A Common Sense approach to Training?

[The avantgardener]

 The August issue of the Forestry Contracting Association magazine has an interesting article on the possible future direction of Training/Assessment for Forestry chainsaw units, for me this is exactly what the industry needs as the quality of the newly ‘Ticketed’ guys I have worked with other the last couple of years is dire.

That being said, this proposal is from the chainsaw working group who advise FISA, and as FISA are the most inept body in the history of mankind, things may take a century or two to be implemented.

FISA last posted minutes of their working group meetings in March 2014 and wonder why no one knows what they do?

Whenever I have spoke with anyone at FISA they are at yet another trade show, they “will get back to me” when they return, then they don't, unless it’s time to renew the membership that is.

[Gray git]

Definitely worthwhile but in my opinion totally impractical, how much thinning work is undertaken with saws these days and to a even greater extent how many people carrying out these training courses will actually have the opportunity to work in a environment where constant saw use is available to clock up the hrs and practice/experience required. Most who come into the Arb side of saw use will spend there 1st few months dragging brash and snedding the odd bit to fit a chipper and not have the opportunity to fell anything which after all is what the assessment focuses on.
As an employer I give apprentices every chance to practice when it's suitable but to drop a stem that's been stripped out might only clock up 15 min experience that day so gaining 20, 50 or 100 hrs saw use could be a long process.
I'd also see it open to a lot of interpretation of how much use someone actually gains on the job where an employer would want someone to have the full ticket to tick the boxes for some sites/clients/insurance.

[The avantgardener]

1 hour ago, Gray git said:

Definitely worthwhile but in my opinion totally impractical, how much thinning work is undertaken with saws these days and to a even greater extent how many people carrying out these training courses will actually have the opportunity to work in a environment where constant saw use is available to clock up the hrs and practice/experience required. Most who come into the Arb side of saw use will spend there 1st few months dragging brash and snedding the odd bit to fit a chipper and not have the opportunity to fell anything which after all is what the assessment focuses on.
As an employer I give apprentices every chance to practice when it's suitable but to drop a stem that's been stripped out might only clock up 15 min experience that day so gaining 20, 50 or 100 hrs saw use could be a long process.
I'd also see it open to a lot of interpretation of how much use someone actually gains on the job where an employer would want someone to have the full ticket to tick the boxes for some sites/clients/insurance.

This is biased towards Forestry, not Arb.

I work everyday doing coppice work, large hardwood thinning, and oversized softwoods running alongside a harvester, all using a chainsaw.

A newly trained candidate would benefit immensely from working alongside us, they would clock up the hours in no time.

Edited August 11, 2019 by The avantgardener

[Rough Hewn]

"Lack of expertise within training".
[emoji51]

[The avantgardener]

Just now, Rough Hewn said:

"Lack of expertise within training".

It’s not a lack of expertise in the training, just how good can you get a novice to be in 5 days?

It’s the lack of hours/experience on the saw that is the problem, this can only be remedied  by hours/experience on the saw, especially if they are being mentored by someone with massive industry experience.

 

[Rough Hewn]

It’s not a lack of expertise in the training, just how good can you get a novice to be in 5 days?
It’s the lack of hours/experience on the saw that is the problem, this can only be remedied  by hours/experience on the saw, especially if they are being mentored by someone with massive industry experience.
 

That's quoting from the original post.
Yes you are absolutely correct about hours on saws.
But who would pay £2k+ for 8 weeks of cs31?
[emoji51]

[The avantgardener]

20 minutes ago, Rough Hewn said:

That's quoting from the original post.
Yes you are absolutely correct about hours on saws.
But who would pay £2k+ for 8 weeks of cs31?

But that’s exactly the point. You pay for the usual 5 day course of training but off your own back add an extra 100 hours in your log book, being mentored by an experienced cutter before taking the Assessment, on piece rate they could at least cover some of their expenses and get a realistic idea if what they are worth, unlike the unrealistic, I have got a ‘ticket’ so therefore I want £150+ a day nonsense. 

[Pete Mctree]

The discussion itself is a step in the right direction. We appear to have a widening gap between  what the trainers & training providers are delivering and what the industry wants. However, is almost the perfect conundrum. How often do we read here on the forum that training costs are extortionate and others bitterly complaining that the  standard produced is not adequate.

There is always a cost in training & we need to decide where & when to pay it. It can be given to the trainers who can then deliver far more comprehension tuition to a higher standard, potentially with evidence based progression and assessed levels of achievement, but at what cost & over what duration?

 Another option is to have brief,  basic tuition as we have now & the onus is then upon the employer to train & further educate the individual in work time and at the cost of production. This latter method does not seem to be working as people are complaining about the level of proficiency & the cost too - I guess everyone wants there cake and eat it!

A third way might be the introduction of a higher tier of training and assessment on top our current one - based on excellence as opposed to competence  - but this in itself would create uproar, as people would have to spend more time & money on things that they think they do not need or want.

I think as an industry we should think very carefully about what we want, or we could end up being overburdened with training, costs & legislation.

 

[The avantgardener]

Most of the younger guys that I have cut with over the last 10 years arrived green with a new CS31 under their belt and pretty much useless at production.

If they showed up everyday and put the hours in they had time spent on them so that they improved, none of them required any more formal/paid for ground based training as it was all done on the job by the experienced cutters, when they where deemed ready, the Assessment was booked and they walk it.

[Pete Mctree]

deleted