How to crash an industry

[Arbocop]

hello guys im back after a couple of days out

 

Who reps some of the other bodies on arb talk, well there are alot of people on hear who sit at regional and national level on at least one of those , the AA that i know of, who dont advertise it for some of the resons mentioned above and also because they are interested in what is really being said, not what people think they whant to hear. but this is not an outing forum so mums the word.......

 

i see this thread is still going strong and ive just re read it all through and the thing that strikes me having gone through it all is that the main objection seems to be there is no recognition of time served it is all ciclicle and that is the main stumbeling block.

 

prehaps if the good people hear , and all those interested parties keep bashing that message over and over, that and this is my opinion it must be a mix of experiance, formal training, tested knowlege and that must be based on an auditable trail of evidence.

 

does that sound right?????? well if so ill tell you alittle suprise in a bit heheheheh

 

cheers all

 

kev

[Arborlord]

I think one qualified tree surgeon should be able to train some one to the same level.

 

If you have chainsaw tickets you should be able to train someone to the same level your qualified to since you past so you know the standard needed to teach a certain ticket.

 

Should be able to teach a guy what you was taught on the course then you should be able to asses him since you are qualified and past the same test.

 

But you should be held responsible if you have not taught them correctly.

[Steve Bullman]

could you teach someone to pass a driving test now???

[Frank]

could you teach someone to pass a driving test now???

 

I was just going to say that

[Frank]

fair play, you can teach / help someone learn all they need to learn and revise to get assesed but not assess them. Ridiculous.

[Arbocop]

back

 

well to start

 

im quite busy in the AA, and there are anumber of peope there who do care about the cutting edge of arb, but also as a body thay do a lot of political work, not every ones cup of tea but needs to be done none the less, i also know there are people on hear who sit on the TTWG and AFAG groups so they are a rround but just keeping there head down, there choise.

 

as for me about 2 years ago the aa started talking about how certification can be moved on and looked at tearied systems measuring performance and experiance and assessmnet ok key stages, alas, it all fell over when we got to the who assesses the assessor, and who assesses the assesors assesor etc etc....if we keep the presure up it will happen.

 

of cource there is the nvq rought that works on a lot of these premises, alas the stumbeling block of that is that to get parts of the nvq you need certain nptc certs@??

 

as i final thing arround this thread, im a stanch supported of education etc, and in many ways the nptc system works, but it is only a level 2 and the use of advanced in some of the litriture is very very missleading

 

cheers

 

kev

[Yorkshireman]

Hello ALL

 

Just received this text in email from NPTC

this clarifys the situation quite nicely I think

 

"Dear Iain,

 

 

 

Thank you for sending through your comprehensive feedback on the content detail of the CS units. This is just the type of feedback we require from real practitioners. We will be responding to this separately as we bring together the various comments received. However, on reading your second email regarding refresher training I felt it pertinent to respond specifically to this now as there seems to have been some misunderstanding about our intentions.

 

 

 

The paragraph you quoted was actually intended to allay fears about new units coming out. It is quite normal that if we introduce new or revised CS units, people who already hold a chainsaw certificate of competence will be worried that they may have to “re-qualify”. This is absolutely not the case. Any qualification achieved is for life. A certificate states that on a given date the individual proved themselves as competent. Therefore, employers should continue to recognise pre-2009 qualifications in just the way that they still recognise the pre 1998 suites of units (CS10,11,12 + CS20,21,22).

 

 

 

If a completely new unit comes out, we would not credit old qualification holders with the new unit but we would issue guidance as to equivalence between the old and the new. If an operator did wish to be certificated for a new unit, they would be required to be assessed but there is no compulsion to achieve the new unit where they hold an older equivalent.

 

 

 

For example:

 

A candidate who holds CS10, CS11 and CS14 (maintenance, felling small trees and takedown pre 1998) has the equivalent of the current CS30 and CS31 which are the pre-requisites for CS32. This candidate would be able to proceed with the old units as pre-requisite to achieve the current CS32. However, we would certificate the candidate with CS32 but not CS30 or 31 (as they already hold the old units).

 

 

 

Example 2:

 

When we launched CS47 (chainsaw use from a MEWP) we also issued guidance stating that existing operators who hold a MEWP qualification and CS39 should be considered to have the same competencies and therefore would not need to achieve CS47 for conducting work from a MEWP. However, if they did want to have CS47 on their certificate they would have to be assessed.

 

 

 

The recommendation for refresher training is something that has been in place at least since the introduction of the PUWER regulations in 1998. This is governed by the HSE, not NPTC. The details of what is required are laid down in the HSE AFAG publication AFAG805 – Training and Certification (see link below) essentially it is a recommendation for refresher training every 3-5 years.

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/afag805.pdf states:

 

 

 

“Where experienced, full-time operators have received basic training and/or achieved a Certificate of Competence, it is recommended that they attend regular refresher training to maintain their skills and knowledge level. Competency certificates will normally identify the refresher training period and in most cases this would be within five years. However, refresher training may need to be provided more often (every two to three years) for those operators who use their skills less frequently. It is recommended that non-certificated training also follows these time periods.”

 

 

 

(Of course, one acceptable alternative to refresher training would be to re-take the CS units but this is not a requirement)

 

 

 

The reason for the statement about our units remaining valid provided refresher training has been completed is because by simply stating that the old units are still valid could imply that we are contradicting HSE advice. The HSE AFAG committee are carrying out a separate piece of work around improving the level and effectiveness of refresher training or an appropriate alternative.

 

 

 

Any old or current or future CS units are and will remain valid but the HSE recommend that refresher training should be taken and in the event of an inspection or accident investigation, would want to see evidence of what refresher training had taken place since the CS units were achieved.

 

 

 

I hope this clarifies the matter for you. I have also answered your individual questions below in purple. If you wish to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Joe Jarvis "

[Peter]

Cheers for that Iain.

[Mr Ed]

poop. what can we grumble and whine about now?

[Mesterh]

Nice bit of info there cleared quite a few things up

 

I've had a brilliant idea (well I think so anyway) since we still have to do some form of training every 5 years I was thinking that anyone who has just passed there NPTC's could earn a bit of extra cash by training us old ones or it would be a good enough reason to get your boss to put you through any tickets so you can at least refresh the more experienced sorry older users who need updating.

 

I mean who better to teach us than a newbie who hasnt picked up any bad habits (asides from a trained assessor)