AAI vs. AIARE - Level 1

Printable View

11-30-2009, 03:19 PM
Hong Jong Fuey

AAI vs. AIARE - Level 1

I have the chance to take either an AAI class (UT - Canyons) or an AIARE class (NH - Mt. Washington) - Level 1.

From what I can gather after some cursory internet searching, the AAI class seems to be more geared towards field work as there is an entire day spent touring, doing beacon searches, digging pits, route finding, backcountry protocol, etc. At least from the sample schedules I've seen, the field world seems to comprise 1/3 of the class.

It seems like the AIARE classes are a little less "field work" intensive and more geared towards the classroom where you learn what to do in the field, but may not get a ton of time to implement what you have learned. From what I can gather, you spend 2.5 days in the classroom and .5 days in the field.

Any one have thoughts on this? Thanks, in advance, for the help.
11-30-2009, 04:11 PM
Hugh Conway

Utah >>>>>>>>>>>> New Hampshire

Field work in Utah >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field work in New Hampshire
11-30-2009, 04:30 PM
Hong Jong Fuey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Utah >>>>>>>>>>>> New Hampshire

Field work in Utah >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field work in New Hampshire

I get that. I guess my question is more class content related, rather than location related.
11-30-2009, 04:39 PM
Hugh Conway

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hong Jong Fuey

I get that. I guess my question is more class content related, rather than location related.

Location is content for avalanche field work.
11-30-2009, 04:41 PM
spantik

I have no experience with either of those particular classes, but personally I found the field work vastly more valuable, not to mention interesting, than the class room stuff. I did a 2 day level 1 course in WA about 5 years ago. It appears curricula have expanded some since then, but my course was basically 60% field and 40% class. Day one was class with basic beacon search stuff outside. Day 2 was all field work. YMMV if you are starting from a low base on the basic snow science stuff.
11-30-2009, 04:44 PM
summit

AIARE is going to be more than 20% field. Probably more like 40-60%.

Otherwise, I agree with Hugh. You'd learn more in Utah's interzone snowpack than in NH. But if all your BC is going to be in NH, then maybe that is the way to go.
11-30-2009, 04:51 PM
Hong Jong Fuey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

Location is content for avalanche field work.

Point taken and thanks for the advice.
11-30-2009, 05:05 PM
frozenwater

I'd go with the one with more letters. It sounds prestigious.
11-30-2009, 05:20 PM
Ted Striker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summit

You'd learn more in Utah's interzone snowpack than in NH. But if all your BC is going to be in NH, then maybe that is the way to go.

^^^^ that.

The classroom content is going to be the same. AAI uses the "AIRE standard" for their Level 1 course. The biggest difference between courses is the actual instructor, and the actual snowpack. One day in the classroom and two days in the field is pretty standard.
11-30-2009, 08:30 PM
homemadesalsa

AAI doesn't use the AIARE standard. Both AAI and AIARE follow the AAA guidelines for classes, which can be found on the education page at www.americanavalancheassociation.org

The requirement is to have 50/50, class and field, and to have at least 24 hours of curriculum of both. From personal experience, any AAI class has top-notch and experienced instructors who have been at it a LONG time and know their stuff. Your AIARE instructor would probably be Jonathan Shefftz, who also knows his stuff. (hi js) I agree that the big difference is the instructor, but the overall level of expertise in the class makeup plus the level of interest in the terrain and the snowpack are also important.
11-30-2009, 11:14 PM
Ted Striker

Quote:

Originally Posted by homemadesalsa

AAI doesn't use the AIARE standard. Both AAI and AIARE follow the AAA guidelines for classes...

I guess I was mixed up on the AAA/AIRE/AAI relationship (should've googled).

My point - that the course content is basically the same, and that instructors/locations are the variables, still stands.
12-01-2009, 08:39 AM
Hong Jong Fuey

Quote:

Originally Posted by homemadesalsa

AAI doesn't use the AIARE standard. Both AAI and AIARE follow the AAA guidelines for classes, which can be found on the education page at www.americanavalancheassociation.org

The requirement is to have 50/50, class and field, and to have at least 24 hours of curriculum of both. From personal experience, any AAI class has top-notch and experienced instructors who have been at it a LONG time and know their stuff. Your AIARE instructor would probably be Jonathan Shefftz, who also knows his stuff. (hi js) I agree that the big difference is the instructor, but the overall level of expertise in the class makeup plus the level of interest in the terrain and the snowpack are also important.

Thanks salsa. This was helpful. When I searched here, I saw your previous AAI posts. Decent shot I get to Canyons for Level 1 in mid January with my brother.
12-01-2009, 12:43 PM
JoeStrummer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summit

AIARE is going to be more than 20% field. Probably more like 40-60%.

Otherwise, I agree with Hugh. You'd learn more in Utah's interzone snowpack than in NH. But if all your BC is going to be in NH, then maybe that is the way to go.

+2. I have worked with a few of the AIARE folks, they are top-notch. And your field time will be significant.
12-01-2009, 10:56 PM
Platinum Pete

I don't remember which cert I took for my level 1, but what I do remember is that the classroom content was very similar to what I learned from reading avalanche awareness books. Because I had pre-studied, the classroom time was just ok and the real value was in being able to ask questions of the instructor and discuss specific scenarios from his slide show. I learned a lot more in the field session, particularly in the pits and in the multi-burial scenario. Everything from what I was doing totally wrong with equipment and how to move around in a slide situation in touring mode, to how to really pay attention and add up info from compression tests. Most important of the field work was talking through the little things to pay attention to along the way, during the tour in, to compliment what we saw in the pit, how we chose pit location, even choosing how far to go before digging. I got more out of the feild work than the classroom.
If you've spent a lot of time touring and suck at book learning but excel at class learning, you may get more out of the classroom piece.
12-02-2009, 12:24 PM
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Summit

AIARE is going to be more than 20% field. Probably more like 40-60%.

Otherwise, I agree with Hugh. You'd learn more in Utah's interzone snowpack than in NH. But if all your BC is going to be in NH, then maybe that is the way to go.

Good points here. I would think you would want to take it in the snowpack where you regularly ski - but you will learn more in UT's snowpack.

"Having said that" (recent Curb reference), honestly Level 1 snow study is pretty minimal. You will dig some pits, etc..., but I think the snowpack is less of an issue in level 1 (than level 2). A lot of Level 1 will involve beacon use, safe travel techniques, rescue scenarios, etc... that are not really dependent on the snowpack.
12-02-2009, 09:33 PM
Missing Link

To Clarify:

Required minimum AIARE/AAA Level 1 course hours - 24

Recommended AIARE Level 1 Course hours breakdown:
10.5 hours classroom
13.5 hours field

All instructors want their students to stay awake. They know the best way to do this is to get in the field. They also understand that at Level 1 a certain amount of background information needs to be presented in the classroom prior to heading out so the student can better understand the decision making processes that need to occur after they leave the course.

Instructors and students alike really want to be in the field. An instructor will strive to meet the learning outcomes for each classroom topic as efficiently as possible so they can bust a move for fresh air and hopefully fresh tracks.

http://www.avtraining-admin.org/pubs/Level1Hours.pdf

ML
12-04-2009, 03:23 PM
imadoofus

Bleh. All classes at LTCC full. Who can be bribed into dropping their class? ;)
12-05-2009, 08:41 AM
Jonathan S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by homemadesalsa

Your AIARE instructor would probably be Jonathan Shefftz, who also knows his stuff.

Most AIARE courses in NH are probably taught by EMS now. Used to be Marc Chauvin, but he mainly teaches his own curriculum now -- a mix of CAA and AIARE. He broke with AIARE over the three-day requirement (among other issues) and taught CAA AST for a full season, but b/c of red tape could no longer be an official CAA instructor. He'll be at my AIARE Instructor Training Course refresher this coming Friday, so I'm sure we'll get into a big discussion of CAA vs AIARE. I'll throw AAI into the mix as well!

For a Level 1 course, I don't see any need to go out west.
As our ancestral legal counsel wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer

[...]honestly Level 1 snow study is pretty minimal. You will dig some pits, etc..., but I think the snowpack is less of an issue in level 1 (than level 2). A lot of Level 1 will involve beacon use, safe travel techniques, rescue scenarios, etc... that are not really dependent on the snowpack.

Furthermore, NH courses have a really short approach from the classroom into potential avy terrain -- only 1900' vertical, along a perfectly graded skin track, and wide enough for the instructor to talk to the group along the way.

For a Level 2 course, going out West has some major advantages:
-- The snowpack in the Presidentials is pretty boring, since it's typically a bunch of windslab separated by crusts. Even the USFS snow rangers don't do much snow science. By contrast, UT often has all sorts of interesting snowpit profiles.
-- The distinction between totally safe below treeline and obvious above treeline potential avy terrain is pretty obvious. (In other words, you don't get those sudden openings in the trees that are big enough to slide -- if you're in dense NH trees, it stays that way.)
-- Above treeline in NH, if it has snow, it's steep enough to slide. The only exceptions are the snowfields on Mt W, Jeff, Adams (maybe some of the fingers off to the side of GoS too) -- would be a great place to work on decision making in the field, but avy courses never venture that far. By contrast, in UT you could practice routefinding through safe/safer terrain.

Now here's my biggest complaint about all avy courses:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platinum Pete

I don't remember which cert I took for my level 1, but what I do remember is that the classroom content was very similar to what I learned from reading avalanche awareness books. Because I had pre-studied, the classroom time was just ok and the real value was in being able to ask questions of the instructor and discuss specific scenarios from his slide show.

Recently I taught a refresher course and got to design it from scratch. I assigned lots of reading, along with a precourse review quiz. We eliminated almost all lecture, and jumped straight into discussion and group exercises. I would love to teach Level 1 courses that way too.

[Okay, off to ski patrol training now -- I'm going to disassemble then reassemble a wooden kiddie slide, and use it to simulate a skier (lucky me) who is lying head first down an embankment, supported only by my skis hooked onto trees (the slide's side trails), with bilateral mid-shaft femur fractures.]
12-05-2009, 09:06 PM
Hugh Conway

If there's no need to go out west there's not much need for a field session. Avalanche issues and terrain in the east are simple and straight forward.