Training scaffolders Through SCCR

Garry Adams said:
phi181

What is to be done ?---are we to accept the status quo ?---what strategy would you adopt ?...

Garry...
Click to expand...

As mentioned before mate, I would go direct to these blue chip organisations who assume that the training these lads are given through the CITB/CISRS is adequate - and say 'Listen, it's NOT adequate training -in in our opinion, it's s**t, basically'

I think the SCCR would be quite suprised at how much some of these organisations would look into your concerns and proposals.

Suggest a well constructed SCCR presentation pack, ideally in a hard format and also as a PDF document or Powerpoint presentation.

Suggest head of safety, plus each regional head of safety for say, a dozen well established and recognised organisations, that employ scaffolding within their operational works, recieving this presentation pack along with a request for an hour of their time.

Go from there.

---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------
aom said:
Scaffarobo, it's the only way to do it. 3 man gang means your on the deck every 3rd day unless there is something specific to change that.

Gary,

Joint consultation, it's the future. Definitely something for the SCCR to discuss come October. The only man I have seen on here with any connection with the training centre in Renfrew is , it would be nice to hear what he thinks of the situation.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------



That's true phil but surely none of us are perfect and as scaffs no one is more customer focused and driven than us. If we were to go to the citb with concerns over quality of training the few people I have met would listen. I'm not saying they are in a position to dramatically change things over night but you have to start somewhere.
Click to expand...

AOM

Surely the CITB have as much to lose as the CISRS. After all, they've given them the accreditation for the current training regime.
 
Phil,

Maybe I am being naive but I don't think anyone has to loose anything. I just think the training could be better, a bit more intense, it would be nice if the young team came back better than when they went away. Somebody some where has obviously sat down and worked out a programme for this training but the boy's could do it in a fraction of the time. I know every one learns at a different pace but I think the time wasted could and should be spent more productively. I feel the place to start voicing any concerns would be with the training centres themselves, they are supposed to be customer driven and as such should at least listen and answer any concerns brought before them.
 
aom said:
Phil,

Maybe I am being naive but I don't think anyone has to loose anything. I just think the training could be better, a bit more intense, it would be nice if the young team came back better than when they went away. Somebody some where has obviously sat down and worked out a programme for this training but the boy's could do it in a fraction of the time. I know every one learns at a different pace but I think the time wasted could and should be spent more productively. I feel the place to start voicing any concerns would be with the training centres themselves, they are supposed to be customer driven and as such should at least listen and answer any concerns brought before them.
Click to expand...

Yes I totally agree with your points mate. However, that will cost more money, private businesses don't want to spend more money than they need to. Who, esentially controls the NASC? - Private scaffolding contractors.
We'll just go round in circles.
 
phil181

Like the idea of a Presentation Pack and Regional Reps...SCCR are Recruiting NOW ;)...

I know of several Blue Chip Service Organization which conduct Instruction Programs generic to our Industry, ie Manual Handling, WaH Regs, ect---HOWEVER, when it comes to the actual Techniques and Procedures for Erecting Scaffolds it is dis-jointed and each Service Company has its own Policies on this---Many Co.'s are now conducting a Basic Trade Tests over the Telephone prior to deployment---

Garry...
 
phil181 said:
Yes I totally agree with your points mate. However, that will cost more money, private businesses don't want to spend more money than they need to. Who, esentially controls the NASC? - Private scaffolding contractors.
We'll just go round in circles.
Click to expand...

Quite right phil we are in danger of going round in circles, but one question that springs to my tiny mind is why should better training cost more money? The problems I can see with their training has very little to do from lack of cash. Working from steel structures will involve a bit of investment but surely the citb can carry that.

Good points all well made, lets hope we can do something about it.
 
Scaffold Structures are Erected from Mock Building already, Truss out, Shore's ect---Steel Work which then can be used for the purposes of erecting Scaffolds which are prominently found Offshore and or allied Power Generating Facilities would be a good addendum would it not ?.
 
A very good set of posts there guy's, Garry is it not time to blow the dust off the old 'STOIC draft proposal' again m8?

AOM and Phil very valid sensible points made.

Garry, i agree, our only way forward, is through the SCCR, we tried to do it, just the 2 of us, to no avail. With the SCCR we have the support.
 
Garry Adams said:
Scaffold Structures are Erected from Mock Building already, Truss out, Shore's ect---Steel Work which then can be used for the purposes of erecting Scaffolds which are prominently found Offshore and or allied Power Generating Facilities would be a good addendum would it not ?.
Click to expand...

I have to be honest gary, I have never seen the new college or what mock buildings they now have but I think I would be disappointed if they spent a load of our cash and never included a steel frame for the suspended jobs. If they haven't already done so I would agree that would make a good starting point for improvements.

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------
paddy carr said:
A very good set of posts there guy's, Garry is it not time to blow the dust off the old 'STOIC draft proposal' again m8?

AOM and Phil very valid sensible points made.

Garry, i agree, our only way forward, is through the SCCR, we tried to do it, just the 2 of us, to no avail. With the SCCR we have the support.
Click to expand...

didn't realise you had already been round this block Paddy. Christ, were half way there already.:D

---------- Post added at 01:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------

Are you going to share or is the old "Stoic" document still top secret.
 
PADDY M8

Once more into the breach dear Friend---and yes, Iv blown the dust off of oor STOIC Doc---and we'll keep kickin at the feckin door untill some c8nt opens it...

Aye, Paddy M8, we worked on this pre-scaffolds forum and indeed pre-SCCR---HOWEVER, with Raggscaff and our fellow SSCR Office Bearers and Members we should have enough weight to make a difference---feck sake we dont want to change the World---just want whats right---let right be done...

Fae yer Pal in the North...
 
Mon then, I'm sitting here on the edge of my rock, what is this strange document you speak of.
 
aom

STOIC Doc is available for Public Viewing---as yet it has no ammendments since it's conception---have you not got a copy already A ?...
 
I think I would have remembered that one Gary. Is it regarding training? where is it?
 
Paddy M8

Sent a copy to aom

aom Have you received it and can you open Doc ???

Garry...
 
Aye thanks boys, just skimmed it there, quite a bit of info to soak up makes good reading there and must admit it rang true with my earlier post regarding my first trip offshore. I can't believe this has not been taken up by someone before now, I think the problem lies with clients and operators not willing to admit their may be a problem, admittedly it was a few years back but I once went over side to work without a permit or boat cover through ignorance.:embarrest: I would need to study it in a bit more detail but certainly looks good.
 
Yes grey area again, i beleive that the scaffolder who erected the scaffold cannot tag his own work, he can complete his part of the scafftag, then the scaffold has to be inspected by a third party, the scaffolder is still responsible for all the paperwork that goes before, i would welcome any comments if i am wrong.
 
BigBadBob

For reasons I have already stated on this thread, it is only my personal opinion that 3rd Party Auditing is becoming the norm---HOWEVER, that said, where a Scaffolder has Erected a Scaffold and in the absence of a 3rd Party Inspectorate then surly the Scaffolder or a Competent Person from within the Scaffolding Co, must commission the Scaffold ?...

Garry...
 
Bigbadbob said:
Yes grey area again, i beleive that the scaffolder who erected the scaffold cannot tag his own work, he can complete his part of the scafftag, then the scaffold has to be inspected by a third party, the scaffolder is still responsible for all the paperwork that goes before, i would welcome any comments if i am wrong.
Click to expand...

Incorrect Bob, anyone can do a scaffold inspection (so long as they're suitably competent) including the guy who erected the scaffold.

It's also worth mentioning that a scafftag is not a WHR requirement - just the schedule 7 inspection report which, as I'm sure you know, needs to be filled out after any inspection.

These rules cover the initial inspection, the mandatory 7 day inspection, and any other inspections to cover extreme weather, modification etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom