As Chair of the UIAA’s Training Standards Panel, I was invited to attend the annual NZOIA Symposium at the Sir Edmund Hillary Outdoor Pursuits Centre at Tongariro, in October 2012. For those of you who had the misfortune to miss this seminal event, I can only sympathise!
1) In the second paragraph Steve comments on the fate of an SPA holder (let's call him X) who was cross crediting at a refresher workshop, at Kinloch. He makes the valid point that 'a crag with an awkward access/exit is outside the scope of SPA', and that 'further training is preferable than a subsequent deferral at revalidation'.
Steve of course is right in this - in my admittedly fast reading of an encyclopedic 55 pages of SPA syllabus, incredibly I saw absolutely no mention of instructor cliff top safety. A failing in their award?? Even at the most top-friendly crags such as Stanage, there are beginner TR set ups that should require an awareness of instructor safety to set up. However, it's not written down in their award. So yes, cross crediters should be aware of this, and be able to prepare. On reading the syllabus this is not the only difference between SPA and Rock 1 - top rope rescues are not tested in the SPA, nor abseil ledge rescues, yet we only ask cross creditors to demonstrate climb/set up/clean/abseil off a sport route. There are other minor differences of course. We (NZOIA) need to read their award more closely, and inform cross crediters of the differences that they need to train up on, or align more with other awards.
So, back to the situation of X. Was he unfairly treated? He was actually at the refresher to have his sport climb/setup/clean/abseil off assessed and then be rubber stamped for his Rock 1, but his incompetence was so egregious that we had no option but to ask him to undergo further training, and sit the full Rock 1 award at a later date. His personal safety at the cliff top (after being asked pre refresher to prepare, then a ground level practice with feedback, then finally the cliff top) was only one element; putting this aside X should not be out there and it is disingenuous to suggest that he was deferred due to being sandbagged on cliff top safety. My report was not passed on to the assessor pool, so here is the summary of the reasons for our decision in that report:
X was in the process of converting his British SPA qualification. The main concerns with X’s practice were:· - Demonstrating his teaching topic at ground level, which was ‘personal safety system to access cliff top’, he used a prusik to get to the cliff edge without back up. After feedback, X could not put this into practice at the cliff top. He came up with an alternative which involved abseiling off a rope looped around a tree, with one end of the rope tied to his harness and abseiling off the other end with an incorrectly backed up abseil device. While correcting his prusik length, he was taking his hand off the rope.
3) (Not in Steve's article) Steve had an interesting suggestion for the first activity in the refresher: Ask the participants to select and climb a route of the grade and style (lead or top rope) of their choice. Quite a lot should arise from this. I have a refresher coming up soon; may just try this.
Finally, it was great to meet you again, Dave, at the BMC's International Climbing Meet this year! If any of you are thinking of coming over to the UK in 2014 it would be worth considering coming along to the winter meet in Scotland's Cairngorms.
Seminars
I’m a climber, right? So I don’t like getting wet (unless a Jacuzzi is involved). So I can’t comment on the other activities (although the participants looked happy, and wet, in the evening!) I attended refresher workshops for Rock 1 and 2 (presented by Dave Brash and Penny Holland) and Alpine 1 (led by Jim Masson). Both these workshops were excellent. The venues were perfect for the weather conditions, and the Alpine refresher focussed on similar skills that feature in the UK’s Winter Mountain Leader. Over here we would only use the word “Alpine” for glacial mountaineering, but that’s because we lost our glaciers several centuries ago and have to cross the Channel to find any.
The rock workshop raised some interesting issues for me about training and cross-accreditation of UK qualifications. Firstly, I would say that there has been a misconception about the scope of the UK’s Single Pitch Award (SPA), which has resulted in a skills gap that needs to be addressed at accreditation stage, rather than the current situation where it only came to light at revalidation. In the UK we would regard a crag with an awkward top access/exit to be generally beyond the remit of SPA: (I would anticipate that a strong candidate would be able to cope with a roped approach, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect this). So further training would make more sense to me than a subsequent deferral at revalidation – refresher courses should be a positive experience (and for the NZ-born candidates it certainly was!)
Cross-accreditation
This brings me to my second observation, which is that whilst NZOIA has an excellent assessment system with robust quality assurance and very experienced staff, the training provision is currently under-developed at the “entry” level. This means that in New Zealand the qualifications are experiencing the best and the worst of what we had in the 1970’s in the UK - excellent standards and reputation but an intimidating prospect for newbies – it reminds me of the 1990’s version of our Mountaineering Instructor Award, where you had to pass the first two days of harsh assessment in order to get onto the training part of the course! Good for reputation but bad for trainees.
Opportunities
What I am suggesting here is that the potential for delivering high quality training courses in New Zealand remains largely untapped at the entry end of the market and could easily be offered on a franchise basis by NZOIA. Any doubters should look at how Mountain Training UK has reinvented itself over the last couple of years, with association memberships now at over 4000 people, all signed up, mostly voluntarily, to compulsory CPD (Continuing Professional Development). And by the end of 2013 we should have introductory hill skills available for our award holders to deliver.
Parties
The final night celebration at the Symposium alone was worth the long hours cooped in a plane! We Brits know how to party (as I’m sure Dave Brash can confirm after attending the British Mountaineering Council’s trad climbing meet in June 2013!), but this was a memorable gig by anybody’s standards. Standout memories include the live band, the limbo dancing, the hand traverses across the beam and putting the world to rights at 4.00 am in a Jacuzzi in a hailstorm. Everybody knew that this particular adventure was high risk but we all went for it anyway.
The UIAA
When it comes to international collaboration between federations and the sharing of good practice, the IFMGA (International Mountain Guides) is the most successful professional body, but it is tiny in comparison with the UIAA, which 74 member associations and five observers (including IFMGA!) in 55 countries – thereby directly representing about 1.3 million people and growing. The UIAA Training Standard is an exclusive service for member associations, using a tried and tested Quality Assurance system (similar to the UIAA Equipment Label) to validate leadership qualifications. Currently demand is so high that we are already working at full capacity, and will need to start recruiting additional assessors next year. In the meantime the UIAA has agreed to develop an online database and significantly upgrade the web presence of the Training Standards, which is currently virtually non-existent – so the escalating demand is currently all through word-of-mouth.
The future
Naturally I am hopeful that NZOIA will apply for accreditation via its member association the New Zealand Alpine Club. The current assessment-focussed system does fulfil the UIAA’s quality requirements so I am certain that we would accept a request for an accreditation inspection. The biggest question remaining is how the current level of quality will be maintained if training provision is given the big push that it deserves. However, a robust assessment process is an excellent gate-keeper and any shortcomings in training are quickly identified at assessment by picking up any common threads, allowing weak areas to be tackled strategically.
My visit
Apart from the NZOIA seminar I was also fortunate enough to be invited as a keynote speaker at the Outdoors New Zealand forum and enjoyed some great days climbing (and surfing, surprisingly!) with various NZOIA luminaries. My thanks are due in particular to Matt Cant for acting as my host, and John Entwisle for accommodating me in Christchurch (the first time I’ve been climbing during an earthquake…) I left New Zealand with many fond memories and some great new friends.
Steve Long. June, 2013.
Replies (with apologies to "Candidate X" if he reads this!)
1. Matt Cant, NZOIA Chief Executive
Steve’s observations regarding the skills gap between the UK Single Pitch Award and Rock 1 have been incorporated into our online Cross Credit Matrix so future cross-credit applicants are clear about this aspect.
In the UK, Mountain Training has a required training pathway for candidates for the Summer Mountain Leader (Bush 1 equivalent) that comprises a 60 hour training programme (or apply for an exemption), then a further 40 days of logged mountain experience, then apply for assessment. This is typical of many overseas schemes, and the lack of an established pathway like this is a recognised gap within the NZOIA system that needs to be addressed if we are to achieve UIAA Accreditation. What we do have are ‘pre-assessment’ training courses that are valued by those who attend them, and we strongly encourage more candidates to take advantage of these opportunities.
In the UK, Mountain Training has a required training pathway for candidates for the Summer Mountain Leader (Bush 1 equivalent) that comprises a 60 hour training programme (or apply for an exemption), then a further 40 days of logged mountain experience, then apply for assessment. This is typical of many overseas schemes, and the lack of an established pathway like this is a recognised gap within the NZOIA system that needs to be addressed if we are to achieve UIAA Accreditation. What we do have are ‘pre-assessment’ training courses that are valued by those who attend them, and we strongly encourage more candidates to take advantage of these opportunities.
2. Dave Brash, Senior trainer
I have a few comments which were sparked by Steve's article:
Steve of course is right in this - in my admittedly fast reading of an encyclopedic 55 pages of SPA syllabus, incredibly I saw absolutely no mention of instructor cliff top safety. A failing in their award?? Even at the most top-friendly crags such as Stanage, there are beginner TR set ups that should require an awareness of instructor safety to set up. However, it's not written down in their award. So yes, cross crediters should be aware of this, and be able to prepare. On reading the syllabus this is not the only difference between SPA and Rock 1 - top rope rescues are not tested in the SPA, nor abseil ledge rescues, yet we only ask cross creditors to demonstrate climb/set up/clean/abseil off a sport route. There are other minor differences of course. We (NZOIA) need to read their award more closely, and inform cross crediters of the differences that they need to train up on, or align more with other awards.
So, back to the situation of X. Was he unfairly treated? He was actually at the refresher to have his sport climb/setup/clean/abseil off assessed and then be rubber stamped for his Rock 1, but his incompetence was so egregious that we had no option but to ask him to undergo further training, and sit the full Rock 1 award at a later date. His personal safety at the cliff top (after being asked pre refresher to prepare, then a ground level practice with feedback, then finally the cliff top) was only one element; putting this aside X should not be out there and it is disingenuous to suggest that he was deferred due to being sandbagged on cliff top safety. My report was not passed on to the assessor pool, so here is the summary of the reasons for our decision in that report:
X was in the process of converting his British SPA qualification. The main concerns with X’s practice were:· - Demonstrating his teaching topic at ground level, which was ‘personal safety system to access cliff top’, he used a prusik to get to the cliff edge without back up. After feedback, X could not put this into practice at the cliff top. He came up with an alternative which involved abseiling off a rope looped around a tree, with one end of the rope tied to his harness and abseiling off the other end with an incorrectly backed up abseil device. While correcting his prusik length, he was taking his hand off the rope.
3) (Not in Steve's article) Steve had an interesting suggestion for the first activity in the refresher: Ask the participants to select and climb a route of the grade and style (lead or top rope) of their choice. Quite a lot should arise from this. I have a refresher coming up soon; may just try this.
3. Steve Long, me
I'm glad to deduce that the NZOIA magazine has been published! I would like to take this opportunity to thank you all again for the hospitality that was extended to me last year. I am proud and excited to be associated with the UIAA's Training Standards Panel and I'm sure that exchanges such as the visit last year can be mutually beneficial for mountaineers all around the world.
You may be interested to learn that the UK's Single Pitch Award does not currently meet the UIAA's requirements for a Training Standard. This is partly because of the lead climbing grade required ("Severe", which is only UIAA IV) but also because it was originally conceived as a "Supervising" award and has a very strict crag definition for its remit - walking access to the top and bottom of the crag. But perhaps the most significant difference is the lack of ongoing CPD requirements.
In the UK the qualification is given "for life" and assumes that the holder will take a mature and enlightened approach to maintaining their currency and competency. The employer/deployer is expected to check the logbook and make an assessment about any further training/assessment that is required. Some (including myself!) would argue that this demands too much judgement from the employer, who may not be qualified to make these distinctions. This is an inherent weakness of the UK scheme and the reason why we introduced the Mountain Training Association - membership of which is optional but requires evidence of Continuing Personal Development - combining both further experience and attendence at recognised workshops . This now has over 3000 members and is steadily growing, showing that the award holders recognise the benefits of some form of revalidation - even if the Boards are unwilling to make this compulsory.
Not surprisingly, most of "Candidate X"s deficiencies highlight specific gaps between the UK's Single Pitch Award and the NZ Rock 1scheme - an almost perfect test case! These were probably compounded by the fact that he was probably at the minimum level required to pass the SPA in the first place and hadnot subsequently gained further experience. By contrast I would expect every member of the UK's Association of Mountaineering Instructors to pass the revalidation comfortably, because all these aspects of access and egress and personal safety using a cowtail are covered in the Mountaineering Instructor Award scheme, and members also have to attend ongoing CPD in "core" syllabus areas. AMI members are accredited by the UIAA as meeting the requirements for a rock instructor qualification (Multi-pitch 'trad" in this particular case).
Take home messages for me?
1. The UIAA Training Standards are a better yardstick for cross-creditation, because if the remit of the award matches, you can be confident that the same minimum standards have been met. Hence I am confident that the single pitch qualifications administered (for example) by AMGA, Zirve, FEACH, FCA (all UIAA accredited) would meet or exceed the requirements of the NZOIA Rock 1.
2. It is possible to pass the SPA without ever having climbed a sport route, and until fairly recently this was also the case with the MIA. This suggests to me that the anti-bolt lobby in the UK dismissed the transferable skills that are gained from experiencing a wide variety of climbing styles and we now have some catching up to do in the UK - it may also explain why registrations for the SPA have declined, while the growth of the Climbing Wall Award has been exponential.
3. In recognition of the above we have started to cross-credit UIAA-accredited qualifications in the UK for direct entry to the "higher" awards. This means that UIAA-accredited walking qualifications can now gain direct entry to MIA and IML with the appropriate UK experience. Knowing how conservative the UK establishment is, this is a significant advance for the UIAA standards.
4. There is fantastic potential in New Zealand for NZOIA-branded training courses. They are more fun to work on than assessments!
5. I would dearly love to have somebody from NZ on our Training Standards Panel, either as a full or a corresponding member. However, you need to be "in it to win it"!
You may be interested to learn that the UK's Single Pitch Award does not currently meet the UIAA's requirements for a Training Standard. This is partly because of the lead climbing grade required ("Severe", which is only UIAA IV) but also because it was originally conceived as a "Supervising" award and has a very strict crag definition for its remit - walking access to the top and bottom of the crag. But perhaps the most significant difference is the lack of ongoing CPD requirements.
In the UK the qualification is given "for life" and assumes that the holder will take a mature and enlightened approach to maintaining their currency and competency. The employer/deployer is expected to check the logbook and make an assessment about any further training/assessment that is required. Some (including myself!) would argue that this demands too much judgement from the employer, who may not be qualified to make these distinctions. This is an inherent weakness of the UK scheme and the reason why we introduced the Mountain Training Association - membership of which is optional but requires evidence of Continuing Personal Development - combining both further experience and attendence at recognised workshops . This now has over 3000 members and is steadily growing, showing that the award holders recognise the benefits of some form of revalidation - even if the Boards are unwilling to make this compulsory.
Not surprisingly, most of "Candidate X"s deficiencies highlight specific gaps between the UK's Single Pitch Award and the NZ Rock 1scheme - an almost perfect test case! These were probably compounded by the fact that he was probably at the minimum level required to pass the SPA in the first place and hadnot subsequently gained further experience. By contrast I would expect every member of the UK's Association of Mountaineering Instructors to pass the revalidation comfortably, because all these aspects of access and egress and personal safety using a cowtail are covered in the Mountaineering Instructor Award scheme, and members also have to attend ongoing CPD in "core" syllabus areas. AMI members are accredited by the UIAA as meeting the requirements for a rock instructor qualification (Multi-pitch 'trad" in this particular case).
Take home messages for me?
1. The UIAA Training Standards are a better yardstick for cross-creditation, because if the remit of the award matches, you can be confident that the same minimum standards have been met. Hence I am confident that the single pitch qualifications administered (for example) by AMGA, Zirve, FEACH, FCA (all UIAA accredited) would meet or exceed the requirements of the NZOIA Rock 1.
2. It is possible to pass the SPA without ever having climbed a sport route, and until fairly recently this was also the case with the MIA. This suggests to me that the anti-bolt lobby in the UK dismissed the transferable skills that are gained from experiencing a wide variety of climbing styles and we now have some catching up to do in the UK - it may also explain why registrations for the SPA have declined, while the growth of the Climbing Wall Award has been exponential.
3. In recognition of the above we have started to cross-credit UIAA-accredited qualifications in the UK for direct entry to the "higher" awards. This means that UIAA-accredited walking qualifications can now gain direct entry to MIA and IML with the appropriate UK experience. Knowing how conservative the UK establishment is, this is a significant advance for the UIAA standards.
4. There is fantastic potential in New Zealand for NZOIA-branded training courses. They are more fun to work on than assessments!
5. I would dearly love to have somebody from NZ on our Training Standards Panel, either as a full or a corresponding member. However, you need to be "in it to win it"!
Finally, it was great to meet you again, Dave, at the BMC's International Climbing Meet this year! If any of you are thinking of coming over to the UK in 2014 it would be worth considering coming along to the winter meet in Scotland's Cairngorms.
No comments:
Post a Comment