 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I have asked when a Eurotest was last held in Soctland, but Dave Renouf isn't in the office this week so I probably won't have the answer until next week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Bindingcheck,
| Quote: |
if the reasoning for the test 'per se' is based on robust criteria then the great unwashed will appreciate its values. However if the prime or, as jjc james suggests, the sole reason is to enable an elite band to earn a considerable income at the detriment of others then the test is no more than an upper class tool which ensures that the 'oiks' are kept in their place. Can you imagine standing in a law court or in politics and trying to sway opinion with that sort of argument. (Unless of course your surname is Cameron or Osborne, in which case you currently are doing it and probably don't care)
|
I find that quite comical. Considering there are plenty of places the work as a Level 2 or ISIA including France. So on one hand we have 1 country that protects its profession and those that want to make it their profession put in the work and pass their exams. Those that don't choose this path have the option of countless countries, Scotland included! 
So the options open to the lesser qualified are numerous and options for an ISTD limited (90%+ in france). It also means every ISTD is in direct competition with one another and not the lower qualifications, something in it self there.
So the point people are making is what? You'd like everywhere to be average and not really a viable career option? Or is it a case of I can't do it so no one should?
I think the level is set so that people train and are ski instructors for life. The mid life crisis victims will always find it hard to meet the required level if they start 20 years later than the rest, on the other hand its their choice to change profession. If they don't make the grade should we have to change the levels?
If it were the levels on a fitness test that could be understood. The ET is a safety test, safety should not be taken lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| jjc james wrote: |
So the point people are making is what? You'd like everywhere to be average and not really a viable career option? Or is it a case of I can't do it so no one should? |
The point I'm making somewhat sporadically and incoherently is that the public in France at least don't seemed to particualrly well served by a system which serves to restrict trade and competition in order to maintain the elite's earning expectations. Admittedly I have somewhat historic view of the ESF but I doubt that kids in a class of 12 at peak times are all getting total value for money from an ISTD led or supervised lesson. Now there is no shame in designing a system to deliver a living wage to workers and maybe France and the Eurotest as a whole wouldn't be the focus if other countries were equally adept but it seems a bit risible to continue to push spurious arguments as a smokescreen to this including the below.
| Quote: |
| The ET is a safety test, safety should not be taken lightly. |
If this were really true non ET holders would not be allowed to give lessons unsupervised surely? Its certainly a different level of safety from for example being signed off for solo flight as a pilot etc.
Far better to say that the ET is a vital measure of skiing ability across the spectrum which is an important prerequisite for "senior instructors" who will train future generations and demonstrate good role models to customers through their skiing excellence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
far better to say that the ET is a vital measure of skiing ability across the spectrum which is an important prerequisite for "senior instructors" who will train future generations and demonstrate good role models to customers through their skiing excellence?
|
well said
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
jjc james,
| Quote: |
I find that quite comical.
|
You are correct, it is quite comical. Comical that anyone would seek to promote job protectionism as a reason to retain an elitist test.
| Quote: |
The ET is a safety test, safety should not be taken lightly.
|
The Eurotest is not a safety test, In 2000 the French did try to present the Eurotest as a test of safety but that has subsequently been dismissed by the European Court of Justice. No one could possibly believe that the Eurotest was a test of safety, if it was those who passed the test would never have accidents within their classes. I am surprised after all that has been written thus far that you should fallback to that particular excuse as a reason.
| Quote: |
I think the level is set so that people train and are ski instructors for life.
|
Possibly true as a theory but it doesn't quite work out like that in practice. I could list at least 20 ISTD's who are not ski instructors for life and probably a whole load more who are ski instructors on apart time basis.
Using the drawbridge principle is not the way to win a debate, Work out the reason why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bindingcheck,
| Quote: |
Work out the reason why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme.
|
We could do it again? Many posts over the last 16 pages have been on that subject.
The ski instructor for life part is more related to the fact that they have had the skill and physical capability all there lives. Some people's motor function is simply not good enough to attain a ET level when starting later on in life especially after sitting behind a desk for 20 years. Not the tests fault, if someone didn't have the motor control to pass a driving test should they be able to crash and still pass? Essentially your ok-ing someone to work in varying conditions in what is capable of being an extremely harsh environment. Having a very strong skier like those that pass the ET ensures that even if the situation changes and becomes unsafe/unsuitable at least the instructor doesn't have to think about their skiing. They can instead focus on the safety of their clients.
I've seen older ESF non ET passers struggle in tough weather conditions especially where the snow varies (as it often does in the ET). At the end of the day its a dangerous place to work day in day out, being a stronger skier only helps an instructor and there client.
beanie1, Dave recons that there have been 3 ET's run in Scotland although more have been planned and then canceled.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Thu 19-05-11 16:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| France is one of the only places in the world where it is possible to make a full time career out of ski instructing (i.e one that would pay for a mortgage / family). |
This 'protectionism' argument is a bit sad.
I run a business with a low cost of entry (significantly lower than I've spent on ski qualifications and I'm not a ISTD) but I've built a business that pays my mortgage and keeps me in skiing. I'm not the cheapest in my market by a long way but give a high quality product with matching service. I spend I lot of time telling people about it. In short, I try and run my business well and in return make a living.
The idea that an elite bunch of ski instructors should some how be protected from the 'market' is somewhat frustrating.
Although to be fair, it's not as frustrating as paying more out in training fee's than it would cost me to start my business, and find my work opportunities as a ski instructor becoming increasingly limited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jjc james,
| Quote: |
We could do it again? Many posts over the last 16 pages have been on that subject.
|
Most of the posts have been about getting rid of or adjusting the ET to suit older instructors.
OR have been about defending the Eurotest with; a maintaining the status quo (if it ain't broke don't fix it) position or a job protectionist platform or a safety platform or an if you're good enough you get platform or it's because the French have it so we must. All negative excuses
I am asking for the reason why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
| I am asking for the reason why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme. |
Yawn.
Already told you that... several times!
The French want to select the skiers with the best technical ability.
It is simply not possible to pass a Euro Test without perfect control of your skis, excellent understanding of technique, decent fitness etc.
Even a good skier will have to train hard, and improve their technique, in order to be ready for a Euro test.
Quite simply - the Euro test is designed to ensure that skiers can reach a high standard of personal performance.
Its what separates wheat from the chaff.
I have skied with plenty peeps at ISIA level - some of whom were, to be honest, fairly average skiers.
Have also skied with a few ISTD peeps (and also the top level Swiss equivalent).
With out doubt every single ISTD I have skied with was top a notch skier - and technically able to deliver a high end / performance ski lesson to an expert skier.
Where as an ISIA might only be able to deliver a good quality snow plough or parallel turn lesson.
That is the difference.
Yup - The Euro Test is tough and difficult to pass.
I would also agree that it is a little unfair.
However - I also acknowledge that someone that has gone to the effort of training to pass a Euro Test will, with out doubt, ski to a high standard.
That level is tough to achieve - but it is also attainable if you do put in enough effort and training.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 19-05-11 17:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bindingcheck, there have been a few posts here (and in other threads) about why the race test is a good one. But in summary:
1) you need to ski at a high level of technical accuracy to pass
2) you need the physical fitness to execute those techical elements correctly
3) the clock is an unbiassed judge (fiddling about with getting openers to ski to their calibrations aside - averaging addresses that to an extent)
4) in acquiring those technical skills you will have had to address your own skiing in minute detail - the level of detail and understanding of skiing you would need to pass on as a top level instructor
5) The argument then reduces to how high should the bar be set.
The age argument is whether the physical deterioration inherent in aging becomes a limitng factor preventing those with the required technical skills to achieve a pass mark. From what I have seen of youngsters (20-somethings) the level for them is about right, in that they have the physical capacity to compensate for technical deficiencies if the level for them is lowered. For those of us that are rather longer in the tooth there is not that spare physical capacity.
If the argument is one of safety (and that is not an argument I agree with), then the logic is that the test should be revalidated, say every 5 years. Essentially that would put an upper limit on a ski instructor career of about aged 50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Haggis_Trap, +1
(particularly with regard to ISIA/ISTD, although the majority of ISIAs I've skied with have also been excellent, just needing a little more experience and refinement)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
We seem to have gone in two directions here. 1) The French system and how it provides careers for instructors 2) What is the ET testing
The French system works well because it enables its ski instructors to have a career and offers a high standard of tuition to the client. It does this by having a sustainable system in which it takes ski instructors with the raw skills to reach the top levels. They can set the bar high because they have plenty who will reach the end of the system because of their ability to ski and teach. They move through the system in the same way an apprentice would in Britain as say an electrician or plumber and at the end of it they have a career.
The cost of living in France is high so the cost of lessons will remain high. It is more expensive to eat, shop, fuel your car, rent accommodation, buy accommodation etc etc. It would be impossible to do most of these things on a suggested 15 Euros an hour apart from for a select group (gap years/retired already owns property). Remember ski instructors won’t be working 40 hour weeks and rely on making a large percentage of their income on peak weeks. I am prepared to stand corrected but from what I have heard in France a level 2 will make 25 euro + an hour an ISIA 35+ and an ISTD 50+ (James will be able to shed more light on this, I don’t work in France) 25+ from speaking to my friends with a level 2 just about allows them to break even after rent etc. So why would you pay 1000s for an ISIA or ISTD if there was no career potential at the end of it and you stand to earn wages to small for the cost of living?
The level 2 and ISIA really do not test up to a high enough level in bumps, variables and intermediate piste performance + to really offer high level tuition. You would still need ISTD’s but who is going to be prepared to do it?
The ski schools won’t lower their prices because they still have to pay building costs, receptionists etc etc. They would just make a slightly bigger margin for having fewer level 4's and paying an ISIA 10 -15 euro less per hour. The standard of ski instruction would drop significantly because the only instructors that would be prepared to work are gap years and those moving in from another career with no financial requirements. You will then end up with instructors who have neither the same level of skiing ability or have done as much pedagogy into how to teach it because they are level 2 or possibly ISIA and wont have received the same training or had to study to meet the requirements of the ISTD.
So there really is no benefit for either the client or the majority of instructors (meaning in the world not just Britain) in lowering the standard.
The other issue is that the instruction a person receives as a beginner has an effect that is not limited to the immediate future. There are particular issues and habits that will need addressing at an early stage in their skiing career if they would like to take it to a higher level. In order to ensure that these are picked up and acted upon, the instructor has to be of this higher level themselves by necessity. Limiting skiers development (or creating problems that are going to take more time and effort to fix further down the line) is not the way forward. This provides some basis for it being level 2 + TT because a level 2 with a TT (The TT being another objective test) is un arguably going to have a better understanding than a level 2 who may only have skied 2 weeks a year.
From the recent meetings it looks like other countries have realised France is running a good system. For that system to work though you need level 2 and ISIA working through and I respect some of the concerns on here with regards to training systems etc for BASI members.
The ET
•It is an objective test of a candidate’s technical ability and is fair across all the nations. No country can subjectively decide an alternative standard to allow more to pass through.
•It demonstrates an ability to make clean precise turns.
•It demonstrates an ability to be able to safely ski at a reasonable speed.
•It demonstrates an ability to effectively manage pressure.
•It demonstrates an ability to read terrain and adjust your skiing accordingly.
•In both giant slalom and freeskiing the skier must combine speed and finesse with power and efficiency. Success is determied by the skier's ability to link the individual elements of each turn : initiation, turning and completion/preparation.
•Movement patterns in racing and free skiing are very similar (which is one of the reasons that top giant slalom athletes free ski a lot).
•Timing is not as important while freeskiing because there are no gates to dictate timing radius. Rhythm however is a defining characteristic of good skiers regardless of whether they are racing or just tearing about.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 19-05-11 18:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bindingcheck,
| Quote: |
Most of the posts have been about getting rid of or adjusting the ET to suit older instructors.
OR have been about defending the Eurotest with; a maintaining the status quo (if it ain't broke don't fix it) position or a job protectionist platform or a safety platform or an if you're good enough you get platform or it's because the French have it so we must. All negative excuses
I am asking for the reason why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme.
|
Hmm if the points made do not suit your case do they no longer exist?
Haggis_Trap, GrahamN, thanks for pointing out that these issues have been addressed already. I was dreading having to repost that stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I can see why the ET can seem strange to the majority of British skiers, as racing isn't as engrained in our holiday maker skiing culture, perhaps unlike in France. However if people don't think that the ET directly relates to ability of an instructor, I think rather than campaigning directly against the ET ( abolishing the ET would be such a big change there would be unknown consequences that may not be in anyone's long term interests, and as jjc in my opinion outlines very well, the ET is far from the pure evil some would have you believe ), instead argue to bring in new alternative routes by which a ski instructor can be deemed ISTD worthy. For example if you reach a certain level in Freestyle, or if you are an expert in teaching methodologies. However these couldn't just be easy routes, they would have to require just as much hard training as the ET and be just as stringent in passing people. This way you aren't trying to rip apart a system, but instead mould it.
As a side note I think that the ET does seem a bit ageist currently. The way I see it, if in ski racing there are male and female categories, and corresponding separate ET requirements, then why shouldn't the masters racing categories also get their own corresponding ET requirements. I'm 24 so I would consider myself pretty unbiased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Also I don't quite understand where all the money goes in ski resorts. It seems sometimes people have a go at the ET for creating an artificially high barrier so that ISTD's can take all the money, but in reality they aren't really taking that high wages. Tourists come and pump massive amounts of money into generally very expensive resorts, yet somehow all the workers in the resort find it really hard to make a decent living out of their wages. Something doesn't add up, who is sucking all the money out of ski resorts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| If the argument is one of safety (and that is not an argument I agree with), then the logic is that the test should be revalidated, say every 5 years. Essentially that would put an upper limit on a ski instructor career of about aged 50. |
About that safety thing, what Haggis_Trap said ...
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
With out doubt every single ISTD I have skied with was top a notch skier - and technically able to deliver a high end / performance ski lesson to an expert skier. Where as an ISIA might only be able to deliver a good quality snow plough or parallel turn lesson.
That is the difference. That level is tough to achieve - but it is also attainable if you do put in enough effort and training. |
... brings to mind another topic on here about 'what is an expert' and some of the daft assertions about in that thread ... http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=1430
When I have the privelege of skiing with trusted people who are much better and more experienced skiers than me and I'd consider are essentially experts, I also know they'll have the experience to make an assessment of my capability, stamina, fitness, my attitude to risk and the prevailing mountain conditions so even though I might not be paying to learn anything from them, I know that I'm unlikely to be getting out of my depth when I'm skiing with them, following their advice or their lead.
What that means to me is that although I don't ever have aspirations for downhill racing, I'd trust my safety more with an unknown paid for instructor, leader or guide on an unfamiliar mountain whose certification reflects having had enough experience and expertise to at some time be able to have raced to a high level, whether they still can or not, or whether they're teaching me anything or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| sreema wrote: |
| ..instead argue to bring in new alternative routes by which a ski instructor can be deemed ISTD worthy. |
If L4 teach, tech and EMS can't show an instructors worth then there is a serious problem.
This thread has drifted again. The ET is there because the French want it there, fine, but what is it's real worth in terms of turning out an instructor who in all probability will not be teaching the majority of clients anywhere near the level of an ISTD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
skison, The other issue is that the instruction a person receives as a beginner has an effect that is not limited to the immediate future. There are particular issues and habits that will need addressing at an early stage in their skiing career if they would like to take it to a higher level. In order to ensure that these are picked up and acted upon, the instructor has to be of this higher level themselves by necessity. Limiting skiers development (or creating problems that are going to take more time and effort to fix further down the line) is not the way forward.
•It is an objective test of a candidate’s technical ability and is fair across all the nations. No country can subjectively decide an alternative standard to allow more to pass through.
•It demonstrates an ability to make clean precise turns.
•It demonstrates an ability to be able to safely ski at a reasonable speed.
•It demonstrates an ability to effectively manage pressure.
•It demonstrates an ability to read terrain and adjust your skiing accordingly.
•In both giant slalom and freeskiing the skier must combine speed and finesse with power and efficiency. Success is determied by the skier's ability to link the individual elements of each turn : initiation, turning and completion/preparation.
•Movement patterns in racing and free skiing are very similar (which is one of the reasons that top giant slalom athletes free ski a lot).
•Timing is not as important while freeskiing because there are no gates to dictate timing radius. Rhythm however is a defining characteristic of good skiers regardless of whether they are racing or just tearing about.
The level 4 tech should also ensure these things along with Bumps etc. If someone can subjectively pass the level 4 tech they should have no problem objectively passing the ET. How many against the ET have completed the rest of their level 4? I know of 2 although they are not against the ET (and they are the ones with a real reason to be)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| jjc james wrote: |
| The ET is a safety test, safety should not be taken lightly. |
In what context; a GS course? a 50mph snowplough turn? introducing someone to bumps? Which aspect of safety from skiing a GS course should an instructor take to his class of first day beginners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
I have skied with plenty peeps at ISIA level - some of whom were, to be honest, fairly average skiers.
Have also skied with a few ISTD peeps (and also the top level Swiss equivalent).
With out doubt every single ISTD I have skied with was top a notch skier - and technically able to deliver a high end / performance ski lesson to an expert skier.
Where as an ISIA might only be able to deliver a good quality snow plough or parallel turn lesson.
That is the difference.
|
This has come up from time to time and has not been answered.
The majority of ISIA qualified instrcutors can do more than a bit better than 'good quality snow plough or parallel turn lesson', that's more the domain of the majority of L2 instructors.
At what point do they make the transition, other than collecting a different badge to the BASI office, from been ISIA to ISTD. What about an instructor who has done everything needed other than hand in a dissertation and is still technically an ISIA? Are they still only able to deliver ''good quality snow plough or parallel turn lesson' ? It's quite a blinkered view of the ability of any instructor at ISIA level.
What next? Asking instructors which individual modules they have passed to date and then decide if they are good enough to teach a lesson?
Or what about someone who has a Level 2 & ET? And yes it does happen from time to time, I employed someone who managed it first time. Are they suddenly up with the elite? Would you still want them over say someone who has passed L4 tech and teach but not yet the ET?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
jjc, are you seriously arguing that an ISTD is the minimum level to teach skiing and that anyone below that is just a trainee on their way to competency?
Look at some numbers.... BASI has had around 12,000 members qualify over the years, 6,000 ish current members and 300 istds, in the 10 years since the ET BASI produces about 15 L4's a year. Is that sustainable?
I am all for the L4 / ET but the debate that this is somehow the min technical level to be able to teach clients safely doesnt stack up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jjc wrote: |
skison, The other issue is that the instruction a person receives as a beginner has an effect that is not limited to the immediate future. There are particular issues and habits that will need addressing at an early stage in their skiing career if they would like to take it to a higher level. In order to ensure that these are picked up and acted upon, the instructor has to be of this higher level themselves by necessity. Limiting skiers development (or creating problems that are going to take more time and effort to fix further down the line) is not the way forward.
•It is an objective test of a candidate’s technical ability and is fair across all the nations. No country can subjectively decide an alternative standard to allow more to pass through.
•It demonstrates an ability to make clean precise turns.
•It demonstrates an ability to be able to safely ski at a reasonable speed.
•It demonstrates an ability to effectively manage pressure.
•It demonstrates an ability to read terrain and adjust your skiing accordingly.
•In both giant slalom and freeskiing the skier must combine speed and finesse with power and efficiency. Success is determied by the skier's ability to link the individual elements of each turn : initiation, turning and completion/preparation.
•Movement patterns in racing and free skiing are very similar (which is one of the reasons that top giant slalom athletes free ski a lot).
•Timing is not as important while freeskiing because there are no gates to dictate timing radius. Rhythm however is a defining characteristic of good skiers regardless of whether they are racing or just tearing about.
The level 4 tech should also ensure these things along with Bumps etc. If someone can subjectively pass the level 4 tech they should have no problem objectively passing the ET. How many against the ET have completed the rest of their level 4? I know of 2 although they are not against the ET (and they are the ones with a real reason to be) |
jjc I'm well aware of the above; in the context of racing a GS course. You don't need to ski GS well to teach bumps or get someone down a steep pisted run for the first time or keep a group of 10yr olds happy skiing a blue run. If it was that vital and so essential to the work of a ski instrcutor it would be compulsory to do it before doing anything above a L1 course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skimottaret, Yes it is sustainable. France are not crying out for more ski instructors, more ski instructors are trying to get into France. Remember it is a test for all organisations members not just BASI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
Look at some numbers.... BASI has had around 12,000 members qualify over the years, 6,000 ish current members and 300 istds, in the 10 years since the ET BASI produces about 15 L4's a year. Is that sustainable?
|
Hell yeah it's sustainable in fact the french are pushing to make anyone coaching need an ISTD soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
skison,
| Quote: |
Essentially your ok-ing someone to work in varying conditions in what is capable of being an extremely harsh environment. Having a very strong skier like those that pass the ET ensures that even if the situation changes and becomes unsafe/unsuitable at least the instructor doesn't have to think about their skiing. They can instead focus on the safety of their clients.
I've seen older ESF non ET passers struggle in tough weather conditions especially where the snow varies (as it often does in the ET). At the end of the day its a dangerous place to work day in day out, being a stronger skier only helps an instructor and there client.
|
Safety and experience go hand in hand. The ET gives experience in spades, its new skills, new learning curves, new experiences!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
GrahamN,
Thanks for posting "the reasons for having a racetest as part of a training and qualifications system". Not sure that I agree that the information has been posted in the past, most of the previous posts have been decrying the Eurotest (in a variety of forms) or defending the Eurotest (sometimes from socio-economic perspectives). Up until your post and jjc's the reasons for having a racetest have never been clearly and matter of factly stated.
jjc,
Excellent "two directions" post. Has the anaesthetic worn off yet? You have managed to separate the benefits of the consequence (of passing the Eurotest) from the process of training for the Eurotest. Don't necessarily agree with all of the stuff that you wrote but that is the point of debate.
jjc james,
No one knows what my 'case' is so I am not dismissing any points. Currently I have placed myself in the position of being open to a racetest and what I am trying to do is focus on the reason(s) why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme. If the reasons are good enough then a racetest should be included irrespective of whether it results in being able to teach in France. (equally if the only reason that you are doing it to teach in France then that is not a good reason why a racetest should be included in a training and qualification programme).
Safety and experience are not necessarily linked. You can gain a lot of experience at doing something badly. The best mountain guide that has trained me explained safety this way, "Safety is not a set of circumstances, safety is a state of mind".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| sreema wrote: |
| Also I don't quite understand where all the money goes in ski resorts. It seems sometimes people have a go at the ET for creating an artificially high barrier so that ISTD's can take all the money, but in reality they aren't really taking that high wages. Tourists come and pump massive amounts of money into generally very expensive resorts, yet somehow all the workers in the resort find it really hard to make a decent living out of their wages. Something doesn't add up, who is sucking all the money out of ski resorts? |
Property developers, the sort of bar & restaurant owners who can live all year on 4 month's takings, CdA, the French state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bindingcheck,
| Quote: |
Safety and experience are not necessarily linked.
|
Not sure I can agree with that but the rest is fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bindingcheck wrote: |
GrahamN,
Thanks for posting "the reasons for having a racetest as part of a training and qualifications system". Not sure that I agree that the information has been posted in the past, most of the previous posts have been decrying the Eurotest (in a variety of forms) or defending the Eurotest (sometimes from socio-economic perspectives). Up until your post and jjc's the reasons for having a racetest have never been clearly and matter of factly stated. |
The same reasoning was posted on page 8, you even replied to some of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
"Safety is not a set of circumstances, safety is a state of mind".
|
until your hit by an avalanche 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Bindingcheck,
| Quote: |
Can you shed light on who was present at this meeting, ie, which bodies were represented?
Was there any representation from the European Commission or was it solely made up from representatives of European Ski Instructor Nations (and possibly branches of their national government bodies, eg, Jenuesse de Sport)?
Can you request clarification on the reasoning which lead to the ISIA test being dismissed as 'not appropriate'?
The BASI statement makes reference to an EU draft report: I am unable to locate this draft document on Europa.eu. Could BASI provide a link to this draft report or post a copy of this draft report?
|
| Quote: |
If what has been reported is correct how can BASI continue within ISIA?
Does BASI have a long game which is to the best advantage of its membership - not those who are currently ISTD's? (non elected members of the Association may wish to research the qualifications of the Board members)
What exactly is the significance of "The UK delegation will take the lead on a review of test sites." ? A Eurotest can only be conducted on a FIS homologated piste so what is there to review? Unless it could lead to France being forced to drop their illegitimate objection to a nation organising a Eurotest in a resort which is not within their home nation?
Does BASI still have a policy of pursuing training centres for BASI members within the FEMPS nations?
|
"The report is currently only in draft format and the European Commission has confirmed that it is not yet to be released. Many of your detailed queries should be answered when the report is finalised, when it will be in the public domain. However we can address a few of your queries. Present at the meeting were representatives of governing bodies from across the EU, and the European Commission. BASI continues to be fully supportive of the ISIA whilst at the same time wanting to represent members' interests within Europe. With regards training centres we will review this following the publication of the report.
The BASI Board is elected to make decisions on behalf of and in the best interests of the membership as a whole. If you have any questions regarding this please may I suggest you contact the office who will help where they can."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Thank you rjs for pointing that out. Bindingcheck, it would appear that some of us have a better memory than you. I've said nothing on this page that wasn't said back then. There was also some subsequent discussion of those points - it wasn't just one post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| jjc wrote: |
The ET
•It is an objective test of a candidate’s technical ability and is fair across all the nations. No country can subjectively decide an alternative standard to allow more to pass through.
•It demonstrates an ability to make clean precise turns.and place them where you have to not anywhere you would like
•It demonstrates an ability to be able to safely ski at a reasonable speed.
•It demonstrates an ability to effectively manage pressure.
•It demonstrates an ability to read terrain and adjust your skiing accordingly.
•In both giant slalom and freeskiing the skier must combine speed and finesse with power and efficiency. Success is determied by the skier's ability to link the individual elements of each turn : initiation, turning and completion/preparation.
•Movement patterns in racing and free skiing are very similar (which is one of the reasons that top giant slalom athletes free ski a lot).
•Timing is not as important while freeskiing because there are no gates to dictate timing radius. Rhythm however is a defining characteristic of good skiers regardless of whether they are racing or just tearing about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
beanie1,
| Quote: |
Beg to differ there - the ESF are extremely keen to employ more BASI ISTDS. They held a joint press conference with BASI in London about 2 years ago to promote the fact they'd like to recruit about 250 ISTDs (at least 1 in every ski school).
|
Theres a big difference between saying their ok with one ISTD in each school and crying out for more instructors. They simply aren't crying out.
Plenty of english speaking french instructors and not many french speaking Brits. They probably just said that, thats what the french do. They know theres not enough Brits at the standard they want to employ 1 in each school and they love that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
They know theres not enough Brits at the standard they want to employ 1 in each school and they love that fact.
|
Some individuals might, but as I understand it the reason behind the ESF wanting to employ more BASI instrutors is them observing the success of ski schools such as BASS, New Gen etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jjc wrote: |
•Timing is not as important while freeskiing because there are no gates to dictate timing radius. Rhythm however is a defining characteristic of good skiers regardless of whether they are racing or just tearing about.
|
Not trying to be too pedantic but is there just a bit narrow interpretation of freeskiing here? My interpretation of freeskiing involves rocks, trees, stumps, moguls, terrain features all of which can have a considerable impact on timing and choice of where to turn.
I think its true that the better you get the more powder turns you get as you're more confident mining tighter spots and lines. I think its important to recognise that not everyone who doesn't hold the ET bumbles away on piste getting away with slack technique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
GrahamN, Absolutely and particularly the racing rutline which oridinarily is the last place anyone would choose to freeski.
Its also easy for me to chuck peanut shells from the cheap seats when I've no real skin in the game so I appreciate the jjcs continued participation and good humour in this thread. Re ET I actually buy the idea I expressed a bit above as a result of this thread when at the start I'd considered it to be a stick bashers' antiquated hangover initially.
| Quote: |
| I think its important to recognise that not everyone who doesn't hold the ET bumbles away on piste getting away with slack technique. |
..and in this I am still have much more in common with the bumbler than ET standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rjs, GrahamN,
In GrahamN's "Utility of the test" he does mention some of the things he has recently written as a justification for the Eurotest. My recollection was that my reply to GrahamN was to congratulate him for presenting his opinions in a lucid form which would hopefuilly stimulate others towards further consideration. RobRar also chipped in with valuable comment and incidentally quoted fatbob and his 'skin in the game' - serendipity perhaps?
What GrahamN wrote then is not as clear and as matter of fact as his and jjc's post of Thurs. 19 May. I am grateful for their forbearance as I was keen for a second party to illustrate that there is value in having a racetest as part of a training and qualification system rather than doing the Eurotest just to be able to work in France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
- but that's not really what's being considered. Maybe 
Of course there is a mogul test in the ISTD tech - and I know people put as much training into that as they do for the ET - but that is still a subjective assessment.