COMMENTS
Future Heavy Vehicle training packaging rules to be inline with standards i.e 30% of course in elective units only as per Auto Electrical course.
Training package rules should reflect the qualification being undertaken. If you are studying a CIII or CIV course then more than half the units selected should be at the course level or higher. i.e same as in Diploma. Currently CIV couse can be completed with 8 level three units? CIII HV courses can have 20 units at level two out of a possible 36 = 55%?
Mark,
Thanks for your feedback. All qualifications will be reviewed in order to more clearly identify the occupational outcome that the qualification is servicing. This may include a reduction in the choice of electives and indeed the selection of competencies from a lower qualification. Your comments will be added to the continuous improvement register for consideration by the Mechanical Heavy Vehicle Sector Advisory Committee.
I am wondering what the Skills Council is doing to assist in obtaining a better wage for apprentices in the motor trades. The wage offered is abyssmal and no wonder nobody is interested. Not everyone lives at home and the wage offered means many have to supplement their income. Older “apprentices” are discouraged and younger ones lose heart as they can’t keep up with mates who are earning a respectable wage. Comments are most welcome as this is an issue that burns because the common answer appears to be “it is traditional”. How can this industry attract more apprentices without considering the wages it offers.
Sharon,
Thank you for your comments regarding some of the challenges for people entering the automotive industry. I am unable to comment on your issues regarding wages and conditions in the industry but there is a clear recognition that works need to be undertaken to improve the image of the industry. I am happy to include your concerns in the discussions that I have with industry as a means of communicating stakeholder feedback to employers.
I’d like to ask why there isn’t a differentiation between Heavy Vehicle and Heavy Mobile in the AUR05 AUR30405 course. You have made the differentiation between Light and Heavy, but you need to take it further to legally validate the difference between Vehicle (Truck) and Mobile (Earthmoving/Agricultural equipment)in the Heavy band. There are vast differences in a number of the competencies and these need to be shown so as to cover everyone legally. For example, if a client was to do (AURH315166A) Repair Steering Systems under the present schedule, then he could quite easily be only covering truck type steering systems. That could be extremely dangerous if he works on Mobile Earthmoving equipment as it’s steering circuits quite often hold dangerous components within the circuitry which could easily cause him/her serious injury if not death. Things like Accumulators in these circuits can hold lots of fluids at extremely dangerous pressures and they can kill. Other competencies such as Suspension, Brakes and all the Hydraulics competencies also lie under the same conditions. If an injury or death occurs who is legally responsible. I think these competencies at least need to be differentiated by making the letter in the competency M for Mobile L for Light vehicle and H for Heavy vehicle.
The differentiation between heavy vehicle units is something that ASA will be looking at in the coming months. We have had feedback from a range of stakeholders that there are a range of functions that may be better equipped by the use of dedicated heavy vehicle transport and plant units. ASA will examine these issues in some detail as part of the review of the Training Package and where heavy vehicle units are required, we will develop them.
Stephen Wrathall
Training Package Specialist
Agree with John in particular all machinery safety critical competancies cetainly need to be delivered in context.
I agree with this line line of thought. There are far too many components, unique to the Plant side of the industry, that are highly dangerous. Perhaps the majority of these can be identified and the principles of their operation and safety management techniques could be added as an independent safety competency.
Those mechanics that are transferring from Light or Heavy could also study this competency towards the changeover for a Plant qualification.
Thanks Phil. You are echoing the thoughts of many from your industry. Perhaps you could put together a list of those components with specific safety issues that are unique to the Plant side of the industry. This is the information that will be critical when the review of the qualification starts.
As for as a list of dangerous components, just about any component that involves stored energy is a potential danger zone. This includes specific items such as accumulators that are spring or nitrogen charged, maxi (spring) brakes and many components that are spring applied and pressure released. Other potential issues are earthmoving tyres that are sparked or in a fire and cant be approached for up to 24 or 48 hours and the potential danger of cutting a SALT track assembly or hydraulic line with an oxy torch. The 5 main sources of stored energy (spring, compressed gas, hydraulics, potential/gravity and electrical) are ever present in Plant and I suppose it is recognition of these systems, their components and how to isolate correctly that needs to be identified. The list would need to be compiled with more time than I have at the moment.
Whilst I agree there is desperately a need to address the difference in streams between many units of competence, I do not believe the safety unit of competence is one of those.
Each units of competence have the context specific safety issues embedded within the unit., We should be more concerned about the stream specific units of competence/skills being obtained prior workers transferring to a mine/construction site. Not much point in someone performing a “take 5”, JSA /JHA risk analysis, if they are unaware of the risks due to unfamiliarity with the equipment in the first instance.
If anything we could inadvertently increase risk of harm by promoting the concept that someone is safe to work on site if they have done a single stream specific safety unit of competence. Let’s focus on the Job/ task, skill/knowledge and safety as opposed to just one aspect of safety.
Regards,
Jeff Gittos
In regard to separating units specific to industry; I think applied safe work practices needs a heavy descriptor that would allow it to cover jacking and blocking at least. You could start covering stored energy and hydraulic hazards under this topic as well.
Seeing some of the work with road transport and most of the work with mobile plant requires the use of cranes and lifting devices, I would like to see how this could be covered or if a dogging qualification could somehow be covered or incorporated.
Thanks for the feedback, Anthony. Industry is highlighting a lot of issues with heavy vehicles and at the Mechanical Heavy Vehicle sector committee meeting of 2nd September, safety was identified as the number one priority in a list of concerns. Whether this needs to be addressed in a separate unit of competency of Safety for Heavy Vehicles or safety needs to be imbedded in each unit more explicitly, or a combination of the two, is a question that will be answered in our review of the qualification.
Where dogging fits into a qualification for Heavy Vehicle mechanics is something I would like to receive some thoughts from industry. Do the people who repair your equipment need to have an operator’s qualification/licence? I will also be discussing this issue with my colleagues at the Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council as there may be some crossover between our training package and theirs.
The skills base and cost of training for an apprentice in Plant these days is a major investment due to the amount of extra training/certification beyond those covered in the RTO course. 30 years ago when I did my plant training we did our RTO course and that was it. Some did a forklift ticket if needed.
With the tightening of regulations we now put our apprentices through extensive extra training just so they can do their job and/or go to mining sites.
This includes:
A series of operator competencies for each machine they must move or operate for testing (approx 21 competencies for our 3 sites).
Due to the size of components in modern mobile machines and the remote locations, we also need our apprentices to have a core set of certified skills. These include – 1st Aid, fire fighting, Greencard, forklift, crane (bridge/ C6), dogging, Elevated Work Platforms, Safe working at Heights, Hot Work inductions.
Where possible we also include training in Basic scaffolding, Confined Spaces and Liquid Nitrogen.
If our people are required to go to an underground mine this list grows even further.
As most would appreciate, very few light or truck mechanics would require these courses. Companies like our just realise that this is accepted training for plant where the dangers, and therefore safety standards, are way above the level in highway vehicle industries.
I understand having worked across both industries that there is a lot of licencing (high risk) and safety related courses carried out when working around the mining industry.
I figure when you have a qualification, what are the base requirements for a heavy vehicle mechanic mobile plant or heavy road transport mechanic? In both industries there is frequent use of overhead/ gantry cranes and a requirement to jack and block. I have been involved with many small workshops working on a range of on highway and civil plant that had employees working on a day to day basis with no formal training in these areas.
I also wonder if concentrating so hard on the OHS side of safety we are losing sight of our responsibility as mechanics to ensure the machine is safe to operate, especially when working on steering and braking systems there is undoubtably a legal resposibility to ensure a vehicle is safe to operate. This may fall under licencing but there is no training on your legal responsibilities when a customer is asking you to return a vehicle to work that is unsafe for the operator.
There may well be a case for a HP classification on some modules to differentiate from HV competencies. Like most changes these will take time and effort, unfortunately there is little funding available to support these changes and those few who contribute currently are limited in the time they can donate.
We need to have regulation on certificates/classes in Australia, via COAG. Currently only NSW & WA regulate & issue tradespersons certs to qualified motor mechanics. All classess Trucks, mobile equipment etc.. need regulation. Having regulation or licensing creates better pay conditions & retention of staff. Our trade is as equally important as plumbers & electricians who are regulated & paid highly for their skill. With braking systems, hybrid vehicles with 415 volt AC systems (that the electrical board dont wont to know about) surely we deserve recognition for our trade that changes within months even weeks. Lets push for regulation???
My biggest fear now is that with the new packaging rules my understanding is that with only TWO core units required to do in a training plan for a Cert III AUR30405 apprentice the employer can choose the other 34 units from just about anywhere and then at the end of the training can request a certificate for what ever stream he wants his new technition to possess, not good!
Jim,
Thank you for your feedback. The focus of Auto Skills Australia’s work over the next 12 months is to review/restructure all existing qualifications in order to better define the occupational outcomes of the qualifications. Your feedback is an example of the importance of the qualifications review and restructure.
Recognition that differences will occur in the skills different employers value, but these should not detract from the skills that define a vocation. In my opinion minimum standards need to be defined that meet a generic profile for a competent mechanic, these core skills need to be made a compulsory part of the training package. Fundamental skills areas may include, but not be limited by, those that are used to define individual vocations, not just skills common to many.
The meeting on Friday gave people in NSW an opportunity to meet and discuss changes with sone of the ASA staff. While the meeting as a whole may have been an eye opening occassion for some of the attendees, some useful communication did occur. It was unfortunate that the meeting time (Friday Afternoon 2 – 5) could not have started earlier say 9 or 10, to allow a longer discussion time.
I hope the comments from the meeting will be acted on and we all see an improved training package developed. To paraphrase one attendee “we would like to see quality improvements, not just gloss and rhetoric”. There has been some quality information gathering, I hope this leads to a easier to read, more user friendly package that does away with the many loopholes in the existing package which allow people to manipulate the outcomes away from the task of producing quality tradespeople.
It is refreshing to see the feedback and opinions regarding the training package for the automotive industries. One point that is being reinforced is the removal of automotive common core. The heavy industries at all vocational levels have changed at an alarming rate. Trade practices have changed in regards to technology, workpractices, safety and industry regional needs. While training package rules and core units must reflect these changes and regional differences, a nationally recognised qualification that recognises the skill requirements and underpinning knowledge requires units of competance that not only have a title and code reflective of trade skills, units of competance need to written in a manner that clearly defines current and future skills. For example, safety critical units like brakes/ steer need to reflective of current machines and address multiple systems and operation in a clearly defined manner. This can be said for numerious units within the training package within all vocations.
Thanks for your feedback Scott. The challenge for ASA is to produce qualifications and units of competency that can be used across the nation, while reflecting regional and individual enterprise needs. Industry has asked for qualifications that better reflect the job role, but that job role can differ with the people working across the road, let alone on the other side of the country! Therefore, units of competency have to be flexible enough to cover multiple systems, yet have enough rigor to produce consistent outcomes. Having said that I have consistently heard, in my travels, that units are too generic and need to more clearly define the outcome. One of our approaches to achieve this, is to write new units of competency with more prescription in the Required Knowledge and Required Skills areas to more clearly identify the knowledge and skills necessary to be able demonstrate competency in the unit’s Elements and Performance Criteria. We are working on the new units that have been identified as necessary during the qualification review process and I welcome any and all feedback on these when they are posted on our website.
I do not see the necessity to break the Apply Safe Working Practices into individual stream specific units (bearing in mind this will have ramifications across the entire training package from Cert I through to Diploma). I believe there are some generic safety concepts which apply universally irrespective of specialist stream. These concepts should be common to all qualifications and streams.
I realise that the OSH requirements vary from enterprise to enterprise, however let’s not forget that every single unit of competence has embedded within in it a safety component specifically related to that unit/skill/task. This is where I believe the context specific safety requirements should be placed and not in a stream specific safe working practices unit.
I believe we need to be mindful of the fact that safety procedures are not just industry/stream specific, but in reality are, ( in many cases) enterprise and even site specific. I believe we need to be very careful of not embedding requirements within a stream specific unit which in fact should be the responsibility of the employer.
In reality irrespective of whether candidate has undergone training in any of these stream specific safe working practices UOC’s, candidates will still need to undergo individual enterprise site specific safety/training/inductions. I cannot see the need to replicate training at RTO level.
Secondly, Placing Balance Wheels and Tyres in the Common Core, in my opinion makes no sense at all. I cannot see too many agricultural or mining industries worrying about tyre/wheel balance.
Jeff, thanks for your feedback. The rationale behind having separate Safe Working Practices units for the Light Vehicle, Heavy Vehicle and Mobile Plant sectors is that people moving between the sectors (for instance from Light Vehicle to Mobile Plant) have perceived gaps in their understanding when it comes to working safely in a new sector of the industry. Industry feels that it is vital that these shortcomings should be identified and addressed. The reality is that people are moving through the different Automotive sectors and that the competency gained through passing units of competency (such as Apply Safe Working Practices)in one context is seen as inadequate when these people are confronted with a working environment vastly different from the one they are used to. Although I acknowledge that construction and mining sites do have their own induction processes, I am told by industry that there is still a likelihood that a light vehicle technician could place him or herself in an unsafe position even after undergoing an induction process and that demonstrating formal competency in understanding and applying safe working practices in a construction or mining site context will lower the incidence of accidents.
I am still consolidating the feedback, but there seems to be overwhelming support for the need to differentiate between Light Vehicle and Heavy Vehicle and Mobile Plant sectors in regard to Safety.
With regard to the unit on Tyre Balancing in the core of the OTR stream, I take your point and will change this if/when I get more feedback (which I think I probably will).
Steve Wrathall
I take your point about portability, however that too is my concern, we risk removing some of that portability of what should be a basic core unit by streaming it specifically.
As I intimated in my latest email, each unit of competence should have the context specific safety issues embedded within the unit. If we are worried about portability, we should be more concerned about the stream specific units of competence/skills being obtained prior workers transferring to a mine/construction site. Not much point in someone performing a “take 5”, JSA /JHA risk analysis, if they are unaware of the risks due to unfamiliarity with the equipment in the first instance.
If anything we could inadvertently increase risk of harm by promoting the concept that someone is safe to work on site if they have done a single stream specific safety unit of competence. Let’s focus on the Job/ task, skill/knowledge and safety as opposed to just one aspect of safety.
Regards,
Jeff Gittos
Jeff, while I accept your case for a common core Safe Work Practise unit, the purpose of the unit. as reflected by its name, is about work practises; having worked and taught in both light and heavy vehicle fields, there is a huge behavioural difference to workplace safety brought about by the apprentices perception of what constitutes acceptable safe work practices.
Often people feel that their generic training is sufficient and forget to consider the variation that can occur due to the effect of scale, Safely removing a 4 metre tall $85,000 OTR tyre justifies the time taken to prepare properly for the job.
The financial and personell result of mistakes mean that learning from your mistakes becomes a very expensive and frowned upon practice. Unfortunately apprentices may be asked to undertake work on a system before their local TAFE gets arround to teaching that particular module and there is a real need for them to be aware of the hazards that are not readily apparent
Ray Tate
Ray,
Unfortunately the unit name does not always accurately reflect the content nor the intention of the unti. The safety unit cited focusses on the safety processes as opposed to any specific system/task related safety. It refers to “take 5′s” Jha’s and other risk analysis processes, all of which in most cases in our industry enterprise specific and prerequisites for that enterprise for site access.
Your example of removing an OTR tyre demonstrates my point precisely. The last thing I would like to see is that people (not just the apprentices, but supervisors, leading hands etc) have the impression that if the apprentice has completed a stream safety unit then they have the occupational awareness to undertake any task within that related industry. This is a recipee for disaster.
Where do you draw the line with what you include in such a unit, are you suggesting that by completing such a unit that an apprentice would now have sufficient skill/knowledge to undertake a range of dangerous tasks? Stored energy systems (braking, steering, hydraulic systems, OTR tyres) are just a few typical systems that all have the potential to place an apprentice/tradesman at risk. I would rather the perception be, that until the person has been trained in such areas and reached competency then they are not safe to work unsupervised on such systems. As opposed to the perception being that they have received some stream specific safety awareness training and therefore no longer at risk, I think this is a far more dangerous attitude to foster.
cheers,
Jeff Gittos
A need to establish stand alone mobile and heavy units seperating them from all auto competancies and assessments. This will allow all mobile and heavy Cert III trades to be representive in the correct context of each industry.
Auto Skills Australia is communicating with the NSW ITAB as it works with TAFE NSW to develop new units of competency to address this concern.
Stephen Wrathall
Training Package Specialist
Auto Skills Australia
Couln’t agree more Gavin, the mining industry has been saying this for many years.
Ideally all technical units of competence should allow for the addition of a descriptor (as has been done with some, such as AURTH specific units) of some type which clearly denotes the context under which the training and assessment took place.
Regards,
Jeff