The Security Alliance Gives Cautious Welcome....

[Cubit]

There will be a workable solution. I think formal quals are the only way, for everyone involved in the loop. Quals on licence and cctv req for cctv etc.

No grandfather rights either imo

So how's that gonna work then?

P1ssy NVQ2 is hardly bleeding edge education now is it?

Trying to define down to a specific trade - and one that has a pretty wide spectrum - isn't feasible.

Current system shows it doesn't work. Gold this, Silver that - yet too many examples of them very companies being amongst the biggest culprits, irrespective of the skill sets of their engineers.

And that brings us back to Management. What qualifies someone as a Manager? - position.

Yet isn't it the Managers who authorise/condone/accept/demand etc the shoddy work?

[Guest Oxo]

Have to agree, many a time I have been asked to fit sub standard equipment for the application.

So the REPS and MANAGEMENT need to be even more stringently controlled.

Then how do you control the higher echelons?

Falls back to a self regulatory body there for self gratification and profit( Fine NSI SSAIB say no profit, but pay high wages) AGAIN.

As mentioned, how can you "examine" such a wide spread of skills. I would bet my left testicle not many could or would be able to test a multi-tasking engineer in this industry. Hell, even the more flexible of us here still ask questions and need assistance from time to time.

Write that down and make it an exam to pass!

[james.wilson]

Even nvq 2 would be an improvement for some. It wont be perfect but will be an improvement. I would like to be on the section that decides it.

[Cubit]

Even nvq 2 would be an improvement for some. It wont be perfect but will be an improvement. I would like to be on the section that decides it.

So how do you propose it should work?

You going to be the first to go to Day Release/Night School to take a silly little qualification that is of less standard than those you probably already hold?

And in what skill sets are you going to take it in.

Tools, Management?

[hpotter]

the thing which really ****s me off is external bells ringing, a requirement to have them maintained by an approved contractor or removed following compliant would make me a happy bunny

council dis them (well no, they call alarm firm on their books to accompany env officer) & charge owner. £350 avge round here, dearest i know of was £800 (sth mimms).

used to get fair bit of work that way, dont do it now too many - conifers, porches, garages etc..

[james.wilson]

So how do you propose it should work?

You going to be the first to go to Day Release/Night School to take a silly little qualification that is of less standard than those you probably already hold?

And in what skill sets are you going to take it in.

Tools, Management?

I would yes, and it would have to be in both.

If you make it so that certain people with 'experience' are excluded then its a pointless argument. Im sure there were similar arguments when gas safe/corgi did it along with driving licences etc.

There should be a competancy test. Then everyone would have to do one of those.

Im mainly thinking the proven skill set should be design, install, commision and service. Works for fire in that way cant see why it cant for intruder, cctv and access.

[hpotter]

still got grandad rights in fire. in many respects could be taking away the most experienced in the industry if they made all become eqv part p.

know a couple of old plumbers who no longer do gas cos the lunatics took over the asylum, yet would trust them rather than guy with 5day course behind him.

in a similar vein (sic) (sic, sic), student surgeons are complaining that they be trained on computer simulations rather than dead ppl.

[james.wilson]

hp, i see the point, but if its a basic test then why wouldnt thay take it?

There may be people in our side of things that are cracking installers but know naff all about the regs.

I think it needs to be like a driving test with a theory and a practical exam.

When i did my sparks qual, at the end of each course i had to do an AM1, AM2 which was the practical test. This works well in electrical. There are many industries that have a much better training system than ours. What im saying is either do it, or dont. This half way house system we currently have isnt working and those that should support it are starting to question the benefit.

[hpotter]

i'm not against training at all, on the contrary.

Met a sparks on site whos due niceic insp shortly who aint done his 17th yet and is panicking to find time etc. all well & good. that'll be 17 editions since 1882.

i spent most of yesterday connecting a dvr to a it network. got no training in IT at all. none. fully Q in alarms/telecomms/radio & line xmission, and could spent next year on courses & still not scratch the surface of what an eng in this industry needs to know. thats needs to know, not wants/should etc.

(promised jef a piccky of that job. spent 4 days mainly at top of ladder, cabling & fixing brackets & cams to a good level imo, then sorted dvr etc, fitted the fa there earlier this year & now been asked to do monitored int alarm. Great. wonder how many regs add up in that lot, let alone differences eg between panels. after all a light bulb is a light bulb 12v or 230 & dvr into a server aint a G3 redcare panel. not digging at sparkies, just putting perspective on those courses)

[james.wilson]

i hear you hp, but do you not think we are drifting into the jack of all trades, master of none area?

Our own company used to be purly specialist in intruder. We then trained and employed to add the skills required etc in each other dicipline. Now thats just us, im sure others have an equally effective measure. But then we only work on the equipment we know. If we dont know it we cant work on it like a true expert etc. That is how manage multiple system types, ie cctv, intruder fire etc. Because we only work on what we know in each sector.

But im currently quoting for a largeish cctv system (>£30k) and the other firm are using consumer it gear and ip cameras. The client fortunatly knows they dont know what they are doing but did ask 'surely there must be basic training or something they have to do'. All i could do was smile and say 'no', anyone regardless of skill set can decide tomorrow to install cctv, intruder, fire etc and could of been selling big issues the day before. Surly we need to look at this? I accept it cant be a be all and end all there will still be additional requirements etc, but how many times on site have you met the 'alarm guy' only to wonder why you in the same industry as them?