Certificate of Competence in Chainsaw and Related Operations Review Consultation

[puwer]

Dear All,

 

I have noticed a few threads on the forum relating to the NPTC qualifications framework. Earlier this year NPTC launced the Certificate of Competence in Chainsaw and Related Operations Review Consultation.

 

To keep this simple the whole scheme is up for a re-vamp. This could be as simple as re-wording content or adding additonal assessment criteria, or as radical as scrapping mulitple felling units or introducing a tiered arboricultural training and assessment scheme (similar to IRATA)

 

(I have just put these down to give you an idea of the scope of approach).

 

So far the reponse to the consultation has been slow and those who have contributed have in most cases been trainers or assessors.

 

NPTC have engaged a consultant to work on the project and it is my own personal opinion that we should be engaging the views of employers, employees, sub contractors, sole traders etc etc.

 

I thought members of the forum might like to comment and even though NPTC do have an official response form, it may be easy for people to simply post any thoughts, ideas or comments they have and i can point the consultant towards the forum.

 

I fully appreciate the current scheme has it problems, most of us know them and their seems little point in going over old ground. Lets keep it positive, simple and workable/effective for the end user/employer. Don't be afraid of posting the ideas you have. This may be the last opportunity we have to input into the scheme for the next five years!

 

http://www.nptc.org.uk/archived-news/

[Quickthorn]

PLEASE don't make CS units expire every 3/5/whatever years PLEASE. If I have to fork out for a full suite of training and assessments again and again, it may be the final nail. We are obliged to have refresher training already..proof of that should be enough..

[Yorkshireman]

puwer

when you mention the review, I believe it should look at the course duration spread of days ie: workshop, thery & practical saw time.

the ratio of candidates to trainer ?

[Yorkshireman]

it may also be valuable to move slightly away from the forestry product type elements or at least in corporate some more arb related or add some of the larger fellng techique (maybe just as an awareness )to the curriculum.

 

Imo the information candidates undergo within the current 4 days inc theory technical & legal information & then they to switch to hands on workshop saw work & the time in with the trees can most certainly be daunting.

in my experience some are adept at one or the other ,but once the saturation point is reached, down come the shutters.

 

inaddition

It may be worth while looking at a groundsmans cert as an addon to the basic raw related course : incorporating lowering techniques, some basic knots, hazard evaluation whilst working near a climber.

dresing for the chipper setup of a working site signage etc etc

 

 

that imo will be an advantage to the employer base you speak of.

 

just a few thoughts

rgds

iain

[puwer]

Interesting thoughts.

 

I can envisage that an expiry will be set on certifcates of competence (CoC) for new operators under any new scheme. This however does not mean that it has to be a complete re-assessment, could a CPD log work? or submission of refresher training submitted to the awarding body? (How do we determine what refresher/update training would be acceptable eg. would it have to be completed by a Lantra Awards instructor and a certificate of attendance issued? or maybe if a candidate completed another element of the certificates of competence scheme? (I am avoiding simply writing "get another unit').

 

Iain, course duration, ratio of workshop time and saw time would all be born from whatever the training requirments will be to complete any new CoC. I have no doubt you are aware, trainee to instructor ratios are discussed in INDIG317 (rev) HSE Chainsaws at work - but as ever enforcement is key.

 

We already have a Cs45 groundworker, so would an option be to keep the exisiting unit, add maybe Cs30 (maintain and operate the chainsaw), and add additional assesment criteria, such as those you suggest?

 

Interesting you suggest a possible move away from the forestry side of things. How do we cater for that industry sector? Could we go back in time to when the units FTC10-16 were for forestry and 20,21,22 for arb - do we create a divide for industry sectors?

[Yorkshireman]

Valid points & no doubt an absolute mine field, It is difficult to cater for all applications , however

 

Has a study been made of candidates background & intended application once competent & compiled a % of these fields, it may assist in the direction to be taken, forestry has been changed since the implimention of harvester & forwarders , no where near the number of saw operators, as once was!!

 

So Doing things differently , giving split options may not be a bad thing, we could have additional bolt on sub units, that can be catered by the college / training provider, toward the need of the trainees, wether Forestry or Arb, this adaptaility & focus may give the candidate more realism & drive.

 

I made the point re the academic & practical time scales as some do better dependant on their grasp & understanding of the subject at hand,

Some are naturally academic whilst others good with their hands, as you rightly say there are real world pressures,tho they should not alter the standards.

 

Well im a nptc assessor & I wasnt aware of cs 45

Okay i havent ever looked for it : ... but thats Great !!!

I'm sure that that could easily be part of cs 30 31

[RPA]

A thought re training/assesment/competence.

On a module you will do 3 - 6 days training and then half a days assessment. Who is in the best position to judge your competence - the trainer or the assessor?

To my mind to actually pass the unit you should need to pass the training to a pre-determind standard to be able to progress to the assessment. I feel this would give a better indication of competence as opposed to the ability to get through an assesment. It would also mean that two people, not just one, have agreed that you have reached the required standards.

[Yorkshireman]

Edenarb Trainers do actually hold candidates from assessment if they feel that they are not capable of the assessment Although ime For safety reason primarily, it is the job of the assessor to decide.

 

although I do take your point,

 

An outsider might argue that an independant trainer who continually holds back (what may be argued as an 'unusual' number of) candidates from their assessment, may not be asked back by the college as frequently

as their piers ( I am not inferring or suggesting any such thing takes place, it just could be argued ) its simply best not to open a can of worms that doesnt need opening.

[Andy Collins]

My concern is that although we seem to have better training regime in place for students, how is it that once they pass their tickets they come out to the workplace knowing nothing!! I'm sure the "old school" style of education must have worked better. I've seen students come along, with tickets, who cant tie the basic knots, dont understand lowering techniques, and cant operate a saw, yet feel they're worth £100+ a day. Are we really improving training, or just creating more jobs for the training fraternity?? I know this isnt really constructive in line with the topic, but I feel this is a valid point.

[jpbeaver]

have to agree with you there big a, as soon as i saw the title of the thread i thought its just another way for someone else to make money out of us poor sods who put up with people changing the goal posts. i believe in germany they have 3 arb tickets 1 for felling 1 for climbing and 1 for climbing with a chainsaw. not sure how long the courses last but when i was over there the level of skill seemed very high.