20 year old advanced scaffolder!

i think you will find thats whats happening phil,if the sccr gets its house in order and the internet can help i think you will see challenges to thses guidelines more and more,i certainly dont have all the answers mate but i can tell you from grass roots level this is a massive contention and wont go away,so i will agree to disagree with you but will and i am trying to learn more and more about nasc and if im wrong about them i will eat humble pie and hold my hand up,had a few heated debates with aom about this and him being on the darkside,i respect your opinions mate i just whole heartedly disagree with them ;)
 
joebag said:
i think you will find thats whats happening phil,if the sccr gets its house in order and the internet can help i think you will see challenges to thses guidelines more and more,i certainly dont have all the answers mate but i can tell you from grass roots level this is a massive contention and wont go away,so i will agree to disagree with you but will and i am trying to learn more and more about nasc and if im wrong about them i will eat humble pie and hold my hand up,had a few heated debates with aom about this and him being on the darkside,i respect your opinions mate i just whole heartedly disagree with them ;)
Click to expand...

You don't have to challenge these guidlines mate, nobody if forcing you to work to them!

The only stipulation is that you follow the LAW - which is pretty much the WAHR's and CDM in this industry.

None of the NASC guidance or the CISRS qualifications are a legal requirement for contract scaffolders in the UK.

Nobody's forcing anyone to adhere to these standards. People moan that contractors/council's etc are demanding that scaffolding contractors are working to NASC guidance. Who can blame them? Nobody else has bothered producing an alternative! So what is the alternative if there isn't one?

If you ask me, we're lucky to have the NASC who give up their time and money to produce these documents. If it wasn't for them we'd all be working to HSE guidance - and that would be fun, wouldn't it...
 
But i cant get on a site without a csrs card,its semantics to say i dont have to adhere mate !!
 
joebag said:
like your style phil ;)
Click to expand...

It doesn't take a lot of working out mate, does it?

How can anyone justify turning up on site and just saying 'I've been doing it 20 years, so I'm well competent' - I could see some abuse to that 'system'.

I'm sure you'll agree that 20 years experience is all very well and good, but if they haven't been trained to install a drilled anchor.....
 
never once asked for no training at all,just wondering and been told a few things about where this all leads,refresher courses etc and whos pulling the training in what direction and why,your right people do need to stick their head up and hopefully sccr will start doing this,if not im afraid in ten years time phil you will see that my point was not hard to work out either ! !
 
drifta said:
20 minutes training ..apparently.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but it's still training nevertheless...

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:26 PM ----------
joebag said:
never once asked for no training at all,just wondering and been told a few things about where this all leads,refresher courses etc and whos pulling the training in what direction and why,your right people do need to stick their head up and hopefully sccr will start doing this,if not im afraid in ten years time phil you will see that my point was not hard to work out either ! !
Click to expand...

The NASC is basically paid for and run by a load of scaffold companies.

Why would these companies want to pay out fortunes to send their lads on refresher courses?

The SCCR can moan and whinge all they like, but I am yet to see any decent alternatives offered on their behalf.
 
i can build a 9 m tower and be trusted with everything that means it will be stable and strong and the platforms will support a mans weight yet

i am not trusted to pull test a tie,not install it as i need no formal training on a drill just i cant put a hook in the tie,attach it to a hydrojaws and wind it out to a number that if i can tell the time i can read!

im lone wolf mate so the sccr can defend itself,and sometimes i think it needs to ,but the way i see it one of us is being naieve here,me for not seeing nasc is genuinely in it to help scaffolders and its members,or you for not seeing nasc is in it for vested interests of its members with money in system scaff etc and pushing policies that benefit it alone,,,,

if this was just optional their wouldnt be a problem,the fact its not IS the problem !
 
Last edited:
joebag said:
i can build a 9 m tower and be trusted with everything that means it will be stable and strong and the platforms will support a mans weight yet

i am not trusted to pull test a tie,not install it as i need no formal training on a drill just i cant put a hook in the tie,attach it to a hydrojaws and wind it out to a number that if i can tell the time i can read!
Click to expand...

Yet if that 9.0m tower collapsed and it killed someone, then your employer would be in very serious trouble if you weren't trained to a 'competent' standard.

What's the difference?
 
the difference is if your going to be writing the rules or perceived rules which they are you better make sure they are bulletproof and written for the issues of safety and usefullness,not for the reasons of profit and self progression,,,,,,,these arent seen as just guidelines mate nasc want itself and are making itself out to be the rule makers themselves,with bulshit claims like they represent 90% of scaffolders,you cant go hiding behind their only guidelines when you know that we have to adhere to them to earn money!

make them just guidelines,dont ask sites to only allow nasc members on,its a cartel and you know it mate playing the grey area for all its worth and not putting blokes safety over that of profit,no matter how that profits hidden !
 
I would say training would be useful to those not use to drlling holes in walls. Worked with enough guys that mula the hole drilled. They dont entirely understand structures tying scaffold to. (concrete brick,types of mortar,lime based,sand and cement) Pull test ,who tests?? Who checks??Scaff inspector?? Desgner??
 
joebag said:
the difference is if your going to be writing the rules or perceived rules which they are you better make sure they are bulletproof and written for the issues of safety and usefullness,not for the reasons of profit and self progression,,,,,,,these arent seen as just guidelines mate nasc want itself and are making itself out to be the rule makers themselves,with bulshit claims like they represent 90% of scaffolders,you cant go hiding behind their only guidelines when you know that we have to adhere to them to earn money!

make them just guidelines,dont ask sites to only allow nasc members on,its a cartel and you know it mate playing the grey area for all its worth and not putting blokes safety over that of profit,no matter how that profits hidden !
Click to expand...

How would that work then? Just get another organisation to write up a load of rules and guidlines?

What's the difference? Most scaffold contractors will not contribute anything - which is pretty much the root of the problem at the moment.

Those that do not contribute (in a financial and knowledge capacity) are the ones who are most likely to oppose any current guidance or regulations currently in place, or likely to be in place at any time in the future...
 
the advanced instructor on my course didnt even know on certain nylon plugs etc your not supposed to blow the dust out as its this when under compression that helps bind the tie into the plug,this is the stupid sh1t being taught by instructors and training providers that isnt checked and regulated!


i would start by getting a lot more engineers contributing,technical data combined with the practical knowledge can only reap rewards,in these centres i would ask them to set up different controlled scenarios to actually test which method is practical under controlled conditions and then release the results free of charge,i would make a lot more emphasis and responsibility put on training providers to make their own research and studies to prove thier training actually works,the money is their for training providers to do this yet they choose to skim it all off the top!
 
Last edited:
joebag said:
the advanced instructor on my course didnt even know on certain nylon plugs etc your not supposed to blow the dust out as its this when under compression that helps bind the tie into the plug,this is the stupid sh1t being taught by instructors and training providers that isnt checked and regulated!
Click to expand...

You're always going to have mismanagement and incompetence in any industry mate - ours is no different. You've only got to read some of the nonsense posted on the forum to work that out!

I agree that the majority of CITB trainers are totally useless, who's going to re train the trainers? And how is any of that the fault of the NASC?

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:04 PM ----------
joebag said:
the advanced instructor on my course didnt even know on certain nylon plugs etc your not supposed to blow the dust out as its this when under compression that helps bind the tie into the plug,this is the stupid sh1t being taught by instructors and training providers that isnt checked and regulated!


i would start by getting a lot more engineers contributing,technical data combined with the practical knowledge can only reap rewards,in these centres i would ask them to set up different controlled scenarios to actually test which method is practical under controlled conditions and then release the results free of charge,i would make a lot more emphasis and responsibility put on training providers to make their own research and studies to prove thier training actually works,the money is their for training providers to do this yet they choose to skim it all off the top!
Click to expand...

That has already been carried out at the university of newcastle.

Why should anyone spend their time and money producing a document for others to utilise without giving anything back?
 
ok mate tell me this,what is the purpose of nasc,for the life of me i dont get it,

on one hand your telling me its optional-yet in real life its a closed book if your not in,

you have said its for guidance -yet your saying it takes no responsibility in the way lads are taught any of its recomendations ,,,,

what does it do apart from be parasitic and grow,i fail to see what benefit it is giving apart from to its members!

in regard to who would pay,the training centres of course,i see no reason for a nasc type body to be involved in scaffolding,a seperate union or totally independent body advising the hse and govnment on findings and issues would be the way to go,nascs a parasite,,,,,

we live in a democracy and i am not scared of the hse or government being more involved as they can be held to account,,,,,nasc operates in the hidden grey area away from responsibility !
 
Last edited:
drifta said:
Shouldnt this be done by manufacturers of ties and drilling equipment??
Click to expand...

They are.

All equipment is backed up by a data sheet. However, as a scaffold is a bespoke structure made up of lots of different components, the data needs to be collected and engineered to make sure that the combinations work together to form a safe structure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom