UKC

MIA - History of the Award

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Nordie_matt 01 Feb 2016
Not too sure if this is the correct forum for this question, so apologies to mods if I am putting this in the wrong place.

I was just wondering if anyone had any knowledge on when the MIA award came into being, in it's current incarnation? No real reason behind wondering, other than a curiosity as to if the minimum prerequisites (VS 4c) had increased, decreased or remained the same throughout its existence.

Cheers, Matt
In reply to Nordie_matt:

I think the VS 4c has been the same for as long as I can remember.

Certainly it was that grade Pre MIA when the whole scheme was MIC with a summer and winter assessment.

So that is right through the 1980's IIRC.

I was on the first MIA Training Course in 1990 or 91 and the second assessment for MIA run in Oct 1991.
It was VS 4c then.
In reply to Nordie_matt:
One candidate,on the assessment I was on, climbed Resurrection (E4 6a) on their personal climbing day.

They climbed it in good style by all accounts. Comfortably above the minimum grade.

( Edited for embarrassingly poor grammar and spelling)
Post edited at 14:55
OP Nordie_matt 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Ghastly Rubberfeet:

Cheers for the reply, I was curious as to whether or not the minimum grade had increased with the general level of competence, and improved gear. Seems not
 jezb1 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:

There are mumblings about the grade being increased. There's a big climbing award review going on at the moment.
 john arran 01 Feb 2016
In reply to jezb1:

Hopefully they will drop the requirement that you need to be good at taking kids backpacking in order to qualify to teach climbing. Always seemed absurd to me and needing the ML in advance stopped me even thinking about pursuing an instructor programme beyond the SPA.
6
 uphillnow 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:
As a 1970's M. I. C. I am sure it was the same then. Most M I's climb well above this grade, as do the Guides with the minimum standard given for their assessment. In my experience many people I have known of who went forward at the minimum had a hard time - in the early days, and more recently. There has been a lot posted on the subject of the grade, many who miss the point that this is the grade you can climb pretty well in any conditions, on mountain crags, and if need be with a weak second/novice. The award came about in response to a "need" for qualification for those who worked in outdoor centres but an increasing number do it as a challenge, or because it may be a good learning process in developing a range of skills.

Wont go on, been well covered in the past.

Ah well.

But then again a part of me says that in this day and age make it same as the Guides for UK rock!
Post edited at 16:01
 jezb1 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:

> Hopefully they will drop the requirement that you need to be good at taking kids backpacking in order to qualify to teach climbing. Always seemed absurd to me and needing the ML in advance stopped me even thinking about pursuing an instructor programme beyond the SPA.

Have your say and give your feedback to Mountain Training, I'm sure they'd be keen to hear it as part of this review process.
OP Nordie_matt 01 Feb 2016
In reply to jezb1:

Where do you stand on this, personally I think it would a good thing to increase the prereq's to a level of at least HVS 5b, and I am saying this as someone who's best trad onsight grade has been N6, and is most comfortable around VS. (though seeking desperately to sack off work in favour of consolidating n6 trad and pushing into 6+/7-)
OP Nordie_matt 01 Feb 2016
In reply to uphillnow: .

I am fully of the opinion that you are entering into MIA with VS 4c as your upper limit, and not as a comfortable grade range, then you are under prepared for the award.

Is there an argument that the increased diversification of MTA awards (CWA, CWLA, H&MLA, etc) is providing a swathe of candidates a target grade/level of experience, and churning out instructors to ease accessibility (to the sports), but at the cost of quality?

 summo 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:
> Hopefully they will drop the requirement that you need to be good at taking kids backpacking in order to qualify to teach climbing. Always seemed absurd to me and needing the ML in advance stopped me even thinking about pursuing an instructor programme beyond the SPA.

The Swedish system is split into 3, sport, trad rock and ice. The problem is for those people who might work all environments in a year or even month, the number of courses and cost starts to spiral. Rather than a condensed system, where you can hire one person who will organise a variety of days, all to suited the weather on the day, the client's progression and within their remit.

The problem with having even more qualifications in the system, is the public who might want to pay for an instructor have no idea what the individual can do. It's bad enough now, with SPA crags, then mountain crags, I can't imagine how confusing it is to a punter new to the sport. Even the names of MIA and MIC don't really tell anyone what they actually do on the hill. It certainly needs it's current review. Winter / Summer Mountain Instructor to me is the only way ahead.

OP, 4c is probably a little low and most people on assessment have logbook experience much harder, so I don't know why the assessment is not a little tougher too, but see what the review brings. Certainly on mine we were climbing 5a/5b through choice, because that's the routes that were free and nearest on the crag, rather than trudging around to meet the syllabus precisely.
Post edited at 16:39
 jezb1 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:

> Where do you stand on this,

Completely my own opinion but I think it should be E1. This is as someone who passed cruising VS and doing harder routes but not always successfully. I did an HVS 5a on assessment.

It's been one of my motivators over the last few months to improve my grade properly and get into a position where I can cruise every E1, I think top end instructors should be able to.



 john arran 01 Feb 2016
In reply to summo:

I see the attraction of keeping it simple but I rather think the poor choice was first made when it came to setting up the SPA (then SPSA) and this not covering any kind of leading. This (predictably) prevented the people who would be introducing newcomers to the sport from getting those newcomers to experience the true nature of the sport at the time (i.e. leading and self-reliance) rather than a sanitised version (top-roping - which equally predictably has become much more common as a result). The real difference to me is between rock skills and general mountain skills, not between leading and being top-roped. It's fairly obvious that there would always be a call for rock climbing instruction rather than general hillsmanship, which to be honest most of the time is pretty irrelevant to most of the rock climbing that takes place in the UK, certainly so in England and Wales.
1
 summo 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:

yes and no. The problem with your 'single pitch climbing leader award' is the solving of various incidents that could occur. A loose rock knocks them out, they can't proceed and need a hoist etc.. all of sudden it just got technical, so the award would have a quite low climbing grade requirement, but a disproportionately high technical level. With SPA that the leader is mobile and never in the system gives lots of freedom, also the fact they can manage a group helps keep the entry level to climbing cost down.

Also how do you differentiate roadside, or near road? distance, altitude etc.. ? There are many great single pitch crags that are quite remote. Rhinogs or Ardnamuchan Pennisula for example.
 uphillnow 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:

I am a retired M I and not the best person to respond. I know, and have known a very large number of M I's and see nothing wrong with the quality of M I's. Quite the reverse, and I cant stress this enough. If you come to M I Training at the lower end of the required grades then you may expect to have rather more to do before assessment. To happily play out on a pitch whilst solving problems on assessment requires a degree of confidence (moving off belay to recover your ropemate/client ). The reality is that the" 4c climbers" who pass assessment are in their personal climbing generally performing above this grade on multi pitch. They are not the newby who has climbed a 4c single pitch on a good day after some rehearsal. The comment in one response here surprised me, ONLY 1 candidate on his assessment had climbed E4 routes!
Before someone makes the point, yes I know grade climbed as not the only skill required for M I.

Not being in charge of the scheme I don't have to demonstrate that the awards are accessible to those who would wish to take them up. A good number move from M I to the Guides scheme and in a UK context the work done may be much the same. I can see an advantage in making the standard for summer rock the same, at the higher level. It might reduce the take up (would it?) but is there a shortage of M I A's presently.
 john arran 01 Feb 2016
In reply to summo:

I really don't think there's that much difference really. If a leader takes a fall they end up either on the ground or on a virtual top-rope. Is there really much difference between a client getting stuck on lead and one with a knee stuck in a crack on top-rope? I don't want to go into nitty gritty but to me the added difficulty is mainly in terms of choosing appropriate routes for clients to lead rather than dealing with problems mid-route; admittedly there will be some degree of additional skills needed but I don't think that many. It's all more complicated now that the climbing world seems to have got used to the idea that teaching a first lead has to be either independently top-roped or accompanied by an instructor on a separate line. While both have advantages in one respect (usually covering the ass of the instructor!) neither of these should be necessary and certainly shouldn't be normal.

And regarding suitable crags, the distinction would be analogous to that of defining suitable crags for SPA but with different criteria that would need careful thought; I don't see any insurmountable hurdles.
 jezb1 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:

You'd want to teach leading without being next to your client on their first lead? What help are you below them belaying if they have a question or panic?
3
In reply to Nordie_matt:

> Where do you stand on this, personally I think it would a good thing to increase the prereq's to a level of at least HVS 5b, and I am saying this as someone who's best trad onsight grade has been N6, and is most comfortable around VS. (though seeking desperately to sack off work in favour of consolidating n6 trad and pushing into 6+/7-)

It would be very unusual for a candidate to go for assessment who couldn't climb at this grade or above.
The minimum grade (despite being a MINIMUM) is territory you should be confident on so would need to climb harder than VS. It's not uncommon for people to come to outdoor climbing with the ability to climb harder than VS (not that they would have the ability to place gear etc) and perhaps there's an argument for the grade to be increased on this basis...maybe....

I personally climb E1 5B on a good day and currently inbtween training and assessment so I don't particularly have an axe to grind but I am sure it would put off potentially excellent instructors if the grade is increased.
 andrewmc 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:

> Hopefully they will drop the requirement that you need to be good at taking kids backpacking in order to qualify to teach climbing. Always seemed absurd to me and needing the ML in advance stopped me even thinking about pursuing an instructor programme beyond the SPA.

I used to think that, but I have decided there are issues which make the whole thing a bit more complicated. One thing that would be useful would be a sport climbing leading award - if you have SPA and CWLA (as one of my friend's does) you are 90% of the way to teaching sport leading outside.

But if you are going to teach trad... you should really have all the skills to move around on another line etc etc and perform rescues so it would be quite a technical award, basically all of the climbing parts of the MIA I guess? But you wouldn't be able to operate in 'mountainous terrain' without the ML and wouldn't be able to do all of the fun mountaineering stuff. Would there really be that much call for basically climbing-only MIA restricted to roadside crags (and possibly sea cliffs)? It wouldn't end up being any less technical than the full MIA in terms of ropework, I guess.
 john arran 01 Feb 2016
In reply to jezb1:

> You'd want to teach leading without being next to your client on their first lead? What help are you below them belaying if they have a question or panic?

I've taught lots of people to lead like that, as have a great many others. It works - as it has for generations - as long as the grades and routes are well chosen. Ask anyone who's been a climbing for more than a few years how they did their first lead and I'm pretty sure the vast majority would not have had a minder next to them. So why do we need to overcomplicate things now, unless it's an emerging mindset that a client under instruction must be secured at all times and not take any actual responsibility for themselves? That's not what leading is about, and to experience the real essence of the sport then leading untethered is what's needed. Why shouldn't an instructor be able to teach the real sport rather than a sanitised version?

Unfortunately I suspect I'm swimming against the tide nowadays though - the damage has already been done and expectations that clients must do something different to other climbers seem to be disappointingly common.
1
In reply to john arran:

> I've taught lots of people to lead like that, as have a great many others. It works - as it has for generations - as long as the grades and routes are well chosen. Ask anyone who's been a climbing for more than a few years how they did their first lead and I'm pretty sure the vast majority would not have had a minder next to them.

What people do when they aren't paying for an instructor cannot be compared to when they are paying for an instructor.
> So why do we need to overcomplicate things now...Why shouldn't an instructor be able to teach the real sport rather than a sanitised version?

It's not over-complicating anything, it's called progression.
3
OP Nordie_matt 01 Feb 2016
In reply to higherclimbingwales:

I understand what you mean, regards putting off potential instructors, but could a case be made for keeping the VS 4c as a requirement for training but perhaps increasing it for assessment?

I have no vested interests in this either way, it's just something I have been mulling over in my mind for a while. It is also really good to see the various positions people hold as well.
1
 bpmclimb 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:

> And regarding suitable crags, the distinction would be analogous to that of defining suitable crags for SPA but with different criteria that would need careful thought; I don't see any insurmountable hurdles.

+1

Was just going to post exactly that.
OP Nordie_matt 01 Feb 2016
In reply to uphillnow:


> Not being in charge of the scheme I don't have to demonstrate that the awards are accessible to those who would wish to take them up.

I take your point regarding the fact that the majority of those going into the award will have a range of varied experience, and will most likely not be entering into it blindly.

My point about accessibility was not to do with those seeking to access the award, but more about facilitation of newcomers to Climbing and Mountaineering. In seeking to make these activities more available, through the provision of lower awards to enable a higher quantity of instructors to work e.g. CWA etc (and I do hold the CWLA myself, so am as guilty as anyone of taking advantage of the lower awards), have the MTA provided a target level, which *some*people will only seek to achieve?

I don't mean the above to sound argumentative (in case it does) I am just genuinely interested in peoples opinion on this, and look forward to reading all arguments, for and against
 jezb1 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:
My clients get far better value for money, if they are on a learn to lead course, from me being along side them.

I'm not there to secure them, but to coach them.

Of course you can teach from below, but not as well.

With long term clients I do end up having them lead with out me as they progress.

That's my points said, I'll leave it now.
Post edited at 18:47
 bpmclimb 01 Feb 2016
In reply to all:

I know it's not practical to have too many different qualifications, but a lowland/relatively non-remote crag/leading/multipitch qualification doesn't seem unreasonable. It would suit a lot of leaders of a certain type. One where you have to lead at E1, say, and perform technical rescues, but perhaps not be tested on night navigation and camp stove safety.
1
 andrewmc 01 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:
> I've taught lots of people to lead like that, as have a great many others. It works - as it has for generations - as long as the grades and routes are well chosen.

If you mean the traditional method of 'let them basically solo something really easy because they may very well place bad gear but they almost certainly won't fall off, and who falls off on trad anyway?' then as others have said this is the way most people learned but I would be rather annoyed if I paid someone to basically throw me on what might prove to be essentially an impromptu solo...

It's not that hard anyway to get alongside someone anyway; I got someone in our club on their first lead the other day with me on a rope alongside (plus I got to play with my ascenders outside of caving). They knew (and we discussed) that they would need more practice before they were ready to do trad leads on their own safely (I didn't have enough time to teach everything thoroughly) but the close supervision meant they could safely get real practice at leading - much better than endlessly taking gear out on your 'seconding apprenticeship' which I am unconvinced teaches competent climbers much more than how to get gear out. They also always had the option of bailing onto my rope.
Post edited at 19:09
1
 john arran 01 Feb 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> If you mean the traditional method of 'let them basically solo something really easy because they may very well place bad gear but they almost certainly won't fall off, and who falls off on trad anyway?' then as others have said this is the way most people learned but I would be rather annoyed if I paid someone to basically throw me on what might prove to be essentially an impromptu solo...

If you really think this is the only alternative to tethering I suspect we don't have a lot to talk about. Surely you can appreciate that it's possible to teach gear placement in safety to a level where you can be confident that, given an overabundance of options and encouragement to put in more than is necessary, you can be reasonably confident that nobody is doing anything remotely like soloing?

I'm not knocking the advantages in some cases of climbing with a learning leader, particularly as it could allow someone to feel like they were doing something like leading without having to put the time in teaching gear placing and related skills to the same degree; what I do strongly disagree with is that this should be seen as the only responsible way to teach leading, when in reality what is being experienced by the learning leader is likely to be very different from what leading on your own actually feels like.

Anyway I think I've made my point clear enough now so I'll leave it at that. As I said earlier, I think the tide may be turning and such fake-leading is becoming normal and even expected, and since I no longer have any personal desire to get more involved with formal beginner teaching I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
1
 rocksol 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:

I remember Richard McArdy telling me he thought aspirant guides should be able to solo E3?!
 Derry 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:

I think for me, as someone looking to go for MIA in the future, the grade is not just about the climbers ability (as most have pointed out MIAs generally climb well above this) but also about what you're going to put your clients on. I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching or guiding a relative newbie on something above VS 4c, so why would I need to prove that I can climb E1?
2
 bpmclimb 01 Feb 2016
In reply to Derry:

> I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching or guiding a relative newbie on something above VS 4c, so why would I need to prove that I can climb E1?


Wouldn't feel comfortable because anything physically harder would never be appropriate for a client (even if very well protected)? Or wouldn't feel comfortable because you don't want your client climbing harder than you can?

OP Nordie_matt 02 Feb 2016
In reply to Derry:
> I wouldnt feel comfortable teaching or guiding a relative newbie on something above VS 4c, so why would I need to prove that I can climb E1?

Of course it is all subjective, and here you're making assumptions that it is only complete beginners who seek the services of an MIA.

In the past I have had complete newbies on sessions (albeit single pitch) who cruised VS and relished fighting up a HVS. There is also a plethora of wall bred climbers emerging who are quite capable of onsighting 6b/c who lack the experience of trad and/or multi pitch who may seek out instruction as they transition. Not to mention there are some folk who will hire an MIA to lead them up some climbs they have the technical skills to climb on second, but perhaps not the head for the lead.

These are all hypotheticals of course, and ultimately until a client lets you know what they want to do, you could potentially be asked anything. It is of course the prerogative of the individual to decline the work.

And whilst no one is currently asking anyone to prove they can climb E1, it would be nice to think that aspirant MIA's as well as actual MIA's aspire to be better than the minimum requirements. (And I believe most do)

*it wasn't me who disliked your post btw
Post edited at 06:49
 summo 02 Feb 2016
In reply to Derry:

> I think for me, as someone looking to go for MIA in the future, the grade is not just about the climbers ability (as most have pointed out MIAs generally climb well above this) but also about what you're going to put your clients on. I wouldn't feel comfortable teaching or guiding a relative newbie on something above VS 4c, so why would I need to prove that I can climb E1?

adding to what Matt says above, often if your client wants to climb a S,HS etc.. then you need to be fast, because they might not be. Say a tennis shoe, lazarus, groove above route as they've looked at classic rock type routes. If your max grade is only just a little higher than the route you are on, you ain't going to be setting the world on fire, when really you need to be up there super fast, just putting in gear for show and settle in to belay them as they haven't paid to look up at your butt leading all day.

Go for your MIA, the training course is probably one of the best courses I've ever done in terms of what you do, learn and the people you are with, but if you want to enjoy the assessment (as much as you can any assessment), then make sure you are happy leading at least 5a/5b, that way when on 4c you can focus on the other things, perfect runners, rope work and be ready for inevitable terrible accidents that will occur for you to solve.
oggi 02 Feb 2016
In reply to Nordie_matt:

In 1983 when I was assessed there was no MIA, only MIC. The pre requisite was summer and winter ML and the theoretical grade was V Diff in any conditions, in boots! There was no winter climbing award except for winter ML.

In fact in those days winter ML included climbing, I did Aladins Mirror Direct on my assessment. At MIC assessment I did Kaisergerberger Wall as my lead day, on a dry cold day.

The MIC winter came in about 1984 followed by MIA in the late 1980's I think.

It has been VS 4C since the mid 1980's but you should always bear in mind that MI's are expected to be professionals and to take account of the needs of their clients when choosing appropriate routes. MI's do much more than teach multi pitch climbing.
OP Nordie_matt 02 Feb 2016
In reply to oggi:

Thanks for the reply, my op was interested in the minimum requirements over the years, and as to whether or not they have increased or stayed the same, just in comparison to the overall rise of general standards throughout climbing. It's interesting that you have mentioned the type of footwear you were expected (?) to be wearing, was that stipulated in the assessment, or did it occur just due to circumstances?

 Derry 02 Feb 2016


> And whilst no one is currently asking anyone to prove they can climb E1, it would be nice to think that aspirant MIA's as well as actual MIA's aspire to be better than the minimum requirements. (And I believe most do)

Yes absolutely, completely agree. My hypothesis was more based around the client, rather than the guide. As in why assess for something you would never put a client on? And on assessment I'm sure it would become horribly apparent if someone is a confident VS climber or a struggler. But can fully take on board that some climbers may not be complete newbie's (as per the other comments), and want to convert hard plastic pulling to an appropriate trad grade.

> *it wasn't me who disliked your post btw

Ha, no worries. I knew something controversial wouldn't go down well.
 IainWhitehouse 02 Feb 2016
In reply to john arran:

> Unfortunately I suspect I'm swimming against the tide nowadays though - the damage has already been done and expectations that clients must do something different to other climbers seem to be disappointingly common.

Maybe John but you're certainly not alone. I think along pretty similar lines to you. Why it is such a leap to divorce the technical ropes climbing elements from situational, navigational and objective dangers I honestly don't know.

Like you, I have no wish to take groups backpacking in the hills so couldn't get an MIA even though in most other respects I smash the requirements out of the water.

I've talked to lots of people about this. Almost universally, "unqualified" climbers with lots of experience will agree with your viewpoint (including some fairly big names) and even more universally MIAs think it needs to stay as it is because the "mountain element" is crucial. How crucial that mountain element could be to me teaching leading at Stanage I have yet to be even remotely convinced of.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...