Re: inspection and testing
So what's the point in holding this qualification, if you can even call it that, seeing as it's yet another open book joke qualification?? Nothing to stop anyone downloading a copy of the building Reg's to keep in your van or whatever. You don't need a qualification to read do you?? Or are you suggesting that electricians should now hold this qualification as a requirement?? I know what sort of replies you'll get to that suggestion...lol!!
As for your last paragraph, i suggest that you only employ bona fide tradesmen that you know and know what they're doing, rather than going for the cheapest Charlie that gives you a price...
Having not completed an indentured apprenticeship, I do not know what is and is not covered in either a 'traditional' apprenticeship, pre 19??, when such things were a valuable commodity or one of the newer qualifications which are a very poor copy and 'stand in' their place. Those aware of such things, building regulations or those for H&S for that matter, and who pay attention to them do not need a qualification. Their professionalism in seeking out the regulations in life and, once understood, committing them to mind and applying them is the hallmark of their professionalism. However, for someone who has yet to gain knowledge or awareness of these things, clearly the subject needs to be introduced and understanding tested.
I wholeheartedly agree with your point regarding bona fide tradespeople. Unfortunately, in order to sort the good from the bad, you need to have the personal knowledge of their workmanship, and perhaps an understanding of what they are doing! Which is difficult to gain without employing them in the first place ... something of a catch '22' don't you agree? Clearly your strongly expressed views on a qualifications base that is 'worth its salt' is valid and I share it! It is all the more difficult with a population that is more and more mobile. In my youth, after you were well established in your own career, our family solicitor was a friend of the family and the local tradespeople were known personally, family members or friends of family members, 'staunch members of the community'.
We have been both fortunate and unfortunate in our choices of tradesmen. I would trust my life to our one eyed Cornish 'Roofer', but not as readily or completely to our stone mason; more importantly to most of his staff. Why, because the roofer always does his best to ensure his own safety, that of the people around him and the security of my property from the many risks that he has become aware of in his 25-30 year career! The stone mason's ability to carve stone is excellent as is that of his staff entrusted with that same responsibility but he does not have the same level of experience. However, his staff's attention paid to their own H&S at times, their lack of open honesty about mistakes and minor misdemeanours and the boss' weak leadership in addressing these things leave our working relationship wanting! That said, their approach is a long way from the blatant disregard for 'common sense' for which read paying attention to regulations, good practice or good taste shown by previous owners and the work that they or the tradespeople that they employed have done.
Buildings do not come with a 'full service history', OEM or otherwise, and until you peel back the 'layers' of repair or modification you do not find out what negligence has been involved in their construction, maintenance or development! My own property was built and modified over ~ 40 years with initial construction in 1876. It was built by a 'builder' of the time, in some places delicately ornate but with flaws in the design details. These flaws together with later additions which were introduced without knowledge of the original flaws or introduced flaws of their own have lead to the failure by water ingress leading to dry rot of the main timber beams supporting the structure over the bay windows.
My own position is that training and professional development is the keystone ... I do however have serious concerns regarding the split between the competent tradesman and the 'professional' specifier, for which read engineer or architect. Historically the master tradesman had responsibility for both roles together with that of material specifier and quality control. There was only one buck, and it stopped with him! He knew what worked practically because he had done the practical stuff, much like I imagine your career route through apprenticeship to 'chief engineer'. Unfortunately, that route is now often split according to the 'cerebral competence' of the individual. Those who can remember facts and manipulate highly conceptual stuff mentally go to university and become 'Engineers' and those of a more practical persuasion become the tradesmen and technicians. There is a route to professional engineer but it is more protracted and perhaps difficult for those who take the technician route. I believe that they generally make the better engineer! My route was that of the former, but I have retained a love of practical things and using my hands to explore, dismantling things to find out how they work, and to create new things using that knowledge.
