becoming a scaffold lecturer

Steve

Send your correspondence to the NASC directly to the President, his name is Bob Whincap and he is the MD of Rotor Scaffold Services.

Rotor Scaffolding Services Ltd
Maypole Cresent
Darent Ind Park
Erith
Kent DA8 2JZ
01322 336058
 
Is it just me or are we missing something here ? What the f**k has this got to do with NASC :confused: the CITB deliver scaffolding training courses at there own construction collages or via CITB accredited training centers such as UTN.

Surely it must be the CITB who set the criteria for Instructor qualification and hold the registration data base not NASC who are only a trade organization !
 
Podger said:
Is it just me or are we missing something here ? What the f**k has this got to do with NASC :confused: the CITB deliver scaffolding training courses at there own construction collages or via CITB accredited training centers such as UTN.

Surely it must be the CITB who set the criteria for Instructor qualification and hold the registration data base not NASC who are only a trade organization !
Click to expand...

The whole scenario will be dreamt up in consultation with NASC and their Training Commitee, same as TG20 and SG4 both drafted and put forward to HSE & CITB by the NASC which then have become an accepted code of practice.

Same route as Scaffolder Training....More Courses for Lads = More £££ for Training Establishments who by coincidence (Not) sit on the NASC Committees, they are not going to propose less training are they!!??.

Can you see the pattern my friend.
 
PW said:
The whole scenario will be dreamt up in consultation with NASC and their Training Commitee, same as TG20 and SG4 both drafted and put forward to HSE & CITB by the NASC which then have become an accepted code of practice.

Same route as Scaffolder Training....More Courses for Lads = More £££ for Training Establishments who by coincidence (Not) sit on the NASC Committees, they are not going to propose less training are they!!??.

Can you see the pattern my friend.
Click to expand...

I do understand that NASC like to be the puppet masters in our industry and have taken it upon themselves to issue its members "guidance" to comply with new legislation WAR 2005 (SG4) and the revision of BS5973 to comply with BS-EN12811-1 in the from of TG:20 . HSE in consultation with NASC then adopt said "guidance" as "best practice" and this in turn creates the need for more operative training as an arse covering exercise .

PW I enjoy reading your informative posts offering an a senior management perspective on issues/discussions, on the Standardization of Pavement License Thread I was surprised to learn via one of your posts NASC only has 170 members out 1000,s of scaffold company's in the UK.

Out of these company's how many pay the CITB levy ? I would suggest far more than 170. CITB should be accountable to the levy payers not NASC :mad:

Rant over :cheesy:
 
well i spoke to bob yesterday.(nice chap on the phone)
I asked 5 issue's heres his reply...
1 - been told that the instructors cards are being removed? reply That is correct I dont want to say much more at this stage until I've spoken with Dave mosley.
2 - been told that the teaching criteria is being altered. you now have to take 12 part 1's before I can shadow a part 2 then take 12 part 2's before shadowing an advanced course.Is this correct? It was going to be but there has been alot concern raised by training centre's so we are looking at reducing this..... What to I replyed...he replyed .....Not sure at this time.
3 was a question for myself
4 - Something about all instuctors/assessors being kept on a database. Except only Dave Mosley has access to this and not training companies. How are they supposed to know im teaching? I carnt answer that at this time until Dave is back from Holiday but everything will be set out in the new CAT book that will be issued shortly.
5 - How do I prove that im able to teach part 1's at the moment. When all I have is my pptls certs my shadowing cert and my Advanced Cisrs card and my A1 assessor award. I carnt answer that question at this time until again ive spoken to dave after his holiday....

I promise I will get dave to phone you upon his return after his holiday in a fortnight.

so as u can see too many chiefs and not enough indians....

:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Its going to be very bleek for any instructor who is freelance.. Instuctors will only be put on the database when they are working for a accredited centre only.

---------- Post added at 07:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 AM ----------

I just loved podger's post.......
WHY NOT
let the industry tell nasc/citb what we want........
about time something was done and fast....
 
Last edited:
Podger said:
PW I enjoy reading your informative posts offering an a senior management perspective on issues/discussions, on the Standardization of Pavement License Thread I was surprised to learn via one of your posts NASC only has 170 members out 1000,s of scaffold company's in the UK.
Click to expand...

I do apologise, my figures are incorrect their membership is now up to 210 member companies, I was basing 170 on 2008 numbers. Text lift directly from their site.

Despite the NASC’s strict membership criteria numbers within the confederation are healthy. The NASC’s current membership stands at 210 member companies, equating to almost 15,000 scaffolders throughout the UK. Research earlier in the year highlighted that you can find an NASC member in every corner of the UK and that 35% of NASC membership works on domestic work such as scaffolding a house.
Further industry research indicates that the NASC membership in total equates to over 75% of the annual spend on scaffolding.
Click to expand...

Only because of the fact they have the few remaining huge Scaffolding Companies as Members

In 2009 there were 65 companies apply to join the NASC. Out of those 65 companies only 9 actually met the standard required and joined the confederation resulting in a surprising low conversion rate of 11%, from those that initially applied.
Click to expand...

Call me an old cynic but at £500.00 an application (Non refundable of course) that equates to £28'000.00, does it actually cost this sum to process an application?? hmmmmmm, I'll leave you to make your mind up.
 
that makes a very intresting read cheers.

so lets get our heads together......time they woke up to reality....
 
the guys who have done the sg4 and the tg20 are good mates with dave mosley and i bet they not got any propper expierience in the scaffold game
 
jamieryan said:
the guys who have done the sg4 and the tg20 are good mates with dave mosley and i bet they not got any propper expierience in the scaffold game
Click to expand...

The NASC commissioned a group of Engineers to draft TG20 with a rather embarrasing outcome with TG20:05 hence why we have TG20:08 as they basically "Over Engineered It" which to be honest is what Engineers do....but a little input from the lads on the coal face about the practicalities of carrying out the guidelines would be a start...then I think a bit of compromise could have been added and we wouldnt be where we are now.

As a footnote...Are we now to believe that all the scaffolds we erected for eons before TG20 were inherintly unsafe?? I think if that had been the case we would have had massive jobs coming over on a daily basis and there would have been a national outcry and goverment intervention...Did that happen??....Hmmmmmmmmm...I think not.
 
Many of the contributers of this thread have expressed valid points of concern with a resounding desire to contribute to the advancement of our Industry via Joint Consultation and Open Debate with the Policy and Decision Makers which Regulate our Industry.

I have had first hand one to one, face to face talks with the NASC Training Manager/CISRS Manager ( who incidentally is a Scaffolder, however, I do not know if he is of good standing with respect to his CITB Card :eek: ) many of the NASC Core Management are non-practicing Scaffolders :eek: as is most of the Managers from the NASC Members List---therefore, why are we ( Card Carrying Scaffold Erectors of good standing ) being dictated to and excluded from the Discission making Process by persons who would not get a Start Servicing Fittings never mind as a Scaffolders Laborer. What makes them think that they know what is required after being off the Spanners for so long.
 
PW said:
The NASC commissioned a group of Engineers to draft TG20 with a rather embarrasing outcome with TG20:05 hence why we have TG20:08 as they basically "Over Engineered It" which to be honest is what Engineers do....but a little input from the lads on the coal face about the practicalities of carrying out the guidelines would be a start...then I think a bit of compromise could have been added and we wouldnt be where we are now.

As a footnote...Are we now to believe that all the scaffolds we erected for eons before TG20 were inherintly unsafe?? I think if that had been the case we would have had massive jobs coming over on a daily basis and there would have been a national outcry and goverment intervention...Did that happen??....Hmmmmmmmmm...I think not.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, BS5973 only needed to be amended/updated not rewritten :confused:
 
just gos to show the difference between how the BS was run and how the tg is trying to be run
 
Citb, nasc, cisrs, cijc.

Who owns and runs C.I.S.R.S. this scheme has a website at cisrs.org.uk and it is possible download latest Cap 609, (scheme criteria etc). This is a good read and hopefully

It is confusing but think the scheme appears to be owned by CIJC who have delegated management and administration of the CISRS to NASC who also happen to represent the employers side of CIJC. Think the previous management and administration was by CITB. Hmmm. I may be wrong but from memory the CITB was/is a training organisation and NASC is not. Hmmm.
Whoever has the right to manage and administer this scheme would be in a very strong position in our industry and, I think, proven by the rise in stature of the nasc in recent years.

My question would be why nasc has this role as management and administrator. Maybe some of our complaints and really excellent comments might be directed to the scheme owners if there are no satisfactory replies from the present management and administrators.

I find it almost unbelievable that the countless years of experience available from people such as contribute to this site is neither sought nor valued. In fact, it's a disgrace.

note to thread from steve gregory. dont give up.
 
im getting that way mate...what a waste ov money....
 
well its 2 wk tomorrow so we'll see if he rings......ill keep ya informed.....
 
A week later ... still no call.. f this im gunna email bob... keep ya posted...
 
Yes and these are supposed to be the dogs Bollox .... Need i say any more at this stage.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom