Whats Wrong With the Current System.

[andythesquirel]

I do not work in this industry and so am limited on knowledge of cs tickets and other aspects, so forgive me for any comments I make.

From reading threads on this site, my understanding is that there are many cs competency tickets for different skills. Anyone aspiring to work in the industry, obtains the cs tickets they want and then goes to work for experience etc.

As stated i can only comment as to how qualifications/training is in other fields.

I agree that further legislation would cause more cost/grief for people in the industry and will ultimately restrict some applicants. I feel you would still have the same problems as now such as highly qualified (on paper) people who could not effectively do the job. Paper qualifications are not everything!!

However, i do like the comments made by TOM D.

I agree there should be a ROLE SPECIFIC WORK RELATED TICKETS, such as groundie/tree surgeon/ etc. If my understanding is right, there is no such thing at this time, and anyone can call themselves anything, backing up what they say, by telling people they are qualified as they have NPTC CS tickets.

In my job I see numerous people who claim to be professional tree surgeons, when frankly they have never climbed a tree, and you would not want them using a chainsaw near you! (to anyone who has no idea of CS tickets its hard to know if people are competent for the job there doing!).

The public are not all stupid though! If there was a specific role qualification they would quickly ask for this.

A role specific ticket would be a sign to the public that they are getting someone with the relevant qualifications for the job so that they are not getting someone claiming to be a tree surgeon who has not got the full relevant cs tickets, or a groundie who does not know how to rig for lowing large piece of timber.

I feel this role specific ticket could be introduced easily into the industry with little or no cost, and would improve the professionalism and safety of arborists.

 

These are comments made from observations from an outsider, and so any corrections or comments about what I have said would be appreciated.

[Laz]

Good post Mr Squirrel

 

Funny how it takes an outside view to see an answer.

 

Firstly, it must be obvious by now that NPTCs are not tickets of competence - more people than ever hold these tickets, and more accidents than ever occur.

 

It is a complicated system and costly. Therefore, neither is the system cost effective to industry.

 

What is required is a simple tier system, based on roles. e.g. groundsman, climber, supervisor. And then trainee/apprentice roles for each of these. The syllabus is centred around each company's specific undertaking. Log books document experience, and are qualified by a supervisor, who's name is against the trainee.

 

All this hinges on training supervisors, who can act as in-house instuctors. Too many incompetents are in in positions of responsibility. A new bar must be set for this level. Only true competents, or supervision by them, will reduce accidents.

 

Unfortunately, this expertise gets thrown on the rubbish heap as routine for the industry, in favour of energetic young men who are encouraged to work like slaves, faster and faster, till they burn out by the time they get experienced. And so the cycle of diminishing returns continues.

 

I am under no illusions though:

 

This review is just an exercise to make us all feel we are involved. But in reality, too many have invested in the 'Ticket Trade'. The current system will remain

with little real change. Accidents will continue to rise, more legislation, higher insurance permiums, etc etc etc

 

I hold the industry responsible, through the charities that guide us, for not educating the public, not taking the initiative, and generally being reactive to any issue, instead of heading it off as it came on the horizon.

 

The wrong people with limited expertise, are constantly allowed to decide the industry's future, for their commercial gain. No true democracy in arboriculture.

 

No vision - no future. The status Quo will prevail.

[Laz]

Another point to follow on from the above:

 

The cause of most accidents highlight that the individual wasn't actually competent, or the technique they used wasn't actually suitable.

 

But if they have a ticket that says they are competent, or were using a technique that was condoned in good practice guides, then the coroner or HSE can find no fault.

 

It won't be long before perhaps a civil claim comes from a family, questioning the guidance and training systems, that really led to the accident.

 

In this respect, I think the current framework of the trade associations and certiication system, is actually bringing the industry into disrepute. Through nothing more than their own incompetence and lack of expertise in addressing the real issues, or through pushing a path focused on vested interest.

 

Writing these posts does nothing to further my own career in the industry - the opposite in fact. But I have been involved with accident investigations, and find the cause normally roots itself within these points.

 

For me, it is a moral compulsion, and I understand why the industry isn't so motivated.

 

Thats why I don't expect real change.

[Mr Ed]

This review is just an exercise to make us all feel we are involved. But in reality, too many have invested in the 'Ticket Trade'. The current system will remain

with little real change.

 

Indeed. Jobs for the boys and all that.

[bob]

CS 45

ARBORICULTURAL GROUND-WORKER

(Pre requisite: CS30)

This unit covers the working operation typically expected of the person working on the

ground assisting the climber. Skills include setting out the site, sending the saw and

other equipment up to the climber, operating lowering equipment, breaking down crown

sections, handling and stacking arisings

:001_tongue::001_tongue:

[D Mc]

I have been reading this thread like so many others that are out of my realm of experience to inform myself on how the rest of the world does things.

 

So I am not well versed at all in your certification systems. But I can tell from reading Laz' 2 posts they have the sad ring of truth and, consequently, were quite depressing.

 

There is one point that I am well versed in and that is producing a safe tree worker. Back before all the certification programs, the only way to learn was through apprenticeship. This was a slow process. It took 3 to 5 years on an average to go from basic eager employee to a competent tree person. It would take another 5 years of day-in, day-out work for that person to amass the experiences to make judgment calls in all situations.

 

I just don't see how classroom study, with pencil and paper and text, can be expected to make a dent in what is required to work safely. I feel there is just no short cut to this learning curve and apprenticeship or internship should be mandatory. Apprenticeship is mandatory in many professions that have no where NEAR the hazard risk involved as in tree work. With that in mind steps should be taken that would allow this; i.e., incentive for companies to make it worth their while to invest in the time necessary to produce truly safe tree workers.

 

Dave

[Rowan the Bruce]

In Australia there is no one week assessment and you can go use a chainsaw, however if you want to become an arborist and call yourself one, you must train for a level two qualification, a year or two if working aswell. Surely then you will understand a bit about trees and how to work on them and use the machinery. Is two weeks of training and 'I'm now a tree surgeon' good enough in this country? I'll admit that some of the old school guys I've worked with and learned from would cut my ears off for saying it, for they learned everything from on the job training, but I really think if the industry is to improve something has to change.

[Bundle 2]

NPTC certification aims to be a broad house and indeed there are more than one or two areas appear under the umbrella of training. A good starting point IMO.There is certainly quite alot more to the business of arboriculture than seems immediately obvious. That the industry seeks to train and then assess those that work within their chosen field is absolutely right and proper.

In all fairness however, the nicest thing you can say about the NPTC sheme is that it appears to be like obtaining a driving licence.You are assessed and passed lets say. You can now start to learn how to drive.

Something I have also noticed too is the nothing short of appalling attitude of some employers toward potential staff in the industry. There is clearly a failure somewhere and it seems to affect both those in the business aswell as those wishing to make arboriculture their chosen profession.

As an overview of NPTC , I feel it is scant and perhaps a little too brief .The quals by no means qualify you. How can you teach an enduring dedication to an area of endeavour anyway. I also happen to agree with Pete when he states that it is easy to become isolated in this industry. How so when qualifications themselves are described as " vocational "

Cheers:sheep:

[Arbocop]

thank you one and all for your posts so far, i have my own opinions but ill hold out on thos e for the time being.

 

what you may find of interest is the meeting has speciffically precluded those with a vested interest in training (you know who i mean) and focused more on managers companies etc.

 

this is because it is known and felt that the standard model of training at the moment needs modernizing to better serve both staff and employee.

 

keep your thoughts coming, but remember how do u think we can improve the system.

 

thanks again

[Laz]

Thats cheating Kevin - I showed you mine!

 

Good to have someone of your experience contribute Dave. Tree work is pretty much the same the world over in the west, so very valid points that certainly reflect my own experience.

 

I feel it is down to each company to determine the risks and controls for their own business. Establishing their own apprenticeship based on that undertaking, its techniques and equipment. The genralised approach to one size fits all is actually one size fits the minority.

 

The one caveat being that those responsible for the H&S of the company, are highly competent and experienced themselves, in that company's specific undertaking.

 

As it stands, three weeks of training and certification, and an individual can claim to be a qualified tree surgeon, set up in business, and be responsible for a trainee. The industry associations in the UK are USELESS when it comes to protecting our committment (currently 21 yrs for me) to tree work, but thats another issue.

 

I believe the IRATA tier system concept linked to time served is the way to go. It ties trainees to a company and supervisor to get experience, whilst still allowing free movement within the industry. Level1 to Level 3. (NOT THE ACTUAL IRATA SYSTEM PERSE! THE CONCEPT).

 

The only way to gain the complete tree worker is through time served under sound supervision.

 

By introducing a stern test for supervisor, and insisting each team must have one, the playing field would be levelled. I'm not talking another micky mouse NPTC/Lantra short course ticket.

 

It should be scenario, demo and question based. The assessors should be fully satisfied that the individual has the required underpinning knowledge, expertise and ability, to be responsible for others. No need for writing skills - its down to the assessors to get from the candidate what they are after, and they can record. By its very nature, it should be difficult to achieve. Because this person will be responsible for training, rescue and safety of staff on site, plus the company image, and the proper care of the trees. They will be accountable. They will sign off the trainees experience, and be subject to a complaints procedure (from public, employer, trainee).

 

That will be an excellent, cost effective way of reducing accidents and improving the industry image with the public. The public can request that such an operative be on site, and be reassured. It will be a well paid position of course, and deservedly so. But it will be the same requirement for everyone, so no cutting corners unless such an op is not on site.

 

A framework of updating these operatives to cascade skills and knowledge through their company programmes is a much more cost effective and company specific approach to reducing risks.

 

Who do I make my invoice out to?