 Poster: A snowHead
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| T Bar, I think there is a language requirement for BASI Grade 1, although fairly basic. |
You now have to do a language test for ISIA rob@rar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| PhillipStanton wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| T Bar, I think there is a language requirement for BASI Grade 1, although fairly basic. |
You now have to do a language test for ISIA rob@rar. |
Oh blimey! Or should I say sacré bleu!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| PhillipStanton wrote: |
| rob@rar wrote: |
| T Bar, I think there is a language requirement for BASI Grade 1, although fairly basic. |
You now have to do a language test for ISIA rob@rar. |
Oh blimey! Or should I say sacré bleu! |
Merde 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
| Quote: |
In the Rocky Mountain Division of PSIA there is now a "speed" requirement, which involves getting a gold NASTAR medal. Not that tough, but it is age-adjusted, which I think is a good thing.
|
Martin Bell, At what level of PSIA does the race requirement kick in?
|
Level 3 which is their top one.
NASTAR is a GS, usually on quite easy terrain, around 25-30 seconds in length. Local "pace-setters" race against a member of the US Ski Team at the beginning of the season and are then handicapped accordingly. Very similar to "WISBI", if anyone is familiar with that from Austria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Martin Bell wrote: |
| NASTAR is a GS, usually on quite easy terrain, around 25-30 seconds in length. Local "pace-setters" race against a member of the US Ski Team at the beginning of the season and are then handicapped accordingly. Very similar to "WISBI", if anyone is familiar with that from Austria. |
Quick description of the French system here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
there sounds to be a re occurring theme of people who have skiied with entry level instructors and felt the instructors were not up to the mark in terms of technical ability and were not able to reasonably demonstrate correct technique.
|
That, is less to do with the ability of the instructor teaching at that level, and more to do with the management of the ski school in question.
Needless to say we place high priority in matching instructors to clients, in terms of ability, expectations, and personality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eng_ch, One of the worst things about the Eurotest is that the openers can have as many runs as they like to set the time (they probably don't do this so many times now it's a GS) but the student can only do each course twice. they have around 150 peeps per day, so multiple descents wouldn't work, although I like the idea myself. I do actually feel quite strongly that the openers should only be allowed one run. However it's virtually impossible for someone to run a blinder on test day and pass. They all need to be consistently at or above the mark to be able to pass when you take nerves etc. into account. recent qualifyers are not necessarily better teachers, but they are better skiers! 
T Bar, 
rob@rar, yes there is, and apparently they now do actually enforce it (but the level required is low).
skimottaret, The race requirement is only in the Rocky Mountain Division of the PSIA (they don't have just one body). Nastar courses are (I hear) very easy and regular GSs, usually run on blue slopes until the National finals.
I think the eurotest could be made a little easier (max 2% + IMO), that would still require peeps to be very good skiers, but would be more attainable to those with non-racing backgrounds. I do think age-related would be a good idea. John Nelson passed his Eurotest at the age of 46 as a Grade 2, and is now pretty sure he'll never pass his Grade 1 .... I heard that the BASI 1 technical is now considered the European benchmark ...... traditionally the pass rate for BASI 1 was around 20-25%, I was under the impression that the eurotest has a similar pass rate ........... just passing on gossip 
All of these speed tests are just one aspect of the exams which contain many other modules and requirements. I do think it's the best way to sort the wheat from the chaff. ..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
Martin Bell, At what level of PSIA does the race requirement kick in?
Age adjusted works for me and i think everyone would agree with that one.... 
Not understanding the NASTAR levels how would GOLD that compare to say the Test Technique, the Aosta Valley test or FIS points. Is it GS or SS? |
PSIA is not a national standard- there are many divisions... AFAIK ONLY Rocky mountain division has race requirement...
I do not know the other levels... but NASTAR gold is pretty simple.... I got my gold second day ever in a race course...
You just need to ski cleanly for a gold - which is set to be top 20% of population ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
In previous discussions on this subject I've always argued not that there should not be objective tests in the only way we know, but that any bar should be at an appropriate level. Glad to see many others sharing this view. An age handicap seems like a good idea to me too.
However it's still my opinion that ISIA is a sufficient level for autonomous instructing and that ISTD with Eurotest should simply be a further qualification adding kudos and some extra off piste teaching rights and maybe giving an instructor the credentials to coach without separate coaching qualifications. Level 1 must exist to allow all our dry and indoor slopes to function, but in the UK all I really see Level 2 as doing is serving as an entry level to ISIA training. I guess it also forms a further qualification for anyone who's just going to teach dry/indoor, and acts as an equivalent to the European entry levels to higher qualifications. I believe in Austria the anwarter and in France the stagiere really fulfil the role (albeit with a much higher skiing standard) the Level 1 does here for dry/indoor! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is the big problem that a race test would solve?
BASI 3s (L2) will be "coaching" holiday makers, not elite athletes, usually beginners, and more often than not, kids.
A bit of detect and correct, could usefully be added but beyond that its probably best left alone. In any case BASI seem to be struggling to deliver what it is already doing in a consistent manner, maybe that is where some improvement is needed first.
j
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| easiski wrote: |
The race requirement is only in the Rocky Mountain Division of the PSIA (they don't have just one body). Nastar courses are (I hear) very easy and regular GSs, usually run on blue slopes until the National finals.
|
Yep, as far as I know that is all correct.
There is always a lot of internal debate on www.epicski.com, about whether a certification is "worth" more if you got it in one division as opposed to another. Obviously this is one area where a RM division level 3 does seem to require a bit more than the others. I was quite surprised by how much autonomy these divisions have - it seems to mirror the US system in general, which allows individual states to make a lot of their own laws in certain areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| rungsp wrote: |
| If what has been said earlier is true that basically nobody over 40 stands a chance of passing Eurotest, then that alone is enough to show how absurd a speedtest is as a must-pass qualification. |
Total bollux - all it says is that the bar is currently too high for older skiers. You should also notice that NONE of those in the pro-race camp have defended the current level of the Eurotest bar, just that there should be a bar. If you are in your mid/early 20s it's also not ridiculously high. One lass I know probably went through her first set of gates with us two years ago, as a newly-qualified BASI3. She's now a 2 (AIUI working as a stagiere in LDA) who's missed her Eurotest by 0.5 seconds. She should get it next year. So if it needs lowering it shouldn't be lowered too much for the youngsters, but an age-related threshold sounds a good idea.
There's also been a load more bollux talked about on this thread about racing being all about the "perfect carve". Look at WC GS or SL races and you'll see very, very few "perfect carved" turns. In the last two races I did (at regional and Club National level, i.e. pretty much entry level), if all you could do is carve it would have been impossible to stay in the course - a controlled twists and slide was the only possible way around one corner. In our training session on Wednesday, one of our courses required quite a bit of steered edging to get through. It's the job of course setters to set courses that make you think, change rhythm and technique at various points down a course. A race (as opposed to training) course that gives you a path with a consistent pure carve rhythm is a bad course.
Racing is about making the most appropriate blend of edging, rotation and pressure control to make the fastest passage through the course - albeit the major element of that being edge control - with continual use of appropriate balance and recovery skills. As such it's using the same skills as for all-mountain skiing, but with a very different blend. And as iblair says "Drift'n'Lock" is not "bad technique", just possibly not the most conventional technique to use where Bode does. In some cases, such as making turns on glacier ice, it's pretty much the only technique that works effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me after all the debate that a race test for Level 1 and 2 is a bad idea and wouldnt accomplish much. This level is qualified to teach up to parallel standard so it should be down to the ski school to ensure BASI 3's arn't giving private lessons to advanced skiers.
However i do think at ISIA level it could make sense. At that level you must complete a 5 day Alpine Performance Module which is setting courses, race training drills and coaching young racers. It would seem to me that adding a SENSIBLE, achievable timed race at the end of that module would help ensure consistency and bring BASI into line with the other EURO countries (and Rocky Mountain PSIA) that have similar tests. (TT, Aosta Valley, WISBI)
At ISIA level it shouldnt be a shock to have to run a race course under pressure and hit a certain time to get your license and indeed should you wish to teach in virutally any of the euro countries you have to do a race test of some description so why not have one of our own to adequately prepare for that.
Also at ISIA level you are teaching better skiers who may expect a level of knowledge about racing as well as off piste, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
easiski, "Ski teaching is a profession, part timers working for nothing are bad for the overall view of the profession IMO. Also I don't agree about the performance. Watching an italian instructor skiing backwards down the ice at the bottom of the glacier holding up a large child - a poor skier couldn't do that. "
Are you saying that there is no place fot the amature ski teacher in the skiing world? Not sure what was meant by your comments?
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| juice wrote: |
In any case BASI seem to be struggling to deliver what it is already doing in a consistent manner, maybe that is where some improvement is needed first.
j |
I agree and that may be a better solution as you say. Now with a slightly easier L1 perhaps the L2 will be tightened up a bit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think a fudamental element of this thread is that some people are now so much better skiers than they used to be, that they have now become aware of the short comings of some instructors, I have noticed myself picking up on the poor technique of some instructors. In reality it is down to the ski school management to decide who teaches what level skier.
Only a very small percentage of the recreational skiers need someone who has passed a speed test and by the time they get to that level then they have already demonstrated an interest in progressing their ability and should be aware of the different levels of ski instructor' qualifications.
Race technique is not an indication of teaching ability, so I vote no and leave it to the examiners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Dypcdiver wrote: |
| Only a very small percentage of the recreational skiers need someone who has passed a speed test |
Why is that? I think that all grades of skier benefit from an instructor who has fundamental skiing skills good enough to pass a timed run as demanding as the Eurotest. I'd agree if you said only a small proportion of recreational skiers need an instructor who has a race coach qualification, but surely even a beginner would benefit from an instructor who has very strong technical skills as well as good teaching ability?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
skimottaret,
| Quote: |
However i do think at ISIA level it could make sense
|
Why - you already have the TT to do in France. The APM (assuming it's the same as the APC I did) does not prepare you for racing to any great extent....although it did have a some technical elements in it, it was mostly coaching and course setting. If you are aiming for ISIA or higher, then shouldn't you be spending time in the gates anyway - to prepare for TT and Eurotest.
There are plenty of organisations wanting to take money from us to race train....
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I think the APM may be a little more personal technical, a little less course setting than the APC1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
rob@rar, Line up a group of ski instructors ranging from 19 to 60 years old and who do you think they (the public) pick first. I am not saying the older person has better teaching skills but, thats the way life is, the 60 year old probably could not pass the speed test, but to still be teaching he must have gained some skills, are you suggesting we bin him? To me teaching skills foremost, who taught Bode, could he or she have passed the speed test if Bode had set the boggey time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
In ski instruction, I'm not sure I would go for the older instructor actually, and I think the general public at large would be of similar opinion. I'd take the view that a more recently qualified instructor would be more up to date with current ski techniques, and I'd have assumed that a younger instructor would be more recently qualified, even thought that may not be the case.
I guess that's just from experience over the years of some older instructors who ski as if they haven't done any kind of refresher since they got their qualification 30 years' ago...
I'm not saying that all older instructors are out of date, so please no one shout at me! Just commenting that I believe public perception would be that, and therefore they'de on the whole favour younger instructors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote="ski"]skimottaret,
| Quote: |
However i do think at ISIA level it could make sense
|
Why - you already have the TT to do in France. The APM (assuming it's the same as the APC I did) does not prepare you for racing to any great extent....although it did have a some technical elements in it, it was mostly coaching and course setting. If you are aiming for ISIA or higher, then shouldn't you be spending time in the gates anyway - to prepare for TT and Eurotest.
quote]
Two reasons. One that as you have to do the APM and are meant to be qualified to coach racing i think having passed a race yourself should be required IMO.
Second, Because virtually all other countries have a race requirement at that level except for BASI and this may be holding BASI people back for succeeding on the TT, Aosta, PSIA etc... You are right that you can train but that to me is playing catch up and the lack of race training is apparent in BASI trained skiers IMO when watching the skiers from other nations. I know that most of them will have been in race clubs since children but you gotta start somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that in a system that needs lots of people, some barely paid part-timers, the lowest tier are never going to be required to do a speed test, because the goal is neither highly able instructors nor restricted numbers.
There is a dichotomy between nations whose highest level is the current ISIA (future 'red' ISIA) and those whose highest level is the ISTD (future 'black' ISIA). Most on this thread seem to pretty much agree that the bar for the speed test for ISTD is too high and exists in order to restrict the numbers who can join the club. Seems fairly blatant to me esp as I think I'm right in saying that the race coaching requirement continues to amount to no more than the old APC1, yet the standard of skiing required is a couple of leagues above the level that qualification is intended to train to. Such a high standard of skiing but not even a passing nod at attempting to be able to pass on what you might or might not have learnt. But then should ski instructors and race coaches be all rolled into one? With respect to current ISIA, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an appropriate speed test as an objective assessment of piste performance - by this I only mean I'd like my ski instructor to be able to fool a punter like me as far as making a decent fist of a slalom and GS course goes - and I think ISIA is and ought to be regarded as sufficient for autonomous teaching anywhere.
Like I stated above, not sure what purpose the Level 2 serves in most systems. Seems to make sense to me that it was once labelled Assistant Ski Instructor. I can understand a Level 1 of badly paid part-timers, a Level 3 of properly qualified, fully capable and independent instructors, even a Level 4 of those qualified to do advanced instructing and overlap into race coaching. In that context, it really doesn't matter whether a Level 2 can make a decent fist of a slalom or not, but it'd be fun having to try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
slikedges, level 2 is meant to allow teaching on Open Mountain environments as opposed to Indoor or plastic but the level of student (up to parallel) isnt much different. So there is a need and the additional training is useful...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret, as you know I know what it qualifies you for, but in CSIA and PSIA, Level 1 fulfils both that and the niche of poorly paid part-timers that Level 1 fulfils under BASI
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
slikedges, so what niche does a PSIA 2 or CSIA 2 fill?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
skimottaret, that's my point! I can understand a 3 tiered system where the bottom is beginners and trying to get people into the system, the mid-level is fully independent and the top level is extra super mega, sort of like anwarter, schilehrer, staatlicher (no I don't know how to spell in german). I can understand a 2 tiered system where the bottom is the same and the top is fully independent (not sure but I think NZSIA). I can even understand a system where the bottom is the same and the top is extra super duper, like stagiere, national. Don't know what purpose Level 2 serves except as, well, just another level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, But perhaps it is becasue we have in the UK the artificial slope requirement which i think the 1 is fine for and the 2 for beginners on mountain. The others dont really have plastic to deal with.....
and yeah it may be just another level but the difference in skills and training from a level one to an ISIA is too huge a leap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| skimottaret wrote: |
|
care to elaborate? |
Allow me. If BASI were to raise the bar too high, then the worthless pile of decrepit old rubbish that pay them great big chunks of their early retirement lump sums each year, quit simply wouldn't bother doing BASI's courses. So BASI would be stuck trying to wring money out of rich, middle-class peoples' teenage kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| beanie1 wrote: |
| In ski instruction, I'm not sure I would go for the older instructor actually, and I think the general public at large would be of similar opinion. I'd take the view that a more recently qualified instructor would be more up to date with current ski techniques, and I'd have assumed that a younger instructor would be more recently qualified, even thought that may not be the case. |
beanie, I'd disagree with that one. I started skiing at the age of 44 with a bunch of friends of the same age & this wasn't the case. My friend's didn't want a young instructor who'd skied since they were toddler & who they felt couldn't actually couldn't comprehend the feelings of fear, not being able to do something intuitively & fatigue etc. My friends love skiing their 1/2 weeks a year & still follow this doctrine when selecting an instructor. Interestingly, I'm the exception of the group having caught the bug bad (14 weeks in three years) & I tend to follow your thinking.
After doing my ASSI I had a few runs with Ali Rainback (NewGen Training Director) at the MK ski test last year to get his thoughts on whether I'd meet the old BASI 3 entry level standard. We discussed the 'age issue' & Ali said that he definately had a requirement for '40 something' instructors, especially to teach the '40 something' clients etc. At the time I was very keen to progress my instructor training as a possible 'early retirement/move to the mountains' income stream but I've now binned the idea as there's not a hope in hell of me passing the TT/ET so there's no point in me spending the money/time to do a BASI qualification when I could be free skiing.
Because I started skiing late & have a lot of life/coaching/parenting/communication experience I actually think I'd do a pretty good job with newby skiers of any age upto parallel standard - & the positive feedback I've received when instructing newby skiers at the Lions Club has reinforced my view that passing the TT/ET has absolutely no bearing on that ability.
tim brown, you might have a point there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
skimottaret, which is why ultimately it's moot whether the Level 2 should involve a ski off. Isn't the commonly held view hereabouts that a recent BASI III is probably technically better than his equivalent N.American counterpart, yet I'd expect it to be the entirely mountain-based system to produce the better skiers and maybe have a ski off at Level 2 rather than the system where the Level 2 is given life by the limitation of its Level 1 to artificial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
spyderjon, you could pass Aosta valley, or teach in Switzerland...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| spyderjon, you could pass Aosta valley, or teach in Switzerland... |
Agreed slik, but how long though before the TT/ET becomes a total European wide requirement? I think I've read here that that was being lobbied for? I could see all the current Swiss instructors being happy with that providing they were 'in' before the cut-off date.
Though I'd certainly reconsider if the TT/ET was age handicapped as with current committments I'd be 50 if I was to do it & a 'powerplough' should get me through at that age
I wonder how many of the current 'fully qualified' 40+ instructors could pass the current tests if they had to retake it now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
spyderjon, with qualification inflation comes certification creep (more hoops) and I'm sure you're right, but unless age handicapped I can't see a test as tough as Test Technique being the Europe wide requirement for entry onto the training ladder - not every country has such a strong base of candidates from which to choose as France. You're probably right about Swiss or other existing instructors though! Actually I wonder how many 40+ instructors ever took a speed test at all. I believe there was a cut-off at a specified age at the time the teste de capacite was introduced for BASI and the Euro Group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Tim Brown wrote: |
| skimottaret wrote: |
|
care to elaborate? |
Allow me. If BASI were to raise the bar too high, then the worthless pile of decrepit old rubbish that pay them great big chunks of their early retirement lump sums each year, quit simply wouldn't bother doing BASI's courses. So BASI would be stuck trying to wring money out of rich, middle-class peoples' teenage kids. |
obviously you have a beef with BASI and this isnt the thread to have your rant on.
EDITED to take out rude comment
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sat 1-09-07 8:06; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| skimottaret, which is why ultimately it's moot whether the Level 2 should involve a ski off. . |
I agree with you and the post was a hypothetical question not my opinion. As I stated above i have concluded that a race test ISNT a good idea for level 1 or 2's but could be included in the BASI ISIA level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret - I'd agree with that - though on the basis of an age adjustment (or similar). Oh and not for another 3-4 years
(Is that 20.1.e of Part II of Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1031 I hear cantering in from left field...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
spyderjon, if you really are serious about retirement in the mountains teaching lifestyle that is very possible in virtually anywhere outside of France. carry on with the training and start teaching locally. if you really enjoy it then crack on and get your Level 2. you can easily get work in CH or Oz or andorra etc..... teaching older folks or kids..... Why give up due to assuming that a TT type test will become the norm in Europe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhillipStanton, i am going to invoke EU law for a zimmer frame handicap during the TT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
The reason I used the age example was because I have witnessed it first hand in several resorts. For the vast majority of skiers just doing a blue is a high, however I do not condone short changing them by advocating poor instruction. 
