You are trying to discuss a very sensitive subject. You are undoubtedly aware that the IET does not run a competent persons' scheme, and does not control the EAS either. I think that the current qualification standard is unsatisfactory, after all getting 60% in an open book exam is pretty trivial if one can read. The exam only covers the regulations and nothing of the background theory or practical implementation of the regulations. I have taught a lot of electricians and the level of understanding of both of these is poor. I am particularly concerned about the level of qualification of Inspectors and testers, particularly for EICRs. The 2391-52 is very much less thorough than the old 2391 because the pass rate of that was 20% or less in many courses because the candidates did not have the necessary theoretical background. They also had difficulty with the fault-finding exercises although these were based on common faults in real installations (Leakage, polarity open circuits, etc). What would you like to see as the qualification level required to belong to a proper competent person scheme?

You are trying to discuss a very sensitive subject. You are undoubtedly aware that the IET does not run a competent persons' scheme, and does not control the EAS either. I think that the current qualification standard is unsatisfactory, after all getting 60% in an open book exam is pretty trivial if one can read. The exam only covers the regulations and nothing of the background theory or practical implementation of the regulations. I have taught a lot of electricians and the level of understanding of both of these is poor. I am particularly concerned about the level of qualification of Inspectors and testers, particularly for EICRs. The 2391-52 is very much less thorough than the old 2391 because the pass rate of that was 20% or less in many courses because the candidates did not have the necessary theoretical background. They also had difficulty with the fault-finding exercises although these were based on common faults in real installations (Leakage, polarity open circuits, etc). What would you like to see as the qualification level required to belong to a proper competent person scheme?

I don't think it's a qualification level that needs agreeing, it's a level of competence. The NVQ3 is a reasonable academic level for this discipline, however there's no guarantee that the competence of the student is acceptable. Experienced workers are frozen out of schemes when they have worked in the industry for decades with appropriate qualifications gained at the time. They understand far more than a college course could teach, and above all have those intinctive fault finding and practical skills that come as a result of years of experience. Your scheme assessment should be a clear indicator of your competence, but there are still chances to deceive the assessor with work that isn't yours, which also applies to the NVQ3 portfolios. I know of a few companies putting their experienced workers through the C&G 2346 using 'stock' photos in their workshop for a portfolio.

I recently sat the 2391-52 course and passed everything comfortably. I read through the GN3 using guidance videos from a distance learning provider, and took my exams at a nearby centre. Without my years of experience installing, testing and fault finding, I think I would have found the course harder, which a few of the candidates on the week long course at the exam centre were finding out. But having spoken to them, some only had an NVQ2, some not even that, yet they were electricians for a county council and were on the course in order to sign off work.