I will just point out that the changes regards requirements for Qualified Supervisors were not retrospective, so if you are registered as a QS and stay registered the changes should not affect you, and leave it at that.

eas-21-478-revised-eas-october-2021.pdf (theiet.org)

And if you have been a QS but give that and bring a QS in who leaves after ten years leaving you without QS and to find out even though you have been compliant for twenty years but unfortunately your quals no longer satisfy to find out the certification body removes you from their scheme because some idiot has decidied you are no longer competent after 40 years. Point that out when actively help ruins someones business hecause the EAS/IET have decided your fate although you were competent right sept 21. Point that out

Unknown said:

has decidied you are no longer competent after 40 years.

No-one is saying you're not competent. Just that there's a gap that needs to be assessed.

As the IET is a Professional Engineering Institution, one of its core activities is registering Engineers and Technicians, and providing a framework for them to demonstrate CPD.

Consequently, I'm not sure that you will get far in an IET Forum, by trying to argue that it's OK to be outside of those kind of frameworks, and a "home brew" approach to CPD be accepted without re-assessment ? By the same token, those who let their CEng, IEng or EngTech lapse need to be re-assessed ... and that costs money and takes time.

I wont he reapplying or give them anymore money once it lapses. I can’t see the point in being qualified by a system designed to ruin livelihoods through the need to inject money into a systemthat isnt required

I wont he reapplying or give them anymore money once it lapses. I can’t see the point in being qualified by a system designed to ruin livelihoods through the need to inject money into a systemthat isnt required

I do understand your frustrations, but I think given the fallout from the Grenfell enquiry, things aren't going to get easier in this regard going forward.

 Tell that to a sparky without anything above level three

What you have to understand is it is messing with peoples lives all for money. I have had to deliver the bad news during assessments of people who are not incompetent but the RAS/IET have now deemed them so. I’m happy to leave the industry it’s a joke. I will also never recommend the trade and then the IET can send magazines out stating there is a lack of skill set within the industry. I understand if you can’t or haven't had to deal with it. Anyway it is Saturday, enjoy the rest of your weekend

i thought grenfell was caused by a faulty fridge , hardly the electricians fault is it?

how would any training or CPD have prevented this , possibly AFDD might have stopped it in time , which is why we now fit them in high risk residential buildings

Newfutile said:

i thought grenfell was caused by a faulty fridge , hardly the electricians fault is it?

Well, the Enquiry is not simply looking at the cause of the fire, but about the trail of issues that led to the fire not being contained (e.g. cladding), and the trail of death and destruction left by the fact that the fire was not contained in the single flat as it ought to have been, along with the considerations of emergency response etc..

Newfutile said:

how would any training or CPD have prevented this , possibly AFDD might have stopped it in time , which is why we now fit them in high risk residential buildings

Again, not the fire starting, but the enquiry looked at the construction industry in general.

There are potential repercussions throughout the industry as a result of the Hackitt Report, it's "all pervasive": https://www.cic.org.uk/policy-and-public-affairs/building-safety/competence-steering-group-csg

"Well, the Enquiry is not simply looking at the cause of the fire, but about the trail of issues that led to the fire not being contained (e.g. cladding), and the trail of death and destruction left by the fact that the fire was not contained in the single flat as it ought to have been, along with the considerations of emergency response etc."

I do not believe that they will find the answer to that by looking at the training and qualifications of electricians at the time of the event.

gkenyon said:

Again, not the fire starting, but the enquiry looked at the construction industry in general.

If that is the case, then this smacks of opportunistic moneymaking rather than a serious attempt to the resolve the Grenfell question. If containment failed, did someone prop a fire door open on that very hot summer day? If so, how would a 'Gold Cardholder have prevented that?

.

Gold Card holder

whjohnson said:

If containment failed, did someone prop a fire door open on that very hot summer day? If so, how would a 'Gold Cardholder have prevented that?

Well, apparently the experts think that the fire started in a fridge ...

But that doesn't take away from the fact that the main question is cladding (who decided, what competence etc) and it's opened up a whole raft of questions about competence and responsibility in the construction industry as a whole, as discussed in the Hackitt Report.

That's all I can say on the matter really - worth reading the report and looking at what's being done about it.

That would be at design/ engineer level responsibility coupled with money saving/ making requirements and probably some aesthetics. Clarkes have been removed. 
I agree with you

Unknown said:

That would be at design/ engineer level responsibility coupled with money saving/ making requirements and probably some aesthetics. Clarkes have been removed. 

Doesn't stop the "tarred with the same brush" approach when "competence in construction" is brought into the spotlight.