 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
after say you've taken and past your L1 & L2, and you're thinking of second and third disciplines? Do you have to wade through all the CT study and testing or is a credit given for prior passes and you are assessed focusing on the the discipline itself? Same question applies to the shadowing etc., Credit for hours in another discipline or start again with an empty log book?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
You do the same L1 course regardless of whether it is your 1st or 2nd discipline, with no credit given for anything you have done in other disciplines. Not exactly sure what the current rules are for shadowing hours are, but I think in order to complete the licence in that 2nd discipline to teach it you will need to complete the required logbook hours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Grrr. Please make your thread titles more informative. I'm not interested in BASI qualifications.
[wrote Grumpy of SW11]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Pedantica, pixies, myschief, grumpy . . . goes with turf twinkletoes
 rob@rar, Thanks Rob, seems a little obtuse compared to many educational systems but they must have a rational for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Masque wrote: |
| Thanks Rob, seems a little obtuse compared to many educational systems but they must have a rational for it. |
Ease/cost of administration I suspect plays a big part.
Not sure of the rational for further shadowing hours, but I can see a case can be made that you need to complete a new logbook after your 2nd discipline course because you will be better able to understand what you are observing/shadowing based on your experience of the course you have done. For example, although I have a reasonable number of teaching hours under my belt in alpine discipline, I struggle to see exactly what is going on in a snowboard lesson. If I did an L1 snowboard course I'd have a much better idea of what I was looking at and for, so 35 hours of shadowing would be extremely valuable and IMO a prerequisite to actually teaching my first boarding lessons.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 8-01-13 12:13; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pedantica, I've not had any coffee yet 
rob@rar, you'd be surprised at just how identical snowboarding and snowboarding are at their cores. Nearly all the drills with with few exceptions are cross applicable. I too also fail to see what some snowboard instructors are trying to teach other than advanced bulldozer skills.
Logbook hours for each discipline are quite understandable but the Central Theme full repeat seems redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
| you'd be surprised at just how identical snowboarding and snowboarding are at their cores. |
I don't think I would 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
| Nearly all the drills with with few exceptions are cross applicable. |
I'm sceptical, but if you're right you'll ace your 2nd discipline and will be in great demand as a teacher because your multi-discipline insight will ensure all your clients make outstanding progress and want to keep coming back for more and more lessons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
rob@rar, and I'm doomed before I start 
Pedantica I've a postulatory piece in progress that may help. But consider that both (even 3) disciplines are just about keeping edges and bases in controlled contact with a surface. The physics of that doesn't change, just the input required to achieve it. Side slip, tail or nose release, carving, mass transference, turn initiation, all are identical at the interface with the snow. The key is to understand that and not just know it. Achieve that and you'll see that all forms of sliding are essentially identical. The one leg drills are there to help your balance and body positioning, it doesn't change the physics under your feet.
The equivalence of one leg drills is little different to boarding with just one foot clipped into your bindings on a board. You're learning about balance and mass transference and effect on edge control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Masque wrote: |
| But consider that both (even 3) disciplines are just about keeping edges and bases in controlled contact with a surface. The physics of that doesn't change, just the input required to achieve it. |
To me that indicates that there are some cross-over skills and understanding, so that time spent on a 2nd or 3rd discipline will have some value across any of the ways you might choose to slide downhill. But that doesn't mean that learning a 2nd or 3rd discipline is the best way of improving performance or understanding of your first discipline. If you have limited resources (time, money, passion, etc) and are looking to improve your 1st discipline I would never recommend learning a 2nd because it is not, IMO, an efficient use of your available resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rob@rar, I didn't say it was the best and I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to take up another discipline with the specific goal of improving the first. I agree resources are finite and challenges are not. Learning to ski vastly improved my boarding and learning to telemark has distinctly made a better difference to both my alpine skiing and boarding. As said, I've a large post near completion that addresses this from a very different angle on learning to ski I'll value your opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Masque, having seen you ski and board, I presume telemarking is your 1st discipline? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Frosty the Snowman, I live to entertain . . . and you've not seen my telemark snowboard 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Masque, Interesting stuff.
| Quote: |
Side slip, tail or nose release, carving, mass transference, turn initiation, all are identical at the interface with the snow.
|
So, as a snowboarder I initiate a turn by twisting the board (pedalling). This releases the nose. How does a skier achieve the nose release as they are not able to twist the nose of the ski with respect to the tail like a snowboarder can?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
cad99uk, they 'twist' or apply a torsional difference by drawing the uphill ski back slightly and pressuring the big toe while the downhill ski becomes a slave edge. Having two skis means that one is almost always a dominant or if you like the snowboard. On the occasions when both skis are equally weighted there is absolutely no difference at all in a straight line or turn to what we do on a snowboard.
'pedaling' comes into it as a technique to overcome the lack of torsional stiffness in a board, you are compensating for that and for less than ballistic sliding the only thing needed to initiate a turn on a board is a tiny change in your mass insertion point over the snow surface. It is identical to skiing even the point where your mass vector moves. It gets a little more convoluted at very high speed carving as a boarder and skier cannot angulate in the same manner but essentially a skier and a boarder are performing identically at the snow/ski/board interface.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Masque, just a bit of friendly advice, if you do a BASI course never, ever give an answer that complicated, even when you are discussing technique rather than teaching.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
rob@rar, serious?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Masque wrote: |
| rob@rar, serious? |
Absolutely, couldn't be more serious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
rob@rar, surely without knowing what is happening in the mechanics of skiing within the equipment how can they hope to advise a client. Yes you'd never give the client a physics lesson on why your ski or board does one thing when you do another but this has to be part of the instructors knowledge base? Or am I hoping too much from the 'average' instructor
If this is true then what I'm posting later makes even more sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, Thanks. It's good stuff. Looking forward to your later post.
Probably explains why I do less pedalling than I think is necessary. Agree about the mass movement. I always like to keep in mind where my velocity vector is with respect to the board axis.
Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, even if you are correct about the torsional twisting of the ski to release the edge (have to confess I had to read your post a few times to try and understand it, and I'm not sure you are correct), any effect of that kind is going to be entirely insignificant compared to simply moving your hips across your skis to release one set of edges and engage the other. If you try to get hyper-technical you are going to end up discussing the equivalent to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You'll just have to take my word for it at the moment that neither BASI Trainers nor BASI candidates like to talk about dancing angels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
rob@rar, the ski isn't twisted. It's an effect over the whole 'machine of the two skis, a 'virtual torque'. A boarder has to artificially reproduce the inherent torsional stiffness of the skis with their feet.
Dancing angels eh? perhaps I should come and do your L1/L2 courses instead
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Masque wrote: |
| rob@rar, the ski isn't twisted. It's an effect over the whole 'machine of the two skis, a 'virtual torque'. |
In that case my original advice to you applies. You make skiing seem complicated. That's not a good strategy for teaching or passing exams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
rob@rar, I think this may come from my coaching background Trampolining), I seem to have an ability to see in slow motion and separate body movements into their active, interactive and passive roles and that makes me continue to deconstruct to include external influences to that. More later on why I think there is a missing factor in ski teaching that may make a significant difference to the process ...
... but I could be VERY wrong ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Masque, but more to the point, and without getting ahead of ourselves.....have you booked your L1 yet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, what you can see and what say are two entirely different things. Ultimately, you have to decide what is the most important factor in all you can see, and work on that. All well and good noticing that the pinky and ring fingers don't grip when you are holding the ski poles, but if the client is steering their turns with their shoulders what is the one thing you address, and how do you help the client to address it?
As part of the BASI process you will be taught, and expected to use, a model of analysis, evaluation and diagnosis. It will never get as excessively technical as some of your posts on snowHeads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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:
|
Masque, I still haven't discounted, despite my advanced years, the idea of doing a season working for a chalet owner or TO. For me it would depend on finding the right job and, just as importantly, the right accommodation to go with it: sharing a shoebox with smelly teenagers is not for me. I would probably have bitten nixmap's fingers off for his job, had it been in a French-speaking place.
I haven't got the space to enumerate all the reasons I wouldn't teach. The main one is that I'd be absolutely hopeless at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
rob@rar, Pinkies are not a scenario that would happen in teaching, that's coaching a skilled proponent to finesse those skills. I truly thank you for your input as I thought that BASI would have an in-depth element of how and why deconstructed mechanics as part of the course as a foundation for instructor to know why the student and the skis don't communicate. It's not for the student to know or understand but if the instructor is ignorant of the mechanical fundamentals then all he/or she can do is essentially demonstrate what they know what works till the student can successfully parrot it.
From listening to and watching You and Scott, I don't think you do that but I have seen plenty that do.
I have to go, cheers for the advice, taken on board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Masque wrote: |
| Or am I hoping too much from the 'average' instructor |
Just on that point, which I appreciate was tongue in cheek, the two best coaches I've been coached by (one has a top 10 Olympic result and top qualifications in the Canadian, Austrian and British coaching systems; the other top qualifications in Canadian and British coaching systems and just got a dozen candidates through the Eurotest) both tried to give their feedback to me in no more than one sentence, and less when a couple of words would suffice as I went past them on a drag lift. I can speak with personal understanding when I say that it is the inexperienced instructors who rabbit on with loads and loads of technical guff. The guys (and girls) who make a difference keep it simple and keep it important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Masque wrote: |
| ... if the instructor is ignorant of the mechanical fundamentals then all he/or she can do is essentially demonstrate what they know what works till the student can successfully parrot it. |
If you want a brilliant example of what is important in the physics and biomechanics of skiing, how how to relay it is a simple, understandable manner, get Ron LeMaster's book (the 2nd edition is best IMO). It will be nothing like how you would teach skiing, but it is an excellent reference book for the technicalities of skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Masque, similiar situation, assessing my options, trying to find something snow related for when the kids leave home.....
From the research I did you can work outside of France with a L2, our inside of France with an L2 if you pass the test technique.....
Some guys on my L2 course went straight to Zermatt (I think) where they had jobs lined up. Another 2 guys I know from XScape who are both L2s are teaching a season in Lech.
regards,
Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Hahahaha. Let battle commence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, from the perspective of having been the pupil, in a number of lessons, I would still subscribe to the KISS principle for the instructor teaching me on the hill. In other words the approach that rob@rar, advocates.
For me I find a huge difference in what I want to know whilst on and off the piste.
The scientist in me is happy to learn all I can about how and why the skiing works. I love the long explanations online on SH's when I have the time to read and re-read them, look them up, think about them and understand why the ski is working and why it should do what it does if used correctly and to understand the debates when folks disagree with each other regarding technicalities; these are exactly what my analytical mind needs to give me confidence in my equipment. Out on the hill a reminder using a quick sketch in the snow with a ski pole of a curve shape, or a quick and easy verbal explanation is then as much as I need to remind me of what I already know somewhere in my mind. Or a new concept makes sense because I understand what lies behind it. Even with the background, if you were to come at me verbally with explanations as complex as those you've posted recently they would go right over my head. Even written down I am having to re-read them about 4 times to work out what you mean, and that is with 4 years of SH's behind me!! There is a lot to be say for the KISS principle when it comes to teaching people.
I like teaching people (I've had numerous chances to lecture on science and teach colleagues) and I've had fed back to me on a number of occasions that people have enjoyed learning with me, and got more out it than they have from formal college lecturers, because I could put things in simple, straightforward, 'laymans' terms. I think it is equally important to consider the perspective of pupil and what they want from an instructor as it is to consider what you might personally want to say and teach. A pupil is liable to 'switch off' if you make it seem too complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Megamum wrote: |
Masque, from the perspective of having been the pupil, in a number of lessons, I would still subscribe to the KISS principle for the instructor teaching me on the hill. In other words the approach that rob@rar, advocates.
For me I find a huge difference in what I want to know whilst on and off the piste.
The scientist in me is happy to learn all I can about how and why the skiing works. I love the long explanations online on SH's when I have the time to read and re-read them, look them up, think about them and understand why the ski is working and why it should do what it does if used correctly |
+1
This very much echos my own experience in lessons, and preferences.
I like reading Masque's posts and the technical detail - I really enjoy thinking about the physics behind it all. But emphasis on the reading about it, or on the mountain maybe dicussing at the end of the day over a beer/choc chaud. When in a lesson I prefer a quick simple explanation that lets me get moving again shortly, with a better idea of what to do.
My favourite instructor has a real knack for keeping things short and sweet most of the time. But he knows I like the detail too, and is very good at sensing when I'm getting tired, need a break etc, and then expands on things to give me a rest but keep my mind going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
