I never doubted you Alan, just never seen it and was hoping you could help me to do it. Don't sweat it though, I was meant to be getting the training today but the gauge on the tester broke so will have to wait and can get a full explanation then.
Part 2 Not allowed to do Pull test !
- Thread starter joebag
- Start date
marra watson
Moderator
threads looking good lol few things is the nacs aims
a to have a standard across the industry
b to make sure companies are working to the standard
cisrs it in with the nasc and i asume nasc produce the tg and sg we work to on the training courses and if the above aims of the nasc are to uphold safe working practices then why wasnt i given a copy of tg
i think nasc main aim was to make saftey there number 1 but then needed a way to fund it so came up with companies being audited for membership and then decided well we crnt give any 1 this but only our members as there paying so seem to me to be a failing of its own sucsess really we should all be aware to the changing legislation thats why i think some kind of refresher is needed even it only classroom based for half a day or what ever the nasc can not hold us all to account of its laws its like the country makign a new law puplishing it at a cost to certian people who they beleive wont break it and allowing peopel whpo may or will break it out as they didnt make there audit cirteria i might be way of the mark but thats my opinin lol
i was under the impression that sheers was any directiing other than the oppsite to the tie if you get me weather it up down left or right its been pulled its sheer as its bending as the rest of the ties in the wall if that makes any sence and oulling the oppisite directiong to the head of the ties isnt sheers
a to have a standard across the industry
b to make sure companies are working to the standard
cisrs it in with the nasc and i asume nasc produce the tg and sg we work to on the training courses and if the above aims of the nasc are to uphold safe working practices then why wasnt i given a copy of tg
i think nasc main aim was to make saftey there number 1 but then needed a way to fund it so came up with companies being audited for membership and then decided well we crnt give any 1 this but only our members as there paying so seem to me to be a failing of its own sucsess really we should all be aware to the changing legislation thats why i think some kind of refresher is needed even it only classroom based for half a day or what ever the nasc can not hold us all to account of its laws its like the country makign a new law puplishing it at a cost to certian people who they beleive wont break it and allowing peopel whpo may or will break it out as they didnt make there audit cirteria i might be way of the mark but thats my opinin lol
i was under the impression that sheers was any directiing other than the oppsite to the tie if you get me weather it up down left or right its been pulled its sheer as its bending as the rest of the ties in the wall if that makes any sence and oulling the oppisite directiong to the head of the ties isnt sheers
bigfish
Moderator
threads looking good lol few things is the nacs aims
a to have a standard across the industry
b to make sure companies are working to the standard
cisrs it in with the nasc and i asume nasc produce the tg and sg we work to on the training courses and if the above aims of the nasc are to uphold safe working practices then why wasnt i given a copy of tg
i think nasc main aim was to make saftey there number 1 but then needed a way to fund it so came up with companies being audited for membership and then decided well we crnt give any 1 this but only our members as there paying so seem to me to be a failing of its own sucsess really we should all be aware to the changing legislation thats why i think some kind of refresher is needed even it only classroom based for half a day or what ever the nasc can not hold us all to account of its laws its like the country makign a new law puplishing it at a cost to certian people who they beleive wont break it and allowing peopel whpo may or will break it out as they didnt make there audit cirteria i might be way of the mark but thats my opinin lol
Then everyone should join the sccr and let them inform us
Tester
Active member
Interesting Post! Hydrajaws have always offered training with a completion certificate for users in the application and safe use of their portable Tester for Fixings, Ties and anchors.Hydrajaws Ltd are not a Scaffolding Company but have worked closely with the fixing manufacturers and distributors since 1986 in offering accessories best suited to the fixing/anchor and the application.For example the "Scaffold Tester Kit" has all the accessories included for testing every type of Ring-Bolt, anchor, tie or fixing supplied currently to Scaffolders. Hydrajaws Ltd calibrate, service and repair testers with a Hydrajaws or Hilti label.
Last edited:
rcg172
Well-known member
Hi Allan, I've been carrying them out on my own work for the last four years since undertaking SEPERATE pull tester training. I agree that anyone installing ties should be trained in the use of the kit. Mainly for the reason that how do we really know the material we're tieing to is strong enough to withstand the forces imposed. What I don't agree on, however is the fact that the Hilti/ Hydrajaws training is an extra expense as we've all seen what happens when ties don't work properly. Our company has two blokes who are able to use the equipment, myself and the depot supervisor. It's not cost effective for a handful of men to be trained and carry out testing. Tieing is extremely important and all additional procedures whether it be installing or testing should be taught as an additional unit when undertaking scaffolding training.
Flinty
Moderator
What did you learn on the training course that you didn't already know? I realise you have to know about the required load but I mean in the actual use of the kit?
Alan Reade
Well-known member
I have watched tis thread evolve over the last week or so and agree with some comment and not with others but nevertheless just an opinion.
Are the NASC imposing anything upon its non-members?
If the NASC is a closed members club then why is it not OK for them to impose their requirements upon those who not only choose to join but went through a long and arduous and expensive fight to gain membership of said club?
I cannot see where the NASC are trying to impose anything on non-members. What I see is a “club” with a set of rules which the members have agreed as the way in which they wish to conduct their business in line with their interpretations of the “current laws” and the need to reduce accidents in our industry.
This ethos has now been adopted by the government’s both UK and European and is endorsed by the HSE as a sound improvement and strategy to take the industry forward at the cost of less life.
These endorsements are also seen as the most suitable way forward by many contractors in the construction industry and it is the endorsements by those receiving a service from our industry that drives your need to comply with what they perceive as best practice.
I am not sure the NASC has any requirement to produce or provide information to anyone other than their membership. The TG & SG documents are exactly what they state they are, Technical Guidance and Safety Guidance, the choice to pursue and follow this is then up to the individual.
TG20 is the scaffolding industry’s simplified interpretation of a document issued by Europe.
Just to be clear I have no affiliation in or to any organisation open or closed NASC or any other. Just sharing a thought process.
About tie tests I have had and given many days of instruction on tie testing. I believe it to be a crucial piece of training for tie installers and testers. I do not believe that we should be allowed to run wild with this equipment untrained.
That said if part two scaffs are expected to insert and test ties this training should be part of the curriculum on the course. However it is not part of the curriculum and I believe that to be the fault or choice of others and not the fault of trainers as they do not set the criteria for the curriculum. It could be argued that the trainer knows you are a scaff and will need this training to carry out your job but then he knows you need to get to the site should he also teach you to drive?
The answer may be for the trainer to advise you prior; to your placing yourself on their course, that you will also need the following training which can be included/added to your part two at a reasonable additional cost as you are already in attendance. Always remembering it is you who applied to join their course.
I would also suggest that there may be a conflict of interest where a man is expected to sign off the quality of his own work. I have never allowed men to sign off tags on their own scaffolds and send an unbiased inspector and I apply the same logic to the testing of ties.
regards
Alan
Are the NASC imposing anything upon its non-members?
If the NASC is a closed members club then why is it not OK for them to impose their requirements upon those who not only choose to join but went through a long and arduous and expensive fight to gain membership of said club?
I cannot see where the NASC are trying to impose anything on non-members. What I see is a “club” with a set of rules which the members have agreed as the way in which they wish to conduct their business in line with their interpretations of the “current laws” and the need to reduce accidents in our industry.
This ethos has now been adopted by the government’s both UK and European and is endorsed by the HSE as a sound improvement and strategy to take the industry forward at the cost of less life.
These endorsements are also seen as the most suitable way forward by many contractors in the construction industry and it is the endorsements by those receiving a service from our industry that drives your need to comply with what they perceive as best practice.
I am not sure the NASC has any requirement to produce or provide information to anyone other than their membership. The TG & SG documents are exactly what they state they are, Technical Guidance and Safety Guidance, the choice to pursue and follow this is then up to the individual.
TG20 is the scaffolding industry’s simplified interpretation of a document issued by Europe.
Just to be clear I have no affiliation in or to any organisation open or closed NASC or any other. Just sharing a thought process.
About tie tests I have had and given many days of instruction on tie testing. I believe it to be a crucial piece of training for tie installers and testers. I do not believe that we should be allowed to run wild with this equipment untrained.
That said if part two scaffs are expected to insert and test ties this training should be part of the curriculum on the course. However it is not part of the curriculum and I believe that to be the fault or choice of others and not the fault of trainers as they do not set the criteria for the curriculum. It could be argued that the trainer knows you are a scaff and will need this training to carry out your job but then he knows you need to get to the site should he also teach you to drive?
The answer may be for the trainer to advise you prior; to your placing yourself on their course, that you will also need the following training which can be included/added to your part two at a reasonable additional cost as you are already in attendance. Always remembering it is you who applied to join their course.
I would also suggest that there may be a conflict of interest where a man is expected to sign off the quality of his own work. I have never allowed men to sign off tags on their own scaffolds and send an unbiased inspector and I apply the same logic to the testing of ties.
regards
Alan
rcg172
Well-known member
Not a great deal really. It's all common sense and what got 'taught' in two - three hours could have been condensed to an hour or less. To be honest, I don't really remember a great deal from the course. I just remember teaching myself. And lets be fair, it's not the most challenging piece of kit at our disposal.
I thought as much to be honest and that has always been my gripe. If you can teach me something fair enough but as you say it's a simple operation, one of the more straight forward activities we do. Admittedly, it's one of the most important but so is putting a standard in the right place and we don't need additional training for that.
As I said, my tester is in need of a bit of repair but as soon as it is I will be getting trained, can't wait.
As I said, my tester is in need of a bit of repair but as soon as it is I will be getting trained, can't wait.
marra watson
Moderator
joebag
Well-known member
alan i respect what you say enormously but disagree strongly on a couple of points,
i can see a total conflict of interest on signing off on your own work but self regulation is part of most industries but i would not fight calls for independent inspections,,,
however if you are talking of conflicts of interest for scaffolders what about training providers also sending out inspectors to inspect jobs of lads they have trained,
eg "wheres your pull test certificate,havent got one,why,the training we gave you didnt allow for it"
training providers are making a killing pulling apart jobs of lads they have trained at their centres,
whos at fault here ?
not saying some jobs dont deserve to be pulled apart but where is the responsibility from the training providers for making sure the blokes are trained to a good standard,
its criminal in my mind that these training providers can give sub standard training then make money on the inspections of scaffolds their own trained blokes put up!
i reckon 90% of part 2 scaffolders dont know they are not allowed to pull test,on the part 2 course you are told that you can build all types of scaffold but not once on mine or other courses where you told you where restricted to 4m on an independent until you got a pull test certificate!
the part 2 card sould still be called a trainee card as you are not allowed to build and independent on it that can be over 4m in height,its a redundant card and what makes it worse is the people teaching you can then get you prosecuted for their own failings !
i can see a total conflict of interest on signing off on your own work but self regulation is part of most industries but i would not fight calls for independent inspections,,,
however if you are talking of conflicts of interest for scaffolders what about training providers also sending out inspectors to inspect jobs of lads they have trained,
eg "wheres your pull test certificate,havent got one,why,the training we gave you didnt allow for it"
training providers are making a killing pulling apart jobs of lads they have trained at their centres,
whos at fault here ?
not saying some jobs dont deserve to be pulled apart but where is the responsibility from the training providers for making sure the blokes are trained to a good standard,
its criminal in my mind that these training providers can give sub standard training then make money on the inspections of scaffolds their own trained blokes put up!
i reckon 90% of part 2 scaffolders dont know they are not allowed to pull test,on the part 2 course you are told that you can build all types of scaffold but not once on mine or other courses where you told you where restricted to 4m on an independent until you got a pull test certificate!
the part 2 card sould still be called a trainee card as you are not allowed to build and independent on it that can be over 4m in height,its a redundant card and what makes it worse is the people teaching you can then get you prosecuted for their own failings !
Alan Reade
Well-known member
Hi Joebag
I have no problem with your disagreement however I am not sure where we disagree.
Training Providers in fact also sign off their own work by virtue they certify the men they train, the difference being that is their role. When it comes to them signing off the work site work of the people they train they of course have a professional independence to maintain.
In regards the lack of pull test certificate again I feel it may not the fault of the trainer that the scaff is not certified but is the responsibility of the curriculum setter(if that’s the correct term) I understand the trainer knows you need the following but he is in business to make money training.
I guess the question is would you throw another lift on for no money?
There is a consideration which is as old as the hills that it is easy to be the critic and not so easy to be the artist.
Consider the following, If a 3rd party checker inspects a scaffold and says it’s good has he committed himself?
If he continues to find fault is he avoiding committing himself?
If a trainer trains a man he is only responsible for the training not the subsequent performance of the man.
You may be correct under the NASC a part two is still a trainee and as not certified to test anchors in this course should not be testing anchors. If as a result of this lack of training he is restriped to 4m then he should request the module which includes the test training. As I have said it’s the curriculum that is inadequate but the moral issue lies with the trainer.
regards
Alan
joebag
Well-known member
alan if the 3rd lift on a scaffold was essential to its structure regardless of extra payment i would have to put it on !
,thats my point regarding the part 2 course or even part 1 course not including pull testing,if a tie as common sense dictates is so crucial to the safety of a scaffold how is that not perceived and taught in that way as regarding the courses given?
i find it totally hypocritical for the regulators and nasc etc to push certain so called safety issues when the basic premise of their training is so fundamentally flawed
i believe providers regulators etc should be prosecuted in certain cases for lack of training given to operatives as not even giving a pull test accreditation is not giving how crucial a tie is,the relevant importance and in turn making the training innadequate and unfit for purpose.
,thats my point regarding the part 2 course or even part 1 course not including pull testing,if a tie as common sense dictates is so crucial to the safety of a scaffold how is that not perceived and taught in that way as regarding the courses given?
i find it totally hypocritical for the regulators and nasc etc to push certain so called safety issues when the basic premise of their training is so fundamentally flawed
i believe providers regulators etc should be prosecuted in certain cases for lack of training given to operatives as not even giving a pull test accreditation is not giving how crucial a tie is,the relevant importance and in turn making the training innadequate and unfit for purpose.
Alan Reade
Well-known member
I hear what you say about the 3rd lift and in reality would do the same myself but you cannot judge others by your own standards, only by the standards set for them to follow.
regards
Alan
joebag
Well-known member
just read the post by tester,so hydrojaws can legally test all types of ties,so one twenty minute instruction on a part 2 course would cover all these blokes legally on virtually any tie they wanted to test,
if anyone with a part 2 has a scaffold come down because you thought you were covered to test ties as most do and you didnt test it correctly,
tell your solicitor to show how corrupt and irresponsible the training given to you was!
and if anyone from say simian comes out to inspect your scaffold and pulls you as a part 2 on not having a pull test certificate,,,,,tell em to fuk off as they are the ones who created the problem in the first place !!!!!!
if anyone with a part 2 has a scaffold come down because you thought you were covered to test ties as most do and you didnt test it correctly,
tell your solicitor to show how corrupt and irresponsible the training given to you was!
and if anyone from say simian comes out to inspect your scaffold and pulls you as a part 2 on not having a pull test certificate,,,,,tell em to fuk off as they are the ones who created the problem in the first place !!!!!!
Tester
Active member
Joebag please read my post again!!
Hydrajaws have never claimed that we can legally test any tie or anchor but we manufacture a piece of hydraulic equipment called a Tester and we service and calibrate them for our customers.There is no legal requirement at the moment to test any scaffold tie or anchor just guidence notes such as TG4 and TG 20 or the CFA notes.When we supply a Tester to a scaffolding Co we do offer a training session on the safe use and application of the equipment and the operator has to connect the Tester to an anchor set in concrete and carry out a pull test and note the load gauge readings for a secure test.We do not offer any training on the drilling of holes,preparation of holes if a chemical anchor is required or the setting and fixing of anchors.
Failure of anchors causing a collapse are generally attributed to not enough anchors, unsuitable material into which the anchor has been placed,or incorrect setting and installation of the anchor itself.Using a podger to set a Hilti HKD instead of the correct setting punch tool is a well documented error that has led to serious failure as in Cardiff a few years ago.
Correct training on anchor and tie preparation and installation is very important and could be offered by the manufacturer of the anchors or the existing training providers and the testing of the installed anchor would be part of the course,and inevitably some costs would be incurred.
Hydrajaws have never claimed that we can legally test any tie or anchor but we manufacture a piece of hydraulic equipment called a Tester and we service and calibrate them for our customers.There is no legal requirement at the moment to test any scaffold tie or anchor just guidence notes such as TG4 and TG 20 or the CFA notes.When we supply a Tester to a scaffolding Co we do offer a training session on the safe use and application of the equipment and the operator has to connect the Tester to an anchor set in concrete and carry out a pull test and note the load gauge readings for a secure test.We do not offer any training on the drilling of holes,preparation of holes if a chemical anchor is required or the setting and fixing of anchors.
Failure of anchors causing a collapse are generally attributed to not enough anchors, unsuitable material into which the anchor has been placed,or incorrect setting and installation of the anchor itself.Using a podger to set a Hilti HKD instead of the correct setting punch tool is a well documented error that has led to serious failure as in Cardiff a few years ago.
Correct training on anchor and tie preparation and installation is very important and could be offered by the manufacturer of the anchors or the existing training providers and the testing of the installed anchor would be part of the course,and inevitably some costs would be incurred.
Last edited: