31 replies to this topic

[cooperman435]

Sorry but that isnt a monopoly.

Its perfectly acceptable and Id even say normal for a company to say "IF you join us" that we expect you to abide by our rules and therefore no one elses.

[barnsley-mark]

They ask members to recognise, endorse and promote it as the only course, they are clever not to say IT IS the only course, therefore no monopoly infringement.
Unfortunately, it is quite normal to find trainers and assessor s with far less qualification or experience than the people they are 'training'

[exat808]

Unfortunately, it is quite normal to find trainers and assessor s with far less qualification or experience than the people they are 'training'

You are correct. It has always been a dilemma - who trains the trainers?
There is no industry standard specifically for fireworks/pyro/explosives training and as has been discussed on forums previously; anyone can set themselves up as a training provider. In many ways it is for the person who has been trained to determine if the training was appropriate/relevant/suitable/good value etc etc - but isnt that a back to front way of assessing the competency of a training provider?
I would certainly never advocate Government imposed standards but perhaps the industry should develop some training standards? Without any form of standards or benchmarks to work to then there will always be room for the unscrupulous or incompetent trainer to flourish.

[exat808]

This is a link to a presentation on the German pyro/explosives training system. It may generate some comment -

http://www.pyrobin.c...ing_Germany.pdf

[pyrotrev]

Unfortunately, it is quite normal to find trainers and assessor s with far less qualification or experience than the people they are 'training'

This brings to mind an interesting query...... When the ban on sales of shells to the public happened some years ago, and the supply of Cat.4 was restricted to professionals only, the definition of a professional was:

someone with proper insurance
proper storage
did displays regularly (i.e. not just once a year)
and had either demonstrable experience OR training

Has the experience caveat gone out the window with these regs? If so will we see the likes of Ron Lancaster, Wilf Scott etc. going on training courses??? I would like to see who has the nerve to teach them!

[exat808]

This brings to mind an interesting query...... When the ban on sales of shells to the public happened some years ago, and the supply of Cat.4 was restricted to professionals only, the definition of a professional was:

someone with proper insurance
proper storage
did displays regularly (i.e. not just once a year)
and had either demonstrable experience OR training

Has the experience caveat gone out the window with these regs? If so will we see the likes of Ron Lancaster, Wilf Scott etc. going on training courses??? I would like to see who has the nerve to teach them!

You need to look at the Regulations in full - the part about supplying to persons with "specialist knowledge" is also expanded upon later in Reg 42 which at para 8 states - A person with specialist knowledge also includes—
(a)any person whose trade or business (or a significant part of whose trade or business) is the supply of category 4 fireworks, for the purpose of supplying them in accordance with these Regulations
Therefore any existing supplier is automatically captured regardless of the fact that they have not had training.

Government advice also states that it is up to the supplier to determine if the person with specialist knowledge has had appropriate training (it doesnt say that you cant be self taught). This all goes back to other comments in this thread about not letting unscrupulous training providers trying to convincepeople that their course is " the only one approved by the Regulations" or similar wording. The Government has gone to great lengths to point out that there is no recognised course(s). The industry must make its own mind up when it comes to supply and no doubt there will be a lot variance in decisions made about suitability etc.

[pyrotrev]

You need to look at the Regulations in full - the part about supplying to persons with "specialist knowledge" is also expanded upon later in Reg 42 which at para 8 states - A person with specialist knowledge also includes—
(a)any person whose trade or business (or a significant part of whose trade or business) is the supply of category 4 fireworks, for the purpose of supplying them in accordance with these Regulations
Therefore any existing supplier is automatically captured regardless of the fact that they have not had training.

I've just re-read this, and I'm curious about the definition of "supplier" as mentioned in paragraph 8. Most of us involved in display work are primarily "users" in the normal sense of the word (apart from the odd swapping of material in times of dire need of course!)

[The Legendary Graham]

Highlight provide the illuminate consult course of course they are going to say anything that makes people take it.

[Arthur Brown]

The issue really is that the "Pyro Directive" requires training as recognised in the industry.

 

Illuminate Consult had the foresight/luck to have a liaison with an insurer and  a course planned and running to cover the pyro directive's needs and have it up and running before the directive became fully active. SO they have several thousand people out there who have successfully passed the IC course, hence the course is recognised in the industry as required by the Act.

 

For a new trainer (individual or company) however good their knowledge and training skill there is the hurdle of becoming "recognised within the industry" before the training complies with the needs of the Act. This recognition could be said to happen when many people have used the course, but what is the number 50, 500, 5000? What happens to those first people, have they taken a useless course.

[pyrotrev]

It is a rather nebulous thing this "recognised within the industry": I came across a comment from some who had gone to another insurance company who said more or less "Illuminate Consult??? who are they??". And then there's one or two folk on the UKFR forum who weren't that impressed by the BPA course either. Seems to me if we're going to have all this legislation, we need a Notified Body to give us all ONE set of rules to work too, and approve any 3rd party training course.

[pyrotrev]

It is a rather nebulous thing this "recognised within the industry": I came across a comment from some who had gone to another insurance company who hadn't heard of Illuminate Consult. And then there's one or two folk on the UKFR forum who weren't that impressed by the BPA course either. Seems to me if we're going to have all this legislation, we need a Notified Body to give us all ONE set of rules to work to, and approve any 3rd party training course, much like the SQA do with ADR training.

[pyrotrev]

It is a rather nebulous thing this "recognised within the industry": I came across a comment from some who had gone to another insurance company who hadn't heard of Illuminate Consult. And then there's one or two folk on the UKFR forum who weren't that impressed by the BPA course either. Seems to me if we're going to have all this legislation, we need a Notified Body to give us all ONE set of rules to work to, and approve any 3rd party training course, much like the SQA do with ADR training.

[pyrotrev]

Yes, it is a rather nebulous thing this "recognised within the industry": I came across a comment from some who had gone to another insurance company who hadn't heard of Illuminate Consult. And then there's one or two folk on the UKFR forum who weren't that impressed by the BPA course either. Seems to me if we're going to have all this legislation, we need a Notified Body to give us all ONE set of rules to work to, and approve any 3rd party training course, much like the SQA do with ADR training.

[pyrotrev]

Yes, it is a rather nebulous thing this "recognised within the industry": I came across a comment from some who had gone to another insurance company who hadn't heard of Illuminate Consult. And then there's one or two folk on the UKFR forum who weren't that impressed by the BPA course either. Seems to me if we're going to have all this legislation, we need a Notified Body to give us all ONE set of rules to work to, and approve any 3rd party training course, much like the SQA do with ADR training.