearg Arete, so-called 'Ring of Steall' or Long Leachas ridge of Ben Alder? All mountaineering objectives at just-about-Grade-1 but basically just exciting walks. Would you and summo really argue that they're outwith ML remit for being listed as '1's?

For sure there's a dividing line somewhere and some scrambles are way out of ML remit, but it's not the moment you've got a 'grade', might need your hands or could get hurt!

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I always understood grade 1 scrambles were in remit (party and conditions permitting). This was borne out during my training and assessment (with PyB) by the asessors and the fact that we went over Crib Goch.

In reply to petestack:
Yes, I should of added "in my opinion" , and I would define the dividing line between a primarily walking award and the MIA would be grade one scrambling, although I don't like the term scrambling - I prefer to
call it mountaineering

In reply to alec roberts:


If an ML can't guide the Mamore Ridge (and I've got to disagree with you there!), there's a problem with the award!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yes, again I should of added "in my opinion" - from the MTUK website placing Mountain Leader Award in the " walking" category, in the scope of the award for " leading walkers ", from discussions with both PYB and Glenmore Lodge assessors ( admittedly some years ago ) when I did mine.
I agree that the definitions and wording is open to interpretation - maybe something for them to look at again.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

If memory serves me correctly, a past president of the Alpine Club was killed falling from Crib Goch, so no hope for any of us!

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

My Eric Langmuir Bible - Mountaincraft and Leadership (third edition) has a whole chapter (6) 40pages worth dedicated entirely to Security on Steep ground, including belaying.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:
Too me, it would depend on who you were leading, and what you were trying to achieve.
For the former, if you were a child group leader and were taking my child along it, I would want to know in advance, so that I could probably decline your invitation.
If you were leading your assessors along it, then perhaps that should be a safe choice.

Why would you choose Crib Goch though? Seems to be a risky choice as opposed to a good navigation exercise over the Carneddau, with some easier scrambling to secure on the ascent of Pen yr Ole Wen?

In reply to Webster:






Not true. You can hold any quals you like and work in any remit you like.

You need to be competent, that is the baseline.

In reply to jezb1:

Fair enough Jez! I was just thinking that needing a roped traverse of CG means that you're well outside of your confidence/competence zone - but I guess I'm thinking of it from a "what would I want to do" perspective, not what clients might want to do with different motivations to me!

In reply to Sean Kelly:

In winter

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I'd be worried about your judgement, not because you think Crib Goch might be ML terrain, but because you wanted to "settle and argument" about matters pertaining to mountaineering and came on UKC to do it

In reply to Neil Pratt:
I think this thread has been useful. Its interesting no one from the organisations have intervened as it shows the level of ignorance around something that should be pretty clear. ML to me is obviously at the moment OK to cover easy scrambles (with the usual provisos) where there is no intent to use a rope and is practiced that way by many with the award so why isn't this clearly stated up front. Limiting the scrambling extent to something given grade1 means we would have to have an accepted list otherwise slightly harder scrambles not in a book or database would be OK but Crib Goch would not or someone putting say something like Striding Edge in a book as an easy grade 1 would mean suddenly its out of bounds.

http://www.mountain-training.org/walking/skills-and-awards/mountain-leader

The more detailed document deals with ropework to safeguard unexpected situations, including descent on scrambling terrain.

Some people on UKC will always get their knickers in a twist about false safety issues (and I think should probably give up climbing or mountaineering as they seemingly haven't accepted that risk is deliberate and intrisic to the activities)

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

You come on UKC with a thread titled Settle an arguement... oh dear. Threads like this should be titled Start an arguement.

Did my summer ML in the mid 80's at PyB.

Guess where we went?..................

So, yes, it was ML terrain. Perhaps there have been changes in line with the dumbing down of things in general?

In reply to Tony the Blade:

Or maybe even "Start an argUment".....?

In reply to Offwidth:

If MT said officially Crib Goch was ok then, people would then push that I reckon.

I think it works out quite well as it is, sort of self regulating. Confident ML's crack on with it, not so confident ones leave it alone.

In reply to jezb1:

I'm not after that level of detail. Various providers say on their website that easy scrambling can be OK depending on the assessment of clients , where you are not intending to use a rope (but carry one). The officail website is already clear that rock climbing is excluded and that intended use of a rope is excluded. Why not include the S word?

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for all the responses. I wasn't expecting as much of a reply but it's interesting to here everybody's opinions

In reply to Offwidth:


Because there is a clear differential between rock climbing and walking.

Scrambling is termed as anywhere you might need to use your hands to help. That theoretically could rule out steps where you hold a handrail. Flippant example but I think you see where I'm going with that one.

scrambling has a very lose definition and as far as I'm concerned is part of hill walking/mountaineering.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You can LEAD people across Crib Goch without INSTRUCTING them in any climbing or belaying techniques.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:


...apart from saying "Don't look down!"

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

This is a really interesting discussion. I guess there's a lot of gray areas. Sometimes of the year, with some groups, in some weather conditions Crib Goch is totally within the realms of ML. I think it would be totally fair game for ML training or assessment and for a ML award trained individual to lead a group over in the right conditions.

I was leading a group over crib goch earlier in the year. It was lovely weather, we were well equipped, I knew the terrain well, had a small group of which the experience I was confident that they would be challenged by the day out but could easily achieve the route safely. On the same day there was a large group of school children, with two (self identified) poorly qualified and equipped leaders walking up the pyg track. I'm sure that they were exposing those children to high levels of risk and would of struggled to manage a problem on what is traditionally thought of as a much safer path.

I think part of the risk assessment for this sort of activity has to take in your intents for the journey. If you end to walk across the ridge with a competent group with minimal need to assistance then ML qualification is fine. If your expecting to have to short rope/belay people across the length of the ridge using rope work and gear then in my opinion you probably need more experience than a summer ML qualification and you should maybe think about if crib goch is going to be the best day out for your group.

In reply to petestack:


I would say the above is fine, they are easier, less exposed, less committing, much shorter etc... You can also add in Broad Stand, a grade 3 scrambling move, which is a one move wonder between two hills and easily spotted.

Seniors ridge - blunt, unexposed grade1, easily escaped onto walking ground. Y gribin, pretty much the same. There are grade 1s and there are grade 1s. But it is route the leader should analyse, not a numerical number; distance, difficulty, exposure, means of escape, impact of weather and so forth...

In reply to victim of mathematics:


where you might go on assessment, isn't always where you might take the group. An assessor will be looking at how you operate as a leader and your own personal skills, on terrain that should be within your ability as a leader. The same happens on other assessments further up the ladder.

In reply to summo:
Broad Stand is a daft suggestion. There is no way mountain walkers can be safeguarded on this with no ropes. I find it awkward short rock climb with horrible consequencies if you slip or knock your 'spotter' off their feet (at around UK tech 3c) and that's as a very experienced climber. Its really hard to take you seriously on anything else when you say something like this.

In reply to summo:

No, sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

Why does how you perform in a situation that is outside the remit of a qualification tell the assessor much about how you would perform in a situation within the remit? Why not just put somebody in a situation within the remit? It's not like Snowdonia is lacking in steep rocky ground of all angles so Crib Goch is the only option.

In reply to summo:

Where are you actually getting this from, by the way?

In reply to Offwidth:

ok, perhaps I stretched it bit there, my point was though, that any many point of CG a single trip, or slip would be very serious to say the least.

In reply to victim of mathematics:

Most assessments look at personal ability, which is generally required to be higher than that level which see the qualification used at, or normal working. How many SPA take folk up S grade climbs? How many MIA clients go up 4c, or MIC III ? 99% of their the work involves much more straight forward terrain, but assessment are at a higher level to assess the leader skills.

I do agree more could be gained from doing a lap of Snowdon, cwm to cwm and never ticking a single summit. But, it appears people have been on it during an assessment.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


I just think CG is beyond the remit of an ML taking a group.

In reply to summo:


SPA, admittedly not loads but some
MIA, lots and lots
MIC, can't comment

In reply to summo:


But the ML Handbook, as quoted above, explicitly states that an ML may choose to plan a route through steep ground (if it's suitable for the group and doesn't involve the planned use of a rope), and that steep ground includes ground where the consequences of a slip or fall would be serious. So that's no argument whatsoever.

In reply to summo:


So is the nature of the disagreement on this thread that you think a ML should only lead groups where he can take the risk to essentially zero, and others do not?

In reply to jezb1:




And these grades don't relate to maximum competencies, either, do they - presumably an MIA who could lead E5 could lead a client up an E3 without being "out of remit."

In reply to summo:

It seems strange that a ML can lead a multi day walk in the winter in Scotland but can't take a few fairly experienced people over an hour and a half classic scramble in the middle of the summer.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


ML winter involves logged experience of grade I winter gullies. ML summer requires no logged or prior experience of grade 1 scrambles. Winter ML assesses the student at ascending and descending grade I gullies/couloirs, construction of many types of snow anchor systems and belaying. In winter the use of a rope isn't considered an emergency measure, in summer it is. You are comparing chalk and cheese.

In reply to climbwhenready:


of course, because the skills needed on a crag don't differ, only the grade.

The same can't be said when comparing mountain walking and scrambling.

In reply to summo:


Nope. You didn't define a summer ML in your statement. You just said ML.

In reply to jezb1:

you must know the lucky few, as most people dream of clients who want to climb at VS and beyond.

if anything some will climb harder ticking the winter classics. But a fair few also only work at winter ML level / low grade climbing instruction.

My point was these grades are not ceilings, but a minimum level of competency, you'll be the first to admit that you are expected to fly up routes at the assessment grade, quite able to look around and check your second is belaying properly as you move through the crux etc.. Where in the ML summer does it assess a person's ability to scramble, or their ability to manage a group across scrambling terrain. ML is about navigating around hazards etc.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Well I presumed the conversation was still summer based, as it has been for the whole thread, I can't help it if your mind tangents a little, otherwise we can move onto CG's winter grade?

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I've no idea what an 'ML' qualification actually qualifies you to do, but what strikes me is that if it *doesn't* qualify you to take a suitable group on CG then it ain't worth sh*t. Having said that of course this could well be true.

jcm

In reply to summo:
Well, according to the BMC the ML seems to be aimed more at expedition leaders.

The MIA is aimed at scramblers and climbers. So - no scrambling folks unless you've led 20 VS's!

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/qualifications-explained_0

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And 6a sports, plus experience since your ML assessment. But MIA is an all encompassing qualification. The scrambling day on assessment causes far more deferrals than personally climbing at 4c, scrambling with relative novices requires good judgement calls, safe efficient travel, rapid appropriate solid anchor selection...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It's not! While it neither explicitly 'qualifies' nor 'bars' you from doing so, it deserves more respect than that curt dismissal!

In reply to climbwhenready:


There's some sort of law?

Well I never!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Its bizarre that people can't understand the subtlety of an ML assesssing their group are likely capable of an unroped easy scramble or even some easier graded scrambles and that rope use intent is the dividing line for the qualification. However this thread shows it's a good idea not to underestimate how stupid people can be even on a specialist climbing site (and in quite large numbers) so I think some more explicit clarification would be useful.

In reply to Offwidth:
Quite surprised that some people on here who are professional mountain folks are absolutely sure and are still insisting that CG is 'out of remit' for an ML when it quite clearly isn't in some circumstances. Get a grip.

In reply to JayPee630:

?? I'm insisting its clearly in (at the upper end of) the remit of an ML if the clients and conditions are assessed to be OK for an unroped crossing. It's worrying people link a document in evidence of their unfounded views and can't read that it clearly indicates the opposite. These stupid people need more explicit advice up front. Some scrambles could be OK, but at some point in the range of guided scrambles intened rope use would become essential.

In reply to Offwidth:

Wasn't in response to you. More summo actually, who's come out with some quite odd things!

In reply to JayPee630:

When the ML summer logbook requires evidence of scrambling, when the ML course assesses folk leading novices(or pretend novices) on scrambling terrain, when the ML course introduce rope work required to protect people on scrambles, then I'll accept that CG is within remit. My point is CG is relatively long, exposed and hard to escape, travel is often single file so group management is harder too.

By contrast the winter ML includes travel up and down grade I gullies in training and assessment, it also requires logbook experience, as it's anticipate that many winter days involve slopes or lines of this grade.

I have no issue with y gribin, seniors ridge etc.. easy scrambling, very limited exposure, instantly escapable at all points to walking terrain, easy for parties coming from opposite directions to pass each other or over take etc. etc.. Even striding edge the difficulties that can be avoided, or the whole scramble avoided on it's northern flank, there are options. CG, has none. It's all or nothing.

Anyway I give up, each to their own.

In reply to summo:
So many things in that last post to criticize or point out as assumptions or inaccuracies I don't know where to start!

In reply to Offwidth:


I don't get it from the point of view of the customer. If the scramble doesn't worry you then why hire a leader at all. If it does then why not hire an MIA who will get everyone in harnesses and be ready to short rope them.

In reply to JayPee630:


Why not point them out, I've only highlighted exactly what is covered in ml summer and winter syllabus in relation to steep ground. If you don't agree, then write to the ukmtb and suggest they should be assessing candidates group management on grade 1 summer scrambles. As if cg is within the remit, that terrain certainly isn't assessed.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Has anyone seen anyone on Crib Goch in helmets and on short ropes?

Outside of winter?

In reply to summo:

In the first paragraph you talk about assessed use of rope when scrambling, but that's assumes you're planning to use a rope on CG, which isn't the case if you're an ML, so an irrelevant argument.

You make a big thing of the ML course and it not assessing scrambling, but as you should know that's only a part of the matrix of when it would be OK to take someone/group on CG as an ML. Yes, I agree an ML with no scrambling experience would be out of remit on there, but what about one with years of climbing and scrambling experience with a well known and confident client who just wants a guide for the day?

You mention it being long, exposed and hard to escape, but again these are irrelevant points as they are not reasons not to take people suitable on CG. In fact it being exposed might be a reason to take someone on it, not to avoid it.

You also mention group management, but this assumes you're taking a large group, what about just 2/3 people? Managing them on CG would be fine.

You keep making straw man points that don't prove your case, but do the opposite that proves the answer is 'it depends'.

Your points and arguments are just illogical and don't relate to the objective reality that it just depends on the ML and the group and the conditions. Saying that it's blanket 'out of remit' is just odd, and to be honest smacks slightly of job protectionism...

In reply to JayPee630:

if a member in your group lost confidence etc.. how will you protect them, get them off etc.. with a rope, but because you've committed to a long scramble, you are deliberately entering terrain which increase the chance of using a rope, but within the ML(S), the rope is an emergency measure, not planned or deliberate.


Irrelevant, it isn't a ML(S) logbook required, or trained or assessed on the course, who is say that even someone with 10 years experience has good judgement, if it's never been assessed etc.. It's a bit like saying an ML(w) would be OK to take someone up grade II winters if they have some winter climbing experience, after all it's only a little bit harder etc.. There are specific qualifications for climbing and scrambling.


As an MIA/MIC yes, but not as an ML(S). If you were planning to deliberately take a group onto a scramble, surely any ML would have a plan where they could escape if required. It isn't about life & death, it's a walking qualification.


Perhaps that's why an instructor would only take those number. But, MLs are not trained in roping more than 1 person and that is an emergency measure, not as a means of travel.


But none of these factors change the fact the ML does not have the assessed skills to solve problems en route. There is a reason why the scrambling day is the cause of most MIA deferrals, it's because scrambling terrain is the hardest to judge, to pick the fastest most efficient method of travel isn't obvious at first etc.. but you seem to think an ML who climbs a little (in their own time) has the skills to keep a group safe. I don't.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Probably because it's not a natural choice of route for a truly novice scrambler to be introduced. Many flat slabbier sections, absences of spikes in place, once at one end or the other, it becomes a walking day and a client probably planned or wanted a scrambling day. Options like up parson nose would help a little, or some of the other scrambles nearer nant peris.

Far better options on Tryfan, Glyder Fach, Idwal, Cneiffion etc.. you can always be above the clients, lots of good safe stances, fast anchors and plenty of routes to increase/decrease difficulty, with very little mountain walking required, but masses of rock time.

In reply to summo:

You keep going on about keeping people 'safe' but that's not the issue or we'd all stay indoors in bed. It's about managed risk.

You also keep harking on about the ML qualification, but once again, it's not the be all and end all, but one part of what might make CG suitable for some groups.

Where you get this 'ML who climbs a little in their own time' from? You're making things up!

You might well think something, but the actual reality is different as quite clearly MLs take people on CG, so however much you go on about it being out remit, it actually isn't. You might not take people on there, but some do, which, when appropriately done, is officially fine, so get over yourself.

In reply to JayPee630:

If you are advertising, accepting payment, taking responsibility for a group, then the qualification you hold could very well be the 'be all and etc.. ', get over myself?!, easily it's you that seems to have the angst, as I said earlier, I disagree, but each to their own. Problem on ukc is some people start to fall in targetting the person, rather than making their argument.

In reply to summo:

I've found people target the argument on here too much. And miss the discussion bit.

In reply to summo:

I did Crib Goch when I was 12 or something, in doing the 'traditional tourist route' up Snowdon, I'm not a mountain leader, but wouldn't somewhere like that depend on the head for expose of the client, with it only being grade 1?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Yes, a certain point gets picked over, or an analogy does.

In reply to Timmd:

yes, but an ML isn't trained or assessed in making those judgements, it isn't a climbing or scrambling course at any level. All they can do is ask their group or individual what they think, but if things change once on route, they are not trained or assessed in the skills required to solve those problems. My argument isn't with the ability of the client/group/walker, but that of the leader not having been trained/assess for that type of route.

Some of those who say they have taken folk on it, are instructors, even if they class CG as within ML remit, they are still taking a group on there with all their instructor skills, experience and judgement. They haven't or don't unlearn something.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Maybe I do see things as black/white here. I think there is a bigger grey line between scrambling/climbing, but it doesn't matter as it's the same Mtn Qual that covers both. With what is a walking qualification straying into steep, committing rocky terrain, I see a black/white divide, that's me. I see y gribin/seniors, striding etc.. as the grey, you can step on and off at will at any point. CG isn't like that, you are committed, which makes it a poor choice for an ML.

The country is littered with short scrambles that people often encompass as part of the walking day, up through gordale scar for example, but none come close to the problems that could be encountered on Crib Goch.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Who cares if you or Summo get it; isn't your lack of imagination your problem? It's within the remit and ML posters have stated this has applied to them... what more evidence do you need? The fact others might not hire anyone or might hire someone with a higher qualification is neither here nor there, when some can and do hire an ML.

In reply to summo:

If you only see things in black/white you must be arguing black is white.

In reply to summo:
You just seem absolutely fixated on the ML bit of it. The fact of what they do and don't cover on the ML is a total red herring to the point.

You know people can be MLs with more experience and a background that makes it appropriate to take people on some trickier terrain than just walking right?

By your own arguments people with no qualifications shouldn't be working with people and groups in the mountains at all.

In reply to summo:

Isn't an ML assessed on his use of a confidence rope and classic belay?

Does anyone scramble a grade I with the intention to use a rope.

If both of those statements are true, I don't see that it's out of their remit.

What about Peavey Arc?

In reply to summo:


Sure you're not confusing it with the Cuillin Ridge?

In reply to Offwidth:

My point was that if you want to use a rope, then use it, if you can safely.

In reply to the thread:

So the answer would appear to be 'no one knows'. A prospective client lurking would see valid arguments being run by both sides, and no clear conclusion

And in the end, if the body awarding the qualification haven't clarified it, the only way it would be established with certainty is in the courts, after some form of serious incident. Anything else is just speculation.

But since we're all speculating, then i'm going to as well. if the issue was ever tested in court, or by the coroner, then it would depend on the approach they took- they may adopt a hard line 'no explicit authorisation to venture onto scrambling terrain', and deem CG outside the scope of the ML award; or they may look to medicine and the Bolam test, and deem that if a respectable body of MLs do consider that CG is ML territory, then it is.

Given that the award has been around for a long time (? How long) and the issue has never been tested, it looks to me that those MLs taking people onto CG or equivalent terrain appear to know what they're doing, and that it will happily never be definitively resolved.

Cheers
Gregor

In reply to DancingOnRock:



I have



long crag buttress, coniston, guidebook suggested that inexperienced scramblers may welcome one due to the exposure. So I took one as my friend fitted that description. What a PITA that turned out to be. And completely unnecessary

Though, now i think about it, I would have paid good money for one on eastern terrace on cloggy in the rain. Though that's not grade one in my book....

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

But the test in court would not be whether on not they were in remit.

The reason for this is that it is not a legal requirement to hold a qualification and therefore the test would be whether they were competent or not.

In reply to 9WS9c3jps92HFTEp:

If that's the case, then you are correct

Would then be a matter for the insurers I imagine. mLs presumably have indemnity- if insurers felt activity was outside scope they were covering, they may decline to support the ML

But as I said- if its not come up by now, its not likely to. So speculations all weve got...

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I don't really think your argument is gonna get settled on here any time soon.

In reply to Wsdconst:

No, the very fact that we're arguing shows that it's quite clear that the answer is... it depends.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

Ultimately, It depends on the person leading and the client.

In reply to JayPee630:

if you advertised, take money, then the qualification is very relevant.


yes, but if those skills aren't assessed, then they are not proven or relevant in the remit of what a qualification allows you to do.


Nope never said or meant that, the discussion is about a specific qualification and a specific route.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Confidence rope, does as the name implies, confidence, not outright security. It's not trained or assessed as a short roping skill.
Classic belay is again only relevant as an emergency measure within the ML scheme.


Pavey, jakes rake? very very border line remit, impossible to escape, falling would be very bad, risk of someone knocking rock down off one of the routes etc.. perfect MIA terrain. Sections of moving together (short roping) and short pitches using direct rock belays.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

You can tell the summer season is nearly over and work is drying up with the time some people are spending on this...where's George McEwan when you need him to confirm what most of us already know?

This is what I love about UKC and why it has a reputation of being full of total bell ends arguing over the colour of poo!

A grade 1 scramble (regardless of which one it is- there is a grading system for a reason) is well within the remit of an ML if there is no planned use of rope. Looks to me like some with higher quals are trying to belittle ML so that they get more work themselves God bless UKC!

In reply to PN82:

well, I don't live or work in the UK, so I guess you aren't talking to me. I know on the UKC you aren't allowed to have different opinions, we must conform, otherwise someone will start throwing personal insults, I guess it goes with territory though.

Does dulux have a brown that best describes poo, Autumn Squits? Stinging Yellow? Guiness Black?

In reply to PN82:



I think there is an element of truth in that. There's obviously overlap between the awards though and I'm certainly comfortable guiding most grade 1 terrain as an ML. Some of the steeper Grade 1 gullies I'd not be comfortable with. I think its very much your call as an ML. That's how it has worked for decades and its worked well.

In reply to Lantys Tarn:

I was up there on Friday. It was a beautiful day with views to the horizon.

There was a team of Royal Marine Comandos, possibly trainees, going up alongside us. Their packs were huge.

Additionally there was a group of older people in their 60s.

With this conversation in mind I tried to look at it from leading a group of people. There were 7 of us fairly experience scramblers. I think I would want two people who really knew the route if I was taking more than 3 others up there.

It's not the protection, the ease of escape or safety. It's just some sections might need a fair amount of 'coaching'.

But then I'm not sure you'd take complete novices up there.

In reply to DancingOnRock:







That's what we often did. We once had a client panic, basically one of us stayed to coach him and one took the rest of the group away to separate them and not let the panic spread, nor teasing. It was a group of macho rugby players, nice guys, but needed separating at that moment so the guy in trouble could be talked through it. He was fine once left alone with one person to talk him through it.

In reply to andrewmcleod:
The presence or not of a qualification is irrelevant. If you are taking clients as a business activity and one of them dies you could be prosecuted for the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter if you were considered to be to blame. I think, conversely, there may even be a president for a gross negligence prosecution if, say, an MIA took some mates out and made gross errors of judgement that his training should have prevented him making. Unlikely though.

In reply to nigel n:
As a teacher I am very heavily restricted by what I can do with children and have to stick totally within the remit of the relevant award. My school is in the Black Mountains and an ML is a legal requirement to take children above 2000ft. It is absolutely non negotiable and I will go to jail if I breach that duty of care and a child dies as a result of my poor judgement.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


No, it isn't.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/qualifications-explained

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

>an ML is a legal requirement to take children above 2000ft


Indeed it isn't, unless the school is in Wales and the Welsh Assembly has enacted legislation I'm unaware of.

However, it may well be a regulation introduced by Mr Crocker's employer. In which case it amounts to much the same. He can't take children from the school above 2000ft without an ML. If he does so, and a child is harmed as a result, he is in serious legal difficulty for knowingly contravening his employer's health and safety instructions.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Indeed, just as I am not permitted to take my Scouts above 500m (plus other criteria) without an internal Adventurous Activity Permit - yes, even if I did have an ML, though that forms the technical part of the requirements if one does have that.

My point was simply that it is false on many counts to state that to take children above 2000ft an ML is required. Holding an ML with a suitable logbook[1] is one[2] way to satisfy a Court of competence, and may well fulfil an employer's rules, but is not a legal requirement in and of itself.

[1] Did your ML at 18 and now 50 having not been hillwalking in the interim? Most probably you'd fail the competence "test" there, too.

[2] Arguably the best way, but the law doesn't work like that; any suitable proof of competence is adequate. That's why the Scout Permit Scheme (and indeed the local sign-offs used by other organisations for things like climbing walls) is allowed to exist.

In reply to Neil Williams:
How do you think the AALA judge the competence of a person to carry out the activity? All the local authorities I've worked for have required an ml or they are not licensed.

In reply to Neil Williams:

However, you are correct in saying the individual does not need a license to lead an activity if it is with your own children but in the 3 local authorities I have worked for in the past 15 years, to take children out you have to have an L A approved risk assessment signed off before the trip and in every case, the trip has required an appropriate NGB qualification suited to the terrain/activity.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:


this notion came up perhaps a decade or more ago, when the pub talk (proper with beers) was that if it ever happened for real, then instructors would only ever climb with other instructors etc.. but it never came about. No families etc.. have ever tried to blame or take to court a qualified person, because a non qualified person died. If they aren't working, then they are climbing as equals of their own free will.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:
You are aware that local sign-offs are used in a wide variety of AALA licensable areas, right?

Operators can require what they want, of course, but that does not make it the law. It is your false suggestion that it is the law that I am taking issue with, and further to that explaining why, as logbook rather than renewable awards, simply holding ML could never really be enough alone without also referring to the holder's logbook or wider experience.

I'm not questioning whether it is de-facto required, or required by employers, or whatever (though I again reiterate that it is not required by the Scout Association and probably other such organisations). The fact remains it is not required by law, and it is that that I was taking issue with.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I know of past examples where an MIA/MIC would write the terms, or guidelines for a particular centres activities, where an SPA might operate on beyond what could be considered an ideal SPA crag, ie perhaps a little tidal, poor access at the top etc.. they would then carry out some on site training for the staff too, giving them rules on which anchors to use, group size limits etc..

The same approach could easily happen in the hills, a specific high level walk, a definitive route with various agreed escape points or means of shortening the day etc.. then a group walk around it with the leaders who will actually work it.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

You said "as a teacher" which implies in a school, where AALA does not apply.

In reply to summo:

Although it has happened elsewhere in Europe..

3 months suspended sentence for forgetting beacon

An Austrian ski tourer has received a three month [suspended] prison sentence for the manslaughter of his wife. The case centered around the use of avalanche beacons. According to the Salzburg court he was touring with his supposedly inexperienced wife with their beacons switched off and in their rucksacks.

In reply to climbwhenready:

You are quite right. I have always been bound by local sign-offs not AALA and for all those, an ml has been required for high level walks. Got a bit confused.

Am I right in thinking the AALA is not long for this world?

In reply to Neil Williams:

A fair point well made. I think the scout movement has got its act together rather better than LAs. We complete online RAs for most adventurous activity and that process requires what's considered an appropriate ticket. The trip organiser is left to decide if the qualified leader is up to the job which introduces quite an element of uncertainty. As you point out. 25 year old ml might be worth nowt.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

I recall hearing that, though it seems to have stagnated somewhere along the line. The suggestion was that it has achieved what it aimed to do in professionalising parts of the industry that did need a kick up the backside.

Neil

In reply to climbwhenready:


It's not quite as simple as that.

A school does not require an AALA licence to provide adventure activities for its own pupils, but many schools offering D of E at Gold level find themselves including former pupils (who have left at 16) and pupils from other schools that do not offer Gold. The school then needs to be covered by an AALA licence, often a licence held by their local authority (though the growth of non-LA academies has complicated this).

Most local authorities will also make their own rules governing adventure activities in their maintained schools (where the authority is accountable for Health and Safety as employer). Academies often choose to abide by these rules, though they don't have to, and Local Authorities usually apply the same standards that AALA applies, even where the activity is not-licensable because the school is working solely with its own pupils. So AALA standards have a broader reach than you might expect.

The imminent demise of AALA as been foretold many times in its 20-year existence. The last I heard was that the government had again decided that appearing to relax safety standards in children's adventure activities was not a politically smart move. I don't have very recent information on this though.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Thanks for the information, Martin.