UKA fell running qualification

A guiding company... I won't name them.. says all leaders of IML or EA coaches..

OR..

So they are not qualified by usual standards. and consider this may well mean in France.. which if i have to explain the significance of that one I give up..

So Can UKA or English Athletics confirm whether the course they created is suitable? So we are now in a position where E/UKA quals are being used to commercially guide.. potentially in Europe..

Are the deliverers of such courses happy with this situation?
Do you feel EA coaches would be qualified to guide in alpine, winter or mountain situations?

Personally I think not.. but my view is if a fatality happens the inquiry will look for experts and I think we'll end up involved as one of the few ML qualified running guides. So for true transparency. Does a UKA coaching qualifications cover commercial activity?

No it may do.. just try and be as clear as possible..

I think it should be clarified what is going on. If not we are shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Personally I think its better ML's speak out now than later at an inquiry.

I've got my summer ML and can't understand how an accredited athletics coach could justify leading on British Uplands in UK summer conditions let alone on the continent in alpine conditions

hmm interesting on all points.

It appears that the chap guiding the runs is not ML - potential problems insurance-wise? But very experienced - Lakes 100 etc...

It also to be a very a very well set up show; one would think they would know about liability etc and not open themselves up before to claims before opening on the web.

Be interesting to see other thoughts.

Is the ML qualification a requirmentfor AALA covered activities? So not strictly called for when working with adults, though that might be seen as good practice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felltrumpet

hmm interesting on all points.

It appears that the chap guiding the runs is not ML - potential problems insurance-wise? But very experienced - Lakes 100 etc...

It also to be a very a very well set up show; one would think they would know about liability etc and not open themselves up before to claims before opening on the web.

Be interesting to see other thoughts.

---

You don't need an ML to guide, you can go by experience. Insurance is harder to get in away. But sometimes just say 'I'm qualified to the necessary standard as advised by the national governing body' so they could say running comes under UKA therefore as a coach they are qualified... but personally I think mountain running comes under the ML system..

But in Europe that's different.. in France it = jail..

In other countries its less strict than the UK...

What is the isse is they are offering the UKA quals in a commercial venture, and the way its a guide OR a coach suggests they will be used exchangably..

I don't think you/we should name as it does seem well set up with experienced people but UKA should now clarify their position. I said at the time these qualifications could be used commercially. I have emailed Graeme previously but did not receive a reply about this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

A guiding company... I won't name them..

"All our Leaders are either registered UIMLA International Mountain Leaders or England Athletics Association accredited coaches"

---

His website does state: "UK Coaching Certificate Fell and Mountain Running Level 2"

His map reading skills may need some reviewing if he thinks Lancaster is in North Yorkshire.:confused:

If someone who is offering mountain guiding as a profession is using an UKA / EA qualification as a kite mark / approval then they are misleading at the very least.

If they are saying "I have all this professional qualification and experience specific to mountain guiding and by the way I'm also a qualified coach" I would say that's fair, but still misleading as in my opinion there is nothing in a UKA / EA course that would prepare you to guide.

The courses are to help the coach to train the athlete to run effectively on the fells.

Where this has all gone wrong in my opinion is the change of coaching pathway around 4 years ago. UKA had a clear pathway, that made sense and everyone seemed to understand.
Level 1 - assistant general coach - able to assist a level 2 or above in the delivery of a session.
Level 2 - event specific - able to set sessions and coach a group of athletes in their specific event.
Level 3 - as 2 but more qualified.
Level 4 - as 3 but more qualified.
Once at level 2, a coach could chose to move up the levels, or broaden their events by adding event modules.

UKA / EA had a brief flirtation with a new structure a few years ago called UKCC which was a muddle - and then quickly changed, within 12 months I think, to the current system and very few people understand it, and they have very few instructors in a position to take the courses at higher levels. In fact there's nnothing that says how you progress beyoind "athletics coach" that I can see.
http://www.englandathletics.org/page...ing+as+a+Coach
It is explained here.

http://www.englandathletics.org/cour...s+and+Bookings
If you look on here they are a similar mess with the officials as well - with nothing beyond a level 2 scheduled.

They have really made a pig's ear of the coach and officials pathway over the last few years and most existing coaches I know have given up to the course system - only new ones seem to be taking the entry level courses.
Same for officials.

So back to your point Iain, there is nothing (to my knowledge) available in athletics that would give you a mountain leadership qualification.

They are different activities aren't they after all.

I'm not au fait with the various qualifications but (to be pedantic for a moment if I may) looking at the relevant company's website (it's easily found if you google the quote in Iain's initial comments) the EA coaching qualification is only mentioned in relation to their 'Trail Running' offer as opposed to 'mountain guiding', whether this makes any difference to insurance etc I'll leave the experts to discuss!

removed the quote..

Re trail running.. not really. Award wise the WGL may come in there but its a shit qualification for trail running as its so confined in its remit.

You don't need a qualification to guide, I just think EA/UKA should come out and say whether these subsidised courses can be used commercially. Or if they are not intended as such.

There's no vested interest by the way. As Sarah and I are getting divorced, my role in the business has effectively ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

removed the quote..

Re trail running.. not really. Award wise the WGL may come in there but its a shit qualification for trail running as its so confined in its remit.

You don't need a qualification to guide, I just think EA/UKA should come out and say whether these subsidised courses can be used commercially. Or if they are not intended as such.

There's no vested interest by the way. As Sarah and I are getting divorced, my role in the business has effectively ended.

---

There's nothing to stop you using a UKA / EA course commercially. Plenty of athletics coaches are now charging athletes - I hasten to add I don't and I doubt anyone would want to pay me anyway :D

But should you use any qualification for a purpose to which it isn't intended? I got my cycling proficiency badge in about 1973, but I wouldn't lead a PPP cyclocross recce :)

Yeah that's what I meant, outside of its remit. This was brought up in the original thread.. I was told by the FRA chairman to email Graeme yet had no response..

I do think UKA/EA realise they've screwed up with this coaching badges. Removing barriers to participation is a noble idea but frankly i can't see how these qualifications are worth the paper they are written on.. I know people who have been on them have been similarly unimpressed with what is dealt with and that they aren't suitable to be used to take people out in the fells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Multiterrainer

I'm not au fait with the various qualifications but (to be pedantic for a moment if I may) looking at the relevant company's website (it's easily found if you google the quote in Iain's initial comments) the EA coaching qualification is only mentioned in relation to their 'Trail Running' offer as opposed to 'mountain guiding', whether this makes any difference to insurance etc I'll leave the experts to discuss!

---

But what is the "England Athletics Association" ?
Are coaching qualifications issued by UKA or England Athletics?

The way I understand it is that "qualifications" for outdoor activities aren't qualification but assessments and subject to other factors; continued experience and so on. Some schools setup their own assessments for outdoor activities and as long as they can prove they are appropriate they are fine. For example, they might be for a specific area only.

I think the ML etc are qualifications.. well awards.. they are tested.. you have to pass.. its not just a turn up and get given... private schools have more freedom.

Iain - you seem to be assuming that these EA qualifications are meant to be for people to take people out on mountains, but they are not - they are coaching qualifications to instruct on technique, development...

It would be like taking the driving test for F1 - it's not appropriate and not meant to be appropriate.

By the way I think Graeme is away - he certainly has been away.

I'm not sure why you seem to have a beef with EA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Iain - you seem to be assuming that these EA qualifications are meant to be for people to take people out on mountains, but they are not - they are coaching qualifications to instruct on technique, development...

It would be like taking the driving test for F1 - it's not appropriate and not meant to be appropriate.

By the way I think Graeme is away - he certainly has been away.

I'm not sure why you seem to have a beef with EA.

---

No, but they have the potential to be used as such because the remit is so poor and unclear.. I've seen two guiding companies which list the accredited courses...

I have no beef with EA/UKA? I just think there is a stubborness not to change something. Especially on the FRA side..

Look at the Brits.. everyone knows its failing.. its an awful championship compared to what it was, yet the 3 from 4 remains.. I

I thought it would work when it came in but its clear it didn't and the English is by far the more superior championship, but there is a reluctance to admit that things need changing and I think we are seeing that with the coaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Iain - you seem to be assuming that these EA qualifications are meant to be for people to take people out on mountains, but they are not - they are coaching qualifications to instruct on technique, development.....

---

But on the companies website the language is 'all our LEADERS' and then that they are either formally qualified guides OR accredited coaches.. as I said back then the remit should be set out.. for the ML the remit is clear.. i.e. no planned use of rope.. no terrain where winter gear required etc..

So my concern was.. which I stated here months ago.. was these awards would be misused.. and I think we're already seeing that..

I know of another group of elite runners offering guiding on alpine trail running, in france, and as far as I know they don't have any IML/guiding quals.. all it'll take is someone to have a heart attack and they'd end up in prison in France.. the French really don't mess around with their guiding..

I still don't know what your beef is with the FRA and these courses. The FRA doesn't have that much say I'm sure. UKA/EA are the governing bodies and the FRA has worked with them to develop a Fell specific course, which in my experience is just the endurance course with a little re-wording.
I can't see the FRA is at fault here.

If someone wants to go and set up a Rope Access Business and they advertise that they got their Scout's Badge for Knots, then if anyone thinks that gives them credibility they are barking mad.

Likewise if I chose to go in to mountain areas in dangerous conditions, I'll not be asking George Gandy to lead the group (no disrespect to George)

But it comes down to an unclear remit... the remit is so unclear and unspecific I think you could easily say its a qualification to lead people to run on the fells.. LiFR.. LEADERSHIP...

Badly worded.. poorly defined...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

If someone wants to go and set up a Rope Access Business and they advertise that they got their Scout's Badge for Knots, then if anyone thinks that gives them credibility they are barking mad.

---

Exactly WP! Some people will always 'talk up' their qualifications for their own purposes.

To some people, (eg. me) the remit of the LIFR and FMR Level 2 courses is very clear. These are not qualifications for mountain guiding and have nothing to do with navigation, but are all to do with group management skills and coaching skills. The trainers on the courses were quite clear about this, not least that we were training for these on athletic tracks with athletics equipment. I can see Ian has a problem with the word 'Leadership' in the LIFR. This is a short course, yes, and a basic level. But I think it is 'leadership' because it's about leading a group through a structured training session based on running (as opposed to basketball, javelin, football, etc). Leadership in Running Fitness is a clear title - leading a group to get fitter for running.

People much more experienced than me may well have found the content of the LIFR and Level 2 too basic - this is a different issue of course - and in this case there are Level 3s to move onto. People like me wanting to coach runners to improve their running, well to be frank we need to start with the basics. And people like me who understand what these courses are for, we will never be using them to talk our way into mountain leadership jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

But it comes down to an unclear remit... the remit is so unclear and unspecific I think you could easily say its a qualification to lead people to run on the fells.. LiFR.. LEADERSHIP...

Badly worded.. poorly defined...

---

I agree Iain - to a point - yes it is poorly defined.

The new structure is ill thought out and I would prefer to go back to the old structure for coaches of Level 1 asst, Level 2 core + event, etc.

The Leader issue arose from road running. There is an acceptance that most road running clubs do not have any coaching structure. They meet at a pub, park etc and go for a run as a group.
The award seeks to address that by at least raising awareness of some of the issues that these training run organisers need to consider and perhaps it them makes them also think about joining the coaching schemes.

I would say that this is also relevant to the fell clubs. If a club arranges a formal run then unfortunately in today's environment they have to consider "what if", and these courses can make people think about what they are doing.

I don't see it as an FRA issue.

If you feel that there is something wrong, then write to UKA who set all this up. That's what I did when they brought out the UKCC courses - and leave the FRA alone as they can only go by what the ultimate governing body recognises.

The coach licences are quite clear (these are on credit card sized photo cards these days). I'm a level 2 endurance coach and my licence says"this person has had the necessary police records check and is insured to coach endurance plus...."

I also hold a summer ML qualification but given that is nearly 30 years old, and I haven't kept a log book, could I take groups in the hills?

As Richard pointed out the UKA licences (not EA) do include professional coaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wycoller

T
I also hold a summer ML qualification but given that is nearly 30 years old, and I haven't kept a log book, could I take groups in the hills?
.

---

If you have a current first aid course.. then yes..

But you'd have been expected to stay current.. but mainly just going out in the hills a lot is part of that, then attending a few semina's and things..

The basics haven't changed, but things like river crossings have changed a lot.. and we now use compasses.. given up on the stars...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

If you have a current first aid course.. then yes..

But you'd have been expected to stay current.. but mainly just going out in the hills a lot is part of that, then attending a few semina's and things..

The basics haven't changed, but things like river crossings have changed a lot.. and we now use compasses.. given up on the stars...

---

Staying current - there is now a CPD element linked to the revamp of the MLTA website, like you say keeping in practise the skills learnt and perfected.

Mountain Leadership is not a simple qualification in that you need to prove, continually, that you are fit to continue taking groups out. It's not like passing your driving test. Nor is the MLTB necessarily the only suitable provider of qualifications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eleanor

Exactly WP! Some people will always 'talk up' their qualifications for their own purposes.

To some people, (eg. me) the remit of the LIFR and FMR Level 2 courses is very clear. These are not qualifications for mountain guiding and have nothing to do with navigation, but are all to do with group management skills and coaching skills. The trainers on the courses were quite clear about this, not least that we were training for these on athletic tracks with athletics equipment. I can see Ian has a problem with the word 'Leadership' in the LIFR. This is a short course, yes, and a basic level. But I think it is 'leadership' because it's about leading a group through a structured training session based on running (as opposed to basketball, javelin, football, etc). Leadership in Running Fitness is a clear title - leading a group to get fitter for running.
s.

---

Where on the web does it say that? I know what the course is, Sarah did one,

You're a mother wanting a guide to take a kid out, you see the person holds a "leadership" qualification..

The use of the term 'Leader' is a huge problem but just demonstrates why it should have had MLT involvement at some level, because the word Leader would have been advised again.

A Mountain Leader is qualified to lead groups in the mountains..
A Walking Group Leader is qualified to lead groups walking in low level areas.
A Leader in Fell Running... ? Oh they can coach.. they haven't actually been assessed on nav, weather, group management..

I agree the course is to provide fitness training.. but the remit is not clear. You say it is, but google ML remit.. google LiFR remit...

Do you not see the confusion? and as we're now seeing commercial operators saying their leaders are either ML qualified OR UKA accredited.. I think concerns are valid..

The growth in fell running scares me, 2 areas. 1) winter running 2) guiding. I think we'll see high profile incidents before it calms down.

But I know one non qualified 'guide'.. offering guided runs on alpine trails in the French Alps.. I'm experienced in the UK, but high altitude trail running in the alps? I've done a fair bit but wouldn't feel happy guiding 5-10 runners. Risks from exposure to weather, altitude sickess (can hit extremely low), electrical storms are just so different to the UK situation.

The use of other areas, Med islands, lower level 'hillier' areas in say Portugal, Spain, for example Mallorca etc. I think is fine.

Thing is, as well know accidents happen, runners can suddenly be taken ill, so even the best qualified, sufficiently experienced and competent guide could be involved in a serious incident, but if you are operating outside of a remit, or have found to not taken sufficient courses, the minutest of failings in that incident could lead to a huge pile of shit coming down on that guide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tubber

Mountain Leadership is not a simple qualification in that you need to prove, continually, that you are fit to continue taking groups out. It's not like passing your driving test. Nor is the MLTB necessarily the only suitable provider of qualifications.

---

Well there's military.. but outside of that? Scouts? That system has been severly questioned and is being or has been over hauled due to deaths..

Outside of that... the MLTB's are the main providers.. in mountain biking its less centralised..

No you don't have to 'prove' anything..

You have to 'prove' currentness of first aid knowledge. Not mountain knowledge. You are assumed to have stayed current. There is no reason why a guide who passed his ML in 1965, and is a current first aider can't work as an ML..

Anyway you do not need qualifications at all.. if people want to guide based on experience that's perfectly OK in the UK. Your insurance will need to know and will be more expensive and probably more specific, but the main worry is stating accredited courses as being relevant to leading runs out in the hills..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I don't see it as an FRA issue.

If you feel that there is something wrong, then write to UKA who set all this up. That's what I did when they brought out the UKCC courses - and leave the FRA alone as they can only go by what the ultimate governing body recognises.

---

I disagree there. Graham's defence of Graeme as FRA Coaching coordinator and creator of the course was strong.. its clearly an FRA associated course..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Well there's military.. but outside of that? Scouts? That system has been severly questioned and is being or has been over hauled due to deaths..

Outside of that... the MLTB's are the main providers.. in mountain biking its less centralised..

No you don't have to 'prove' anything..

You have to 'prove' currentness of first aid knowledge. Not mountain knowledge. You are assumed to have stayed current. There is no reason why a guide who passed his ML in 1965, and is a current first aider can't work as an ML..

Anyway you do not need qualifications at all.. if people want to guide based on experience that's perfectly OK in the UK. Your insurance will need to know and will be more expensive and probably more specific, but the main worry is stating accredited courses as being relevant to leading runs out in the hills..

---

You proove it by keeping a log book!
I had a similar absolute idea about ML assessments until being enlightened by a Plas Y Brenin course in off site management.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

Usual agenda surfaces again.

---

I was getting worried about you Grumps.. 3 pages and no useless banane comment adding nothing to the debate from mr/mrs anonymous.. Your courage in your posting ability is obvious.. hence why you hide like this...

Its good that a spiteful comment is used.. you have a potentially serious issue which should be clarified.. or you can make shitty comments anonymously.. one brave person..

Eh? That's not proving..

And isn't that exactly what I said.. keeping getting experience..but that is not a requirement. You are still an ML as long as you have FA.. but obviously if something went wrong you'd be under scrutiny at why you weren't current..

PYB the centre of all that is wrong with the ML syllabus... unfortunately the MLTB sit too close to PYB hence why they have the monopoly..

I don't think we're too far away from the same opinion. As with many things part of the answer is that "it depends". the law isn't clear, it depends if you need a license and so on. Ultimately you can do it with no qualifications informally. If the coach in question is taking people out on the tops year round it doesn't sound too good. If he's in a low lying field, well: it depends.

Ont interesting point is that the ML used to be a certificate; you passed it and had it forever. I guess about 25 years ago they changed it to an assessment that might it was dependent on continued experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnmc

Is the ML qualification a requirmentfor AALA covered activities? So not strictly called for when working with adults, though that might be seen as good practice.

---

Hasn't AALA gone? I know it was one of the bodies listed to be abolished this year... I don't work with kids so don't follow it ..

The ML is strangely abused though.. I was signed off as competent to lead groups coasteering.. which I think is crazy - how is the ML suitable.. but as I had an ML and could swim I was deemed competent and signed off by an AALA approved provider... coasteering and gorge running are two areas which will need to be tightened up as deaths mount..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tubber

I don't think we're too far away from the same opinion. As with many things part of the answer is that "it depends". the law isn't clear, it depends if you need a license and so on. Ultimately you can do it with no qualifications informally. If the coach in question is taking people out on the tops year round it doesn't sound too good. If he's in a low lying field, well: it depends.

---

I think its fine if they advertise themselves as unqualified but experienced.. just listing the coaching quals as an OR to an MLT qualification seems misleading to me, and was my concern back when I first commented on these awards last year..

No I don't think we are either.. its good the law isn't too tight in many ways...

We should have it that an experienced runner can 'lead' club runners.. I just think we'll see more and more stipulations from UKA et al that club runners are 'qualified' to lead such runs yet these 'qualifications' won't be worth the paper they are written on.. and will actually end up with more issues.

But there is nothing wrong with experienced people guiding or leading groups.. if anything by bringing in courses, with a poorly defined remit, you increase the risk of inexperienced people leading people out..