Have to renew all NPTC units every 5 years

[Yorkshireman]

 

Thanks

 

I run a arb business , quite a successfully one which I built from nothing & believe me I know the cost implications ,

 

I set up Arbschool because I think the current standards only go so far , and as an assessor I am frustrated by the entry chainsaw as its generic the tree felling is primarily Forestry orientated

 

SO I really sympathise with those striving [ as I do ] to make the sums more than add up so that we can continually advance the business.

 

Hse is about safety , if its good enough for HSE inspectors , who in their own admission arent ..Arb' specialists.

 

then why not let the industry self support by engaging those people who do have genuine experience of how Arborists work and have also already undergone repeated technical evaluations and verifications which ensure assessors are assessing competence standards to the standards of a national framework which is already recognised by the HSE

 

Surely the bodys working ON RT2 or others could agree to specify such a technical team works system

 

Arb is now a sector on its own & should be in my opinion be recognised and catered too as such. not a woodland setting but an Arb setting men /women at work being observed as they have already cut their teeth in the tuition settings

 

can it reasonably be said training for arb has been done, when the training is not arb specific and is focused around felling

 

I agree with Paul AA techie the issue is ARB related climbing techinques etc >>> but we never work on our own we are ARBORISTs who by nessecity work in teams YET THERE IS NO TEAM ASSESSMENT of the working operation,

 

this is about safety not dodging the HSE prosecution bullet

 

the individuals might separately be qualified but what about the system of work from climber - groundie , = THE TEAM ,

 

so what better way than a multi unit ARB assessor who can observe and draw conclusions and give feed back.

 

just my thoughts ,

 

but if we don't encourage progression within the industry from entry level then collectively we need to give our heads a shake and wake up ...

 

Iain

Edited October 4, 2013 by Yorkshireman

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

HI Paul , perhaps what we need to RE think the approach

 

I can see the , bug bear of a lot of these guys as their perception of being forced to re do basic stuff effectively being told to suck eggs on basic stuff

 

What we need as an industry is entry level which happens in the training environment but then to recognise advancement above tuition in application,

 

Qualified Assessors could be trusted to go & observe these guys [as a team ] perform their days work ,

which is afterall is the workplace , which is what HSE are concerned about is it not

 

not in a training environment with false perameters working on trees that are lucky to have and epidermis left, as they are climbed so frequently by students... boring

 

So these multi unit qualified assessors , observe the team and or the individuals & assess the teams operation . to the standards required ,

 

in support of other learning the individual could if required [as with Ipaf ] fill in a log book or keep a CPD of work done / or literature read , subscriptions too or tutorials attended.

 

the issue - barrier is it costs money to attend what is perceived as stuff they already know , whilst also losing money , when not at work ,

 

I seriously doubt that anyone here would have issue with having a reduced insurance premium on their Public liability as a direct result of the team being observed by a suitable qualified assessor who says the operation is done within the units and are therefore undertaken safely as recognised by HSE

 

 

Iain

 

Hi Iain, a good point, well made.

 

My approach was to try to meet the HSE 'general' refresher training recommendations (a 'KEY' word) AND, at the same time, advance operators by learning new skills and techniques....or reinforce what they are doing is correct. This could be applied in the workplace perhaps if you had a cooperative and flexible assessor who was willing and could accommodate it, i.e. next time you're doing a large felling as a job get an assessor along and "kill two birds with one stone", so to speak (not sure if that would be acceptable to the awarding bodies but the assessor themselves could endorse it.)

 

The application of the skills, as you quite rightly state, is the essence of safe working practice and this is where true competence, and proficiency, should be observed. This is what we endeavour to assess as part of the ARB Approved Contractor process in Module 1. Worksite Safety Inspection, so there is a mechanism already available.

 

Perhaps, and just thinking out loud, the qualified assessor, who is too much in 'assessment mode', might miss the broader competence issue for want of the technical detail of the operation. For instance, I wouldn't fail a business because the guy up the tree, or on the ground, occasionally forgot to put their visor down or earmuffs on, akin to crossing hands on the steering wheel if you re-took your driving test, provided it was not habitual (and then it's often a management, in the broadest sense, issue, or rather lack of.)

 

Conversely, I do accept there are limitations in using an assessor for ARB Approved who doesn't understand the key skills / techniques applicable to the operation.

 

So, as with everything, it's a balance.

 

Lastly, fer now, R2 will need basic / core skills to both be attained, i.e. certificates / 'tickets', but more importantly then consolidated in the workplace before being signed of as competent and proficient by a 'supervisor', so a similar outcome. (Anticipating a question, in a small business they will be able to access the supervisor role externally...but not quite sure how that will work yet.)

 

Thanks for the post and the 'different angle', very valuable.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Yorkshireman]

Hi Paul

 

" or reinforce what they are doing is correct."

 

 

I can speak only for myself & the overview of opinion I have gained during my years in the NPTc assessor role ,

 

When you speak of passing or not folks because of minor elements there is already provision within the assessment model to allow assessors to read the situation and the gravitas of actions or ommition to act .

 

That's why some of the best assessors it has been my privilege to meet and work alongside in my experience come from within the industry and have been successful in running their own teams as managers or as business owners.

 

as they have a global picture in the round, as what is the risk is posed by the hazards in doing the work we do. okay folks get things wrong and that often happens when their concentration is elsewhere or they are out of their comfort zone in artificial environments

 

ie staged scenarios , work is work & teams just crack on as normal , ok half an eye maybe given the the assessor , but that happens in staged scenarios, this when coupled with unfamiliar work colleagues if working as a team seems bogus & simply wrong

 

who will run with this notion, [iF anyone will ] isn't for me to speculate , I just feel its a common sense approach to underpin safe work practice where it happens day in day out in the real world ..

 

and it is perhaps more palatable to the industry, than telling them how to suck eggs

 

 

regards Iain

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Iain, I'll try to make this my last one...honest!

 

"and it is perhaps more palatable to the industry, than telling them how to suck eggs"

 

I don't believe this is the approach HSE are taking, nor expect of industry.

 

On reading the ACOP to the Management Regs & PUWER ("oh joy") it refers explicitly to new technologies, techniques and equipment etc. in the context of refresher training and not returning to basics. The fact an industry sector has chosen that route is their prerogative I guess and presumably based on unacceptably high accident figures...perhaps therefore justified, dunno, I guess the future will tell.

 

Reet, not gonna waffle any longer so will bid you farewell an have a good weekend.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Yorkshireman]

So this begs the question how often are the current models updated to remain current.. to incorporate "new technologies, techniques and equipment etc"

 

by the nature of the current units how often are they revisited> ?

 

for uniformity of delivery I doubt this is monthly or even annually across the suite of COC

 

 

so if these are revisited lets say every 3 - 5 years then there is a pressure cooker effect building as if mandatory all operator update , then when will the system be able to cope as there will be a load of training to do in a very short space of time...

 

unless this is fed through CPD , & not training of units which already held

 

unless perhaps draft some bolt on refreshers ie & I use the old unit codes coz I 'm old

cs 41 revision 1, 2, 3 etc that only cover new developments & not all of the unit which should already be known & practised by the operators

 

not going over the same stuff,

 

I still maintain that assessment of the operation in practice is a route to monitor safety what better bench mark is there in so far that the assessment is independent of favour or bias & is done within guidance by qualified and verified assessors.

 

save that ultimate commercial test, that the company and its operators have a zero incident rate and their clients return time after time to have them continually deliver an excellent and safe service.

 

Yep me too ,, glad the weekend is finally here

Edited October 4, 2013 by Yorkshireman

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

"save that ultimate commercial test, that the company and its operators have a zero incident rate..."

 

Goes without saying dunnit every accident book, well okay the majority, I've ever seen have either no, or minimal, entries (some are genuine I know ).

 

Almost that Friday 'beer-oclock' time so av'a'gud'un n TTFN.

 

Cheers Iain.

Paul

[Yorkshireman]

I knew you couldn't resist, that one final post lol ....wine o'clock

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I knew you couldn't resist, that one final post lol ....wine o'clock

 

"kettle, pon, arse n sooty"

[3dogs]

Make of this as you will!!!!

I believe these guys are FISA instructors!

I will keep my thoughts to myself.

http://hwtraining.co.uk/new-forestry-fast-track-course/

[Craig Johnson]

Make of this as you will!!!!

I believe these guys are FISA instructors!

I will keep my thoughts to myself.

http://hwtraining.co.uk/new-forestry-fast-track-course/

 

don't think lantra will like been called hobby courses:lol: