A Common Sense approach to Training?

[The avantgardener]

Just now, Pete Mctree said:

So what would you prefer as an employer- extended there training or train them onsite?

I simply don’t think it is possible to train a novice anything other than the very basics of Forestry in five days, no matter how good the Instructor or candidate is, quite often on a five day course you won’t even cut more than one species, the site may be softwood so you have never even felled a hardwood. The FC do the CS30/31 over ten days but this is bankrolled by us, not many training providers would fill a course of this duration due to the costs involved.

I would certainly prefer to get a novice in who is keen and with the basics and train them in house, when they have the consistency of the cuts and fluid movement, look comfortable and safe on the saw then they get  their Assessment booked.

[Pete Mctree]

I agree with you & the limitations of a 5 day course. It however does not aim to produce a skilled individual in that timeframe.

 

ps I deleted my post as I thought  i asked a poor question with limited answers

[Stubby]

Remember , those skilled guys with years of experience probably started out without even CS thirtywhatever ...?

Edited August 11, 2019 by Stubby

[Conor Wright]

1 hour ago, Pete Mctree said:

I agree with you & the limitations of a 5 day course. It however does not aim to produce a skilled individual in that timeframe.

 

ps I deleted my post as I thought  i asked a poor question with limited answers

I thought it was a good question.

A lot would depend on the employer in the instance of on site training, if they had poor habits or "improper" technique they may end up having candidates fail, not because of a lack of experience or being comfortable with the saw but for not doing it by the book. 

However, on balance, the onsite training idea would be more appealing to me, from both angles, novice looking for experience or prospective employer.

Sadly the issue of insurance and responsibility is sure to rear its ugly and litigious head. What ifs and potential for accidents etc.. 

 

[openspaceman]

4 hours ago, Stubby said:

Remember , those skilled guys with years of experience probably started out without even CS thirtywhatever ...?

Yup, even I, a late entrant into the forestry industry, had 17 years under my belt before I was assessed for the old units.

 

Given mechanisation and the gravy train that is NPTC pyramid selling I wouldn't be looking to doing other than management jobs now if at all in forestry unless the employer footed the bill with no loss of wage.

 

Similar to motor bike riding, if I had to progress through A1 and A2 to ride my bike I wouldn't have bothered.

[Stuart Phillips]

The current system doesn’t work but there is very little incentive to change it.  For ‘read ‘tricky and more expensive’.

 

Here’s some of what I think is wrong with what we have currently…

1.    PUWER (Regulation 9) emphasizes the need for adequate training.  Our current system places the emphasis on the ‘need’ for a ‘ticket’, a certificate.

2.    Learners, with no previous experience, complete a 5 day course (often only working on softwoods) and are then expecting to be competent to work in different situations with numerous different species.

3.    The quality control of instruction and assessment hasn’t always been all it could be (although I know that recently this has begun to be tightened up).

 

The net result being that the industry accident rate is higher that anyone thinks it should be.

 

A number of suggestion have been put forward for revising how we work, but usually these are relegated to the too expensive or too difficult piles.  So, until either people get over the stage of tutting and saying, “something should be done”, or there is legislation to force change, it is what we are stuck with.

 

All I would add is that the certification should be a starting point.  PUWER Reg 9 still places a duty on employers to ensure staff are adequately trained.  If we are saying that just doing a 5 day course isn’t sufficient then they are obliged to ensure that there is some further (presumably on the job) training.

 

Oh, and as for the C&G and Lantra 'gravy train', call into their offices some time, and see how many of the staff are sat in 18 carat gold chairs, and how many Bentleys are in the carpark.

[Mike Hill]

How about no one gains a ticket before they demonstrate proficiency at production speed in a production situation.

[Stephen Blair]

The 5 day course is the start of a persons journey into tree work.

  Are they any good with a saw?  Good enough to fell some trees on an estate or grounds job and give them the ability to sned brash on a driveway beside a chipper and it’s up to them to work out the rest if they want a career in the industry.

  Fast forward them 10 years and they will have their own story on how they got there or they will of taken a different path.

  Some people simply grab a saw and learn as they go and toughen up and spend the rest of their lives sore, exhausted and owed money!?

  

[doobin]

Meh, I've had plenty of 'trained' lads who hit the ground with the second cut.

 

Ones trained for places like the National Trust seem to be the most hapless.

[Stubby]

3 hours ago, Mike Hill said:

How about no one gains a ticket before they demonstrate proficiency at production speed in a production situation.

That would , at least halve the " instantly " available Work force but i see were you are coming from . You can't cram years of experience into a few weeks .