Information
Single Pitch Award Workshop
BOS/MLTNI SPA PROVIDERS WORKSHOP
Date: 8-9 October 2004.
Venue: TOLLYMORE MOUNTAIN CENTRE
In Attendance:
Helen Lawless Dave Gaughran Colin Gibbon Orla Prendergast Jane Carney Tomas Aylward
Ronnie Smith Allan Fyffe (SMLTB Facilitator)
Brendan Whelan Ronan Lenihan Ronan Kane
Andy Callan Calvin Torrans Tim Orr
Kieran O’Hara
The above list represented an excellent turnout of providers and tutors working on SPA training and assessment in Ireland inc. representation from BOS, MCI, MTS & MTNI.
The rationale behind these workshops is to keep tutors informed and to ensure parity of standards and compatibility of training and assessment courses throughout Ireland and the UK.
It was decided to discuss the various issues as one group and to summarise through feedback and note taking.
Generally there were very few differences and most of these being minor were quickly considered and agreement reached.
Problem Solving Issues.
Stuck/crag fast abseiler: Prevention and preparation were the key points here, with a releasable abseil (tied off Italian Hitch) as a standard part of the set up. A number of possible problem scenarios were discussed and the consensus was that these could generally be solved by the release of the abseil rope and or abseiling down to assist the student. The use of tandem or “Y” abseils was not considered necessary and given the limited levels of experience at training most thought these had potential for unnecessary risk.
Suitability of venues for abseil was discussed in terms of risk assessment and environmental awareness. Encouraging students to ensure sites are safe from loose rock, ledges for students to get stuck on, and the potential for awkward overlaps or pendulum situations. Another clear message was the need to have regard for other users of the venue and not using established rock climbing lines as frequent abseil lines.
Climbing Problems.
Keeping things simple was very much the message from everyone on this topic. Giving the candidates a good understanding of the flexibility of basic techniques to solve or prevent common problems.
Escaping from the belay system with the live rope loaded was an acceptable situation and consensus was this should be done, by simply stepping out of the harness. It was felt that to expect students to escape using prussik and klemheists etc was complex and risky.
There was agreement that it was preferable to abseil down to help stuck students rather than prussiking up and that prussiking would only be demonstrated as a means of back up on very straightforward terrain not as means of upward progress.
In the case of a stuck climber assistance from a tight rope and/or advice or lowering seemed the simplest solution and that no hoists would be expected of students. In the case of climbing past a runner, an end of rope or loop from the tied off belay plate was agreed to be the extent of any technical solution.
Personal abseil techniques were discussed at great length and allowing students to experience a variety of methods whilst pointing out the pros and cons of each seemed the most appropriate approach to this one.
Back up safety ropes should be used at the trainer and assessors discretion but more especially in problem solving and abseil situations.
One final point on this area was that SPA holders should be encouraged to lead climb routes with their students to help demonstrate and promote what climbing actually looks like whilst putting abseil and other aspects into perspective.
It was agreed that on occasion particularly able trainees may be capable and interested in looking at some of the more complex systems. It was agreed this would be appropriate but that it should be made clear that these systems are outside the scheme and not expected of students at assessment.
Providers need to be careful to make this clear and advise students that they will be assessed on whatever system they chose to use whilst being assessed.
Setting Up Belays.
Trainers and assessors are encouraged to use a variety of venues to expose train and test the candidate’s ability to utilise anchors of varying characteristics and use the resulting belays efficiently and safely.
A large emphasis should be put into gear placement with plenty of feedback and an emphasis on the need for constant practice and breadth of experience in this crucial skill.
Good examples of different set ups and plenty of discussion around issues such as cams V’s passive, number of anchors required etc are encouraged throughout training and assessment.
Students should be encouraged to be efficient in setting up of systems and belays at both training and assessment. Personal safety whilst working at the crag edge should be encouraged at all times especially in setting up bottom ropes and testing belays.
For any number of reasons it may be necessary to use venues, which might lie outside the scheme. In these instances it was felt this should be made clear to students along with the rationale for its use in training. Providers should ensure that the approach to and egress from the venue are reasonable and take into account student safety and emotional wellbeing at al times. This issue also highlighted the need for course directors to always be on the ground actively involved in both training and assessment and the use of appropriately qualified and experienced trainers and assessors. Whilst it is possible to use suitably experienced SPA holders as trainers it seems almost all providers are using MIA training as a minimum especially for assessment.
Where at all possible, assessment venues should be within the remit of the award allowing candidates to be fairly assessed and to avoid any complication in reviews especially in the case of deferral or fails.
Group Sessions & set-ups.
When possible group sessions should emulate proper climbing as closely as possible. Discussion about choice of venues and routes in order to avoid climbing problems and to avoid conflict with other users should be encouraged.
There were a number of discussions around technical issues such as the use of direct belay (Italian Hitch or similar) for the abseil safety rope giving more flexibility and control over the student, the use of rigging ropes over incorporating the climbing rope in a more normal setup, the use of cams and slings over spikes etc in bottom rope set ups where the belay is out of sight for prolonged periods and the use of clove hitches near to the ends of ropes in the belay set up.
Candidates should be encouraged to use progressive and achievable routes to motivate and encourage participation and to discuss issues such as top ropes where students feel a sense of success etc.
Climbing Walls.
All agreed that this aspect is important and as the SPA is still the most basic and common, nationally recognised leadership award for climbing wall supervision, it clearly needs inclusion in training and if possible assessment.
Whilst everyone felt that many of the technical skills applied outdoors were easily transferable to the indoor environment there where a number of issues peculiar to the climbing wall environment.
Candidates need to be aware of the regulations and guidelines at any particular wall in terms of age restrictions, group sizes, equipment usage etc. Group control and awareness of impact from and on other users is also an important issue and therefore the importance of safety briefs to students must be made clear.
The Bouldering wall and the use of crash/safety mats were identified as a key issues with a clear safety brief and good demonstration/coaching of landing and spotting skills crucial for safe use.
Safe and fun warm ups along with using progression and sensible route choice would make the sessions safe and motivating. In particular the difficulty of the route, size of holds, steepness, potential for pendulums and swing all played a part in sensible route choice.
A number of safe belay systems were discussed especially ones, which could involve the students, and in this case it was considered desirable that the candidate/SPA held the tail of all ropes as a back up.
Having students lead climbing was agreed to be outside of the remit but demonstrating systems that might help candidates progress their students to leading were possible within the scheme.
Course Programmes for Training and Assessment.
Everyone agreed that 20 hours contact time must be the absolute minimum and that even with this both training and assessment courses required maximum use of this time.
Some of the problems highlighted were students arriving late on the first evening or in fact not starting until the morning of day 1 thus creating the potential for information overload on day 1 or putting time pressure on candidates especially those being assessed.
Travel time to suitable venues seemed to be a problem for a number of providers both in terms of minibus/transport time and walk in time. Early starts and late dinner and using more suitable bases to operate from or making the course longer could remedy this.
All providers regularly experience problems with poor logbooks and not getting logbooks until students arrive. One suggestion for this was the use of a pro forma submitted prior to attendance allowing student to document pre-requisites rather than post in logbooks.
Providers should remain flexible in terms of venue choice taking into account candidate’s ability, weather and crag conditions on the day.
Candidates should be encouraged to use their own personal equipment where appropriate, allowing them to see its suitability and potentially see a variety of equipment used by other candidates. All providers advised that candidates used providers ropes on grounds of safety and for insurance purposes.
During training and assessment providers should encourage candidates to consider the various environmental issues linked to use of natural venues.
The use of home papers for assessment was agreed to be useful but not a mandatory element of an assessment, with the rationale being to encourage students to research the background and history of rock-climbing and focus attention on traditionally weak areas of assessment.
Staff qualifications for assessment were regarded as crucial especially in terms of risk assessment towards candidates and mock students and in terms of making judgement on the suitability of various techniques and systems.
All providers present used mock students for the group aspect of the assessment and this was felt to be preferable. This allows realistic assessment of group care and risk assessment/safety awareness, communication skills and organisational ability. Some providers felt that using adults may in some cases be more effective and would encourage candidates to talk to their mock students and pitch the day according to previous experiences.
If not managed carefully by assessor and candidates the group day can be slow, possibly de-motivating for students and put students at risk.
It was felt that on assessment there is room for further coaching but that it is essential to ensure you have got clear quantifiable results before “stepping in” to coach.
Feedback and reviews.
It was felt that at the end of training, students should be given a full verbal and written review and a clear action plan towards consolidation. There was some discussion around the idea of feedback being part of the Training Course Report form or a separate page, which could be removed by candidates prior to assessment. This seemed to be left open with some providers preferring to see training comments prior to assessment and keeping an open mind and not pre-judging candidates?
Most felt it was probably more important and useful to assessors to highlight areas of the syllabus not covered at training rather than the long list of items that are covered. The reference section of the logbook was also considered and it was felt to be useful especially in situations were logbook contents were dubious or minimal or clarification was necessary on some aspects of the candidates logged experience.
Everyone agreed on the importance of emphasising the need for a good logbook at both training (where there may be some room for flexibility) and especially at assessment where there is little or no scope for flexibility. Trainers also need to ensure students think in terms of their 40 best routes for assessment along with all the other routes and additional experience. The logbook is a useful tool for candidates and assessors and is almost always referred to at any course review.
It was agreed that deferrals are applied when a candidate shows one or two weakness’ in areas such as poor structure, lack of understanding or poor personal safety. Students should be clearly briefed at the start of assessment on the possible outcomes and the process and methods, which will be employed to observe their skills and abilities.
Feedback for deferral and fails should be clear and concise and not based on “gut feeling”. The written feedback and action plan should be well laid out and relate clearly to the syllabus areas and clearly identify any weakness’ and corrective action plans and possibly time scales.
It was felt that F.A. was the most common reason for deferral and shortfalls on supervisory days/group supervision experience. Everyone agreed that the logbook should not be used to fix any technical issues/weakness’.
Fails are given when there are major shortfalls in the candidates abilities and especially in terms of dangerous mistakes relating to risk assessment and group control.
The same basic guidelines for feedback apply to a failed candidate albeit with perhaps a little more consideration for the emotional impact of the result. The timing and methods of giving results and amounts of verbal feedback versus written where discussed with agreement to a clear verbal review with an opportunity for clarification and an emphasis on the written aspects with encouragement for candidates to follow up at a later stage.
Child Protection.
A discussion around implementing the MCI child protection policies and how to include this in an already packed 20 hours and this was facilitated by Vincent McAlinden, MCI Youth Officer. The final agreement was that MCI would produce a child protection/awareness information leaflet for candidates, to be included in logbooks at registration and a small tutor pack of scenarios/discussion topics and guidelines/answers. These could be incorporated throughout the training (assessment?) courses rather than a stand-alone session. Vincent agreed to collect various scenario ideas from providers and produce a draft for the MCI youth meeting 13th November.
Course Information.
MCI agreed to explore the possibilities of including on the MCI website links to useful website such as MTUK, AMI, CAN etc. It was felt this would help Providers and especially candidates access info prior to and after registration. This was partly highlighted by the inability of potential BOS candidates to register until having completed the pre-requisites for training. This is one major difference between the UK schemes and it also has its pros and cons for providers and candidates.
Information on what courses are being run, where and by who was discussed and a number of options were discussed. One was a MCI bulletin board on the MCI website accessible by providers and others where course list and information could be displayed publicly and amended by providers. The second was an informal group mailing list whereby Irish providers can contact any or all other providers within Ireland with information on courses or requests for assistance etc. This has the advantage of being more directed and instant in terms of communications and short notice situations.
AMI
An AMI workshop date was discussed for December 9th & 10th at Tollymore with a workshop related to assessment reviews and feedback facilitated by an occupational psychologist. Other aspects of the workshop would be to run a practical session on Gorge Walking and co-steering and to invite potential MIA trainees in order to help them with information on the scheme and advice prior to training/registration.
This is a provisional date at the moment but will be confirmed ASAP.
I hope I have managed to capture most of the main topics of discussion and apologise for any omissions. If I have missed any points or any one has any other points, I am sure you could do this via the group e-mail system.
Final thanks to everyone for making the effort and giving the input and a special thanks to Allan Fyffe for making the journey and giving us the benefit of his many years of training and assessing and his experiences as secretary to the MTS.
More info: http://mountaintraining.ie/index.php?lnk=courses&type=spa
More info: http://mountaintraining.ie/index.php?lnk=courses&type=mpa
