SYD: St John's course December
Zebee Johnstone
there's blood everywhere and now what" course in Dec (6th or 20th) at
the Surrey Hills St John's centre.
$100 for the course. You get no certificate, what you get is the
ability to save someone's life or spine rather than standing
around uselessly.
The course will cover:
Recognition and management of the unconscious rider
Management of trauma including bleeding (internal and external),shock
and chest injuries
When and how to remove a motorcycle helmet
Resuscitation of the unconscious non-breathing casualty
Management of the casualty
If you want to book into the December courses on 6th or 20th Dec
(the cost is only $100) please call St Johns on 1300 360 455.
I've done this course. It is a good set of basic skills to keep
someone alive and together (and not run over...) while the ambulance
is coming.
Note that if you go hooning with friends, you want one of them to have
been to this course if you come off and clout the scenery....
Zebee
Hammo
On 10/11/09 3:27 PM, in article slrnhfhqt3...@gmail.com, "Zebee
Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why no certificate?
Spend another 50, get a tax deductible receipt and a recognisable first aid
course.
H
Zebee Johnstone
> Spend another 50, get a tax deductible receipt and a recognisable first aid
> course.
because it's a specialist course in road trauma.
It goes much more into what you need for the road crash than the
normal certificate does.
Zebee
Fraser Johnston
"Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhfjfcv...@gmail.com...
I reckon it should be compulsary with your licence to do some sort of first aid
course, and carry a kit like they do in Germany. Any idea if they do one in
Perth? I'd like to do it.
Fraser
Zebee Johnstone
Fraser Johnston <ftr...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> I reckon it should be compulsary with your licence to do some sort of first aid
> course, and carry a kit like they do in Germany. Any idea if they do one in
> Perth? I'd like to do it.
I haven't heard of one in Perth and my understanding is that the
Sydney one is the baby of one particular St John's guy.
However, ring them and ask. If enough people do that, they'll see the
point of putting one on.
If you can find 10-20 people who want it then tell them that. If you
are a member of a club or regular ride group then see how many you
can get interested.
Zebee
Nev..
Sure, ride down the Kwinana freeway, cut off a truck, jam on the brakes,
and when the ambos arrive pay close attention to what they do :)
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Fraser Johnston
"Nev.." <id...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:oY6dnbVs08kc_mfX...@westnet.com.au...
Sounds like a plan. A really shitty plan, but a plan nonetheless.
Fraser
Zebee Johnstone
Nev.. <id...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, ride down the Kwinana freeway, cut off a truck, jam on the brakes,
> and when the ambos arrive pay close attention to what they do :)
But I already know how to shake my head and say "Oh well, won't need
the helicopter"
Zebee
atec7 7
He died about a month later of a bee sting ( I kid you not)
Nev..
LOL You miss the mark by such a large margin it's suprising that what
you write is actually legible English.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Fraser Johnston
It's legible English? News to me.
Fraser
atec7 7
do you have a point apart from stealing O2 ?
Fraser Johnston
"atec7 7" <"atec 77"@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdihqb$l7p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Spanking morons like you in arguements on usenet.
Fraser
atec7 7
now answer the question
Hammo
On 11/11/09 6:23 AM, in article slrnhfjfcv...@gmail.com, "Zebee
Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Errrr, right, that doesn't make any sense at all.
If it is a specialist course, then why not certify it?
Sounds like a reason _not_ to do it.
H
Zebee Johnstone
I expect because there's a lot of paperwork and no good reason.
I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
a piece of paper. So?
It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
Who would want to see it, and why?
Zebee
CrazyCam
> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:19:25 +1100
> Hammo <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
<snip>
>> If it is a specialist course, then why not certify it?
>>
>
> I expect because there's a lot of paperwork and no good reason.
Not just a "lot" but whole shit loads, and standardisation and all sorts
of wonderful modern day bullshit.
The course would end up costing four times the price, and taking three
times the time.
> I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
> a piece of paper. So?
>
> It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
> roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
>
> So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
>
> Who would want to see it, and why?
Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off you.
regards,
CrazyCam
Zebee Johnstone
CrazyCam <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> Who would want to see it, and why?
>
> Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
>
> The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off you.
>
Good Samaritan laws prevent the latter, and I think prevent the former
too.
On the other hand, the certificate is less bulky than a loo roll so
could be of use at rallies.
Zebee
Hammo
On 14/11/09 7:03 AM, in article slrnhfreru...@gmail.com, "Zebee
Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:19:25 +1100
> Hammo <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/09 6:23 AM, in article slrnhfjfcv...@gmail.com, "Zebee
>> Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> because it's a specialist course in road trauma.
>>>
>>> It goes much more into what you need for the road crash than the
>>> normal certificate does.
>>>
>>> Zebee
>>
>> Errrr, right, that doesn't make any sense at all.
>>
>> If it is a specialist course, then why not certify it?
>>
>
> I expect because there's a lot of paperwork and no good reason.
No good reason?
>
> I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
> a piece of paper. So?
Really? Rhetorical or, you don't know?
>
> It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
> roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
>
> So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
For me, and others, lots.
>
> Who would want to see it, and why?
Welcome to world outside of yours!
>
> Zebee
Hammo
Hammo
On 14/11/09 10:03 AM, in article
4afde5a3$0$6094$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:19:25 +1100
>> Hammo <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If it is a specialist course, then why not certify it?
>>>
>>
>> I expect because there's a lot of paperwork and no good reason.
>
> Not just a "lot" but whole shit loads, and standardisation and all sorts
> of wonderful modern day bullshit.
No, if the course can't justify a "certificate", then what use does it have?
>
> The course would end up costing four times the price, and taking three
> times the time.
...and that would be a bad thing, why exactly?
>
>> I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
>> a piece of paper. So?
>>
>> It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
>> roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
>>
>> So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
>>
>> Who would want to see it, and why?
>
> Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
A coroner? Do go on.........
>
> The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off you.
Coroner to apportion blame? What world is this you speak of?
>
> regards,
> CrazyCam
>
Hammo
Peter Cremasco
>
> I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
> a piece of paper. So?
>
> It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
> roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
>
> So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
>
> Who would want to see it, and why?
With 'formal' first aid training (at least with Qld Ambulance) there is
a degree of underwriting should someone sue you for injuries sustained
due to first aid you've administered. (Of course, you need to stick to
only applying what you've been taught, and not go outside that scope).
The 'piece of paper' is a form of insurance.
Zebee Johnstone
Peter Cremasco <FirsName...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> With 'formal' first aid training (at least with Qld Ambulance) there is
> a degree of underwriting should someone sue you for injuries sustained
> due to first aid you've administered. (Of course, you need to stick to
> only applying what you've been taught, and not go outside that scope).
>
> The 'piece of paper' is a form of insurance.
As far as I know, a good samaritan at hte side of the road who
administers emergency first aid on good faith is protected by law.
Indeed, it's better *not* to have qualifications as some qualified
personnel are held to different obligations.
The course is a good one. Be a shame to have someone die or be in a
wheelchair because of fear of being sued. Glad to say that never
occurred to me and still doesn't seem to be a problem.
But then I am not particularly a worshipper at the certification
shrine.
Zebee
Nev..
This would be an admission that the course with no certificate is just
as valid as the course with a certificate. aka the world outside yours :)
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
CrazyCam
> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:13:28 +1100
> Peter Cremasco <FirsName...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> With 'formal' first aid training (at least with Qld Ambulance) there is
>> a degree of underwriting should someone sue you for injuries sustained
>> due to first aid you've administered. (Of course, you need to stick to
>> only applying what you've been taught, and not go outside that scope).
>>
>> The 'piece of paper' is a form of insurance.
>
> As far as I know, a good samaritan at hte side of the road who
> administers emergency first aid on good faith is protected by law.
>
> Indeed, it's better *not* to have qualifications as some qualified
> personnel are held to different obligations.
That was, kinda, the point I was getting at.
> The course is a good one.
Indeed it is, assuming it's the same as the one we did.
> Be a shame to have someone die or be in a
> wheelchair because of fear of being sued.
Yup.
I've given up on a volunteer thingy I used to do, at least partly
because of the massive paper chase before you could _do_ anything.
Once you have a formalised and recognised, "certified" course you open
up a complete can of worms.
> Glad to say that never
> occurred to me and still doesn't seem to be a problem.
It wouldn't hold me back, but it would certainly discourage me from any
"recognised" certified course.
> But then I am not particularly a worshipper at the certification
> shrine.
Me neither.
regards,
CrazyCam
Hammo
On 14/11/09 3:37 PM, in article slrnhfsd0u...@gmail.com, "Zebee
Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Lol
How do you know it is _any_ good? Isn't a certificate an indicator that the
training is actually worth while?
I agree with some of your arguments about people dieing, but not in context
of this discussion.
If you want to encourage people to get first aid training, that is
admirable. However, if as you say, it is so "specialised", then you need to
be offering something supports that.
H
Hammo
On 14/11/09 4:24 PM, in article
oKmdnZ7H2Y-domPX...@westnet.com.au, "Nev.."
<id...@mindless.com> wrote:
Yes, my world exists of people in groups greater than 1.
H
CrazyCam
> How do you know it is _any_ good?
How about you go and do the course and then get back to us with your
opinion?
regards,
CrazyCam
Hammo
On 14/11/09 6:25 PM, in article
4afe5b76$0$5420$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
So that is an offer of course entry, accommodation, travel as well as my
opinion?
H
atec7 7
>
>
> On 14/11/09 3:37 PM, in article slrnhfsd0u...@gmail.com, "Zebee
> Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:13:28 +1100
>> Peter Cremasco <FirsName...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> With 'formal' first aid training (at least with Qld Ambulance) there is
>>> a degree of underwriting should someone sue you for injuries sustained
>>> due to first aid you've administered. (Of course, you need to stick to
>>> only applying what you've been taught, and not go outside that scope).
>>>
>>> The 'piece of paper' is a form of insurance.
>> As far as I know, a good samaritan at hte side of the road who
>> administers emergency first aid on good faith is protected by law.
>>
>> Indeed, it's better *not* to have qualifications as some qualified
>> personnel are held to different obligations.
>>
>> The course is a good one. Be a shame to have someone die or be in a
>> wheelchair because of fear of being sued. Glad to say that never
>> occurred to me and still doesn't seem to be a problem.
>>
>> But then I am not particularly a worshipper at the certification
>> shrine.
>>
>> Zebee
>
> Lol
>
> How do you know it is _any_ good? Isn't a certificate an indicator that the
> training is actually worth while?
opinion or do it
Which choice will you be making ?
Nev..
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:13:28 +1100
>> Peter Cremasco <FirsName...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> With 'formal' first aid training (at least with Qld Ambulance) there
>>> is a degree of underwriting should someone sue you for injuries
>>> sustained due to first aid you've administered. (Of course, you need
>>> to stick to only applying what you've been taught, and not go outside
>>> that scope).
>>>
>>> The 'piece of paper' is a form of insurance.
>>
>> As far as I know, a good samaritan at hte side of the road who
>> administers emergency first aid on good faith is protected by law.
>>
>> Indeed, it's better *not* to have qualifications as some qualified
>> personnel are held to different obligations.
>
> That was, kinda, the point I was getting at.
>
>> The course is a good one.
>
> Indeed it is, assuming it's the same as the one we did.
>
>> Be a shame to have someone die or be in a
>> wheelchair because of fear of being sued.
>
> Yup.
>
> I've given up on a volunteer thingy I used to do, at least partly
> because of the massive paper chase before you could _do_ anything.
>
> Once you have a formalised and recognised, "certified" course you open
> up a complete can of worms.
During the legal liability insurance crisis of the early 2000s, the
Victorian government passed some legislation like the good samaritan
legislation, which applies to people doing volunteer work for community
organisations, charities etc. From my recollection of it, it doesn't
stop people from suing but it indemnifies individual volunteers from
being sued, and I guess imposes a vicarious liability on the
organisation the volunteer is representing, I guess in the same way any
employer with paid staff would be liable.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
CrazyCam
Well, no.
If you were up here, I could manage to offer you a bed and a few beers,
possibly even some food, provided I can convince Angie that you are
house trained. ;-)
Both Zebee and I have done this course.
We both thought it was a good course, and recommend it to others.
I, personally, would not do the course, or re-do the course, if it were
an officially recognised, certified course.
regards,
CrazyCam
Nev..
>
>
> On 14/11/09 3:37 PM, in article slrnhfsd0u...@gmail.com, "Zebee
> Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:13:28 +1100
>> Peter Cremasco <FirsName...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> With 'formal' first aid training (at least with Qld Ambulance) there is
>>> a degree of underwriting should someone sue you for injuries sustained
>>> due to first aid you've administered. (Of course, you need to stick to
>>> only applying what you've been taught, and not go outside that scope).
>>>
>>> The 'piece of paper' is a form of insurance.
>> As far as I know, a good samaritan at hte side of the road who
>> administers emergency first aid on good faith is protected by law.
>>
>> Indeed, it's better *not* to have qualifications as some qualified
>> personnel are held to different obligations.
>>
>> The course is a good one. Be a shame to have someone die or be in a
>> wheelchair because of fear of being sued. Glad to say that never
>> occurred to me and still doesn't seem to be a problem.
>>
>> But then I am not particularly a worshipper at the certification
>> shrine.
>>
>> Zebee
>
> Lol
>
> How do you know it is _any_ good? Isn't a certificate an indicator that the
> training is actually worth while?
I've done lots of things I consider were worthwhile. I don't have any
certificates for them. I have been given certificates for various
training I have attended through my employment. Little of it would rank
as worthwhile.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Nev..
Hammo
On 14/11/09 7:10 PM, in article
4afe65dd$0$21801$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/09 6:25 PM, in article
>> 4afe5b76$0$5420$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
>> <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hammo wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you know it is _any_ good?
>>> How about you go and do the course and then get back to us with your
>>> opinion?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>> CrazyCam
>>
>> So that is an offer of course entry, accommodation, travel as well as my
>> opinion?
>
> Well, no.
>
> If you were up here, I could manage to offer you a bed and a few beers,
> possibly even some food, provided I can convince Angie that you are
> house trained. ;-)
Ha ha ha, why do I feel I am talking to Sharkey?
>
> Both Zebee and I have done this course.
Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
wonder why.
>
> We both thought it was a good course, and recommend it to others.
That is great. I've done some fantastic courses and others, well....
>
> I, personally, would not do the course, or re-do the course, if it were
> an officially recognised, certified course.
Why not? Does the certificate in some way lessen the usefulness? Would you
do/undertake training for motorcycle riding or the tutelage of others if it
were recognised and certified?
At what point does the need for certification and the cost of a course
become an issue?
H
Hammo
On 14/11/09 7:14 PM, in article
aoqdnR3Qdaxj-2PX...@westnet.com.au, "Nev.."
<id...@mindless.com> wrote:
Are you shifting the goal posts from "first aid courses" to all things
worthwhile?
H
G-S
> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:01 +1100
> CrazyCam <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>> Who would want to see it, and why?
>> Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
>>
>> The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off you.
>>
>
> Good Samaritan laws prevent the latter, and I think prevent the former
> too.
They were revoked some time ago (at least in Victoria).
> On the other hand, the certificate is less bulky than a loo roll so
> could be of use at rallies.
I have a level 3 St. Johns certificate with oxygen and defrib, we didn't
just get paper... we also got a cloth patch (but we have to go back
every 12 months to get a new one).
It's really good for err... well... keeping WorkSafe from complaining we
don't have first aider. That's about it really.
G-S
G-S
>
> If you want to encourage people to get first aid training, that is
> admirable. However, if as you say, it is so "specialised", then you need to
> be offering something supports that.
>
St. Johns in Victoria offer 'specialized' training at lvl 3 but not at
the lower senior or basic levels.
You can take a lvl 3 course specialized for workplace first aider, life
saving, remote area aid and some others.
G-S
G-S
>
> During the legal liability insurance crisis of the early 2000s, the
> Victorian government passed some legislation like the good samaritan
> legislation, which applies to people doing volunteer work for community
> organisations, charities etc. From my recollection of it, it doesn't
> stop people from suing but it indemnifies individual volunteers from
> being sued, and I guess imposes a vicarious liability on the
> organisation the volunteer is representing, I guess in the same way any
> employer with paid staff would be liable.
>
Part of the reason was because the good samaritan act doesn't apply in
Victoria (from what St. Johns teach).
The above legislation (which I'm aware of) evidnetly doesn't cover
people in a 'side of the road' situation.
G-S
Hammo
On 14/11/09 9:10 PM, in article 008805c5$0$26929$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
"G-S" <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:01 +1100
>> CrazyCam <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> Who would want to see it, and why?
>>> Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
>>>
>>> The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off you.
>>>
>>
>> Good Samaritan laws prevent the latter, and I think prevent the former
>> too.
>
> They were revoked some time ago (at least in Victoria).
This must be that other world called Victoria?
>
>> On the other hand, the certificate is less bulky than a loo roll so
>> could be of use at rallies.
>
> I have a level 3 St. Johns certificate with oxygen and defrib, we didn't
> just get paper... we also got a cloth patch (but we have to go back
> every 12 months to get a new one).
>
> It's really good for err... well... keeping WorkSafe from complaining we
> don't have first aider. That's about it really.
So, you'd do a first aid course with out a certificate then?
H
Nev..
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:01 +1100
>> CrazyCam <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>>> Who would want to see it, and why?
>>> Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
>>>
>>> The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>> Good Samaritan laws prevent the latter, and I think prevent the former
>> too.
>
> They were revoked some time ago (at least in Victoria).
They were? The "Wrongs Act 1958" tends to disagree, particularly
Section 31B Part VIA - "GOOD SAMARITAN PROTECTION". :) but don't just
take my word for it.. http://bit.ly/3VqEXf
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
G-S
We got a cloth patch (and an entry in the computer database), we don't
get a paper certificate.
We get a 'certification' but not an actual certificate, so yes I would
(and I did).
G-S
G-S
If they weren't revoked then St. Johns are teaching hundreds of students
the wrong answer (wouldn't be the first time) :)
G-S
CrazyCam
>
>
> On 14/11/09 7:10 PM, in article
> 4afe65dd$0$21801$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<snip>
> Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
> question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
> wonder why.
I, too, wonder why you would question a course which doesn't have a
certificate attached to it.
In a general sense, the world has gone certificate-mad.
>> We both thought it was a good course, and recommend it to others.
>
> That is great. I've done some fantastic courses and others, well....
OK, so this particular course is recommended by two people that you
have, in a sense, known for a few years now.
Frankly, I'd take a personal recommendation from someone that I know,
over the "magic" of a certificate.
>> I, personally, would not do the course, or re-do the course, if it were
>> an officially recognised, certified course.
>
> Why not? Does the certificate in some way lessen the usefulness? Would you
> do/undertake training for motorcycle riding or the tutelage of others if it
> were recognised and certified?
Interesting you should ask this.
Just over ten years ago, now, I undertook the training and got a licence
to instruct folk in the riding of motorbikes.
The instructor's licence needs to be renewed every five years. I renewed
it once, at considerable expense, but when it was again due for renewal,
in September of this year, I decided to let it lapse.
The reason for this decision was that I had not actually used the
licence to teach people for money, but holding the licence carried
various potential legal problems.
Once the licence has lapsed, I'm back to being a motorbike rider, who
may be bought beer in exchange for advice. :-)
I also do a riding course every three years as a pupil, and the only
thing I do with the certificate of attendance, is send it on to the
Ulysses Club, for my cash back subsidy.
> At what point does the need for certification and the cost of a course
> become an issue?
I'm in the lucky position that the cost, within certain wide limits, is
immaterial, and, now I no longer work or take part in CoastGuard
activities, I don't need to care too much about certificates at all.
I'll do a course if I am interested in what is being taught, but I
probably won't bother keeping my Fist Aid certificate up to date.
regards,
CrazyCam
Nev..
Yeah, but hey, don't let that devalue the currency of the certificate
issued by them. I'm sure they have the best intentions. :)
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Marty H
> G-S wrote:
> > Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >> In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:01 +1100
> >>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >>>> Who would want to see it, and why?
> >>> Possibly a coroner or a lawyer.
>
> >>> The coroner, to apportion blame, and the lawyer to sue the pants off
> >>> you.
>
> >> Good Samaritan laws prevent the latter, and I think prevent the former
> >> too.
>
> > They were revoked some time ago (at least in Victoria).
>
> They were? The "Wrongs Act 1958" tends to disagree, particularly
> Section 31B Part VIA - "GOOD SAMARITAN PROTECTION". :) but don't just
> take my word for it..http://bit.ly/3VqEXf
>
> Nev..
> '08 DL1000K8
when I did mine about 12 months back we were told no one has ever been
Successfully Sued in Australia ever, and never will be as long as they
only administer "first aid". Try an emergency tracheotomy and it goes
wrong... get yourself a good lawyer.. It just comes down to know what
you can and cant do,
I believe you don't have a certificate or certification to administer
first aid, but you do to be called a "First Aider" in a work place,
club etc etc
Mine has now expired, I was suppose to do it again 3 weeks back but
was cancelled by my boss cos we are under staffed.. still getting paid
for it, no idea where I stand on that one
OH... I take being a First Aider a community service, not part of my
job, but the CSA takes the $22 tax free money I get for it and gives
some of it to my ex..
I told them you can stick you First Aid money up your arse and if I
see any of them dying on the side of the road, I would just watch them
die... they didnt seem to see the humour in that :-\
mh
Hammo
On 15/11/09 8:11 AM, in article
4aff1d1b$0$1779$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/11/09 7:10 PM, in article
>> 4afe65dd$0$21801$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
>
> <snip>
>
>> Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
>> question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
>> wonder why.
>
> I, too, wonder why you would question a course which doesn't have a
> certificate attached to it.
For a multitude of reasons.
>
> In a general sense, the world has gone certificate-mad.
Yes, it may seem that way, though I note below you answer many of the
reasons as to why/why not they are useful.
>
>>> We both thought it was a good course, and recommend it to others.
>>
>> That is great. I've done some fantastic courses and others, well....
>
> OK, so this particular course is recommended by two people that you
> have, in a sense, known for a few years now.
Yes, this is true, you even made me ride at the back of a Ulitilies ride cos
I had more cc than the whole ride put together....
>
> Frankly, I'd take a personal recommendation from someone that I know,
> over the "magic" of a certificate.
Yes and no. It would depend on whether the course is useful with out a
certificate, if the course is a fundraiser for another organisation, if the
information being taught is current practice/best practice and if that
information is available else where (geography vs training body).
It was being pushed as a "specialist" course early on in the discussion,
that seems to have dropped off.
I have lots of people who I have known for years telling me their opinions
on things, that is hardly a conclusive reason to "fall into line".
>
>>> I, personally, would not do the course, or re-do the course, if it were
>>> an officially recognised, certified course.
>>
>> Why not? Does the certificate in some way lessen the usefulness? Would you
>> do/undertake training for motorcycle riding or the tutelage of others if it
>> were recognised and certified?
>
> Interesting you should ask this.
>
> Just over ten years ago, now, I undertook the training and got a licence
> to instruct folk in the riding of motorbikes.
>
> The instructor's licence needs to be renewed every five years. I renewed
> it once, at considerable expense, but when it was again due for renewal,
> in September of this year, I decided to let it lapse.
>
> The reason for this decision was that I had not actually used the
> licence to teach people for money, but holding the licence carried
> various potential legal problems.
What, like not actually following current/best practice/legislation as in
accountability and professionalism?
>
> Once the licence has lapsed, I'm back to being a motorbike rider, who
> may be bought beer in exchange for advice. :-)
>
> I also do a riding course every three years as a pupil, and the only
> thing I do with the certificate of attendance, is send it on to the
> Ulysses Club, for my cash back subsidy.
So, you can see there is a benefit in obtaining a certificate.
>
>> At what point does the need for certification and the cost of a course
>> become an issue?
>
> I'm in the lucky position that the cost, within certain wide limits, is
> immaterial, and, now I no longer work or take part in CoastGuard
> activities, I don't need to care too much about certificates at all.
>
> I'll do a course if I am interested in what is being taught, but I
> probably won't bother keeping my Fist Aid certificate up to date.
Does that mean not undertaking training, or undertaking training that comes
with out a certificate?
H
CrazyCam
>
>
> On 15/11/09 8:11 AM, in article
> 4aff1d1b$0$1779$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
> <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hammo wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14/11/09 7:10 PM, in article
>>> 4afe65dd$0$21801$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
>>> question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
>>> wonder why.
>> I, too, wonder why you would question a course which doesn't have a
>> certificate attached to it.
>
> For a multitude of reasons.
Well, go on then, give the reasons.
>> In a general sense, the world has gone certificate-mad.
>
> Yes, it may seem that way, though I note below you answer many of the
> reasons as to why/why not they are useful.
I do try to think beyond, "this is my opinion, and if you don't agree,
you are a dickhead".
>>>> We both thought it was a good course, and recommend it to others.
>>> That is great. I've done some fantastic courses and others, well....
>> OK, so this particular course is recommended by two people that you
>> have, in a sense, known for a few years now.
>
> Yes, this is true, you even made me ride at the back of a Ulitilies ride cos
> I had more cc than the whole ride put together....
That was back in the days that a Kwaka 6 was a seriously big bike.
>> Frankly, I'd take a personal recommendation from someone that I know,
>> over the "magic" of a certificate.
>
> Yes and no. It would depend on whether the course is useful with out a
> certificate, if the course is a fundraiser for another organisation, if the
> information being taught is current practice/best practice and if that
> information is available else where (geography vs training body).
Can we assume that the general participants of aus.moto actually do ride
motorcycles?
If we can take that as a starting point, then the course is potentially
useful, in my opinion.
It is, at the price, hardly a fund raiser for anybody.
I dunno about current/best practice, but it sounded logical and sensible
to me.
> It was being pushed as a "specialist" course early on in the discussion,
> that seems to have dropped off.
Only because it wasn't, afaik, being picked on for not being specialist.
I dunno how many courses you have attended where the mechanics, as well
as the pros and cons, of removing a crash helmet have been gone into
serious detail.
I have only attended two such courses, one, many years ago, organised by
the ACU for track marshals, and then this "specialised" Red Cross course.
The course also deals with situations where the ambos aren't 10 minutes
away, and you don't have a first aid kit.
It deals with the "traffic management" and safety aspects related to a
motorcycle accident, out of the city.
> I have lots of people who I have known for years telling me their opinions
> on things, that is hardly a conclusive reason to "fall into line".
Fine. Don't fall into line. But don't carp about there not being a
certificate, 'cos that is just bullshit.
>>>> I, personally, would not do the course, or re-do the course, if it were
>>>> an officially recognised, certified course.
>>> Why not? Does the certificate in some way lessen the usefulness? Would you
>>> do/undertake training for motorcycle riding or the tutelage of others if it
>>> were recognised and certified?
>> Interesting you should ask this.
>>
>> Just over ten years ago, now, I undertook the training and got a licence
>> to instruct folk in the riding of motorbikes.
>>
>> The instructor's licence needs to be renewed every five years. I renewed
>> it once, at considerable expense, but when it was again due for renewal,
>> in September of this year, I decided to let it lapse.
>>
>> The reason for this decision was that I had not actually used the
>> licence to teach people for money, but holding the licence carried
>> various potential legal problems.
>
> What, like not actually following current/best practice/legislation as in
> accountability and professionalism?
Yes, exactly.
Accountability and professionalism are just weasel words for the buggers
can sue you.
Joe Soap citizen, without any certificates, only has to behave and act
as a "reasonable" person, but, as soon as they have some bit of paper in
their back pocket, the rules change. :-(
>> Once the licence has lapsed, I'm back to being a motorbike rider, who
>> may be bought beer in exchange for advice. :-)
>>
>> I also do a riding course every three years as a pupil, and the only
>> thing I do with the certificate of attendance, is send it on to the
>> Ulysses Club, for my cash back subsidy.
>
> So, you can see there is a benefit in obtaining a certificate.
A certificate of attendance..... I really don't think you were rabbiting
on about an attendance cert.
>>> At what point does the need for certification and the cost of a course
>>> become an issue?
>> I'm in the lucky position that the cost, within certain wide limits, is
>> immaterial, and, now I no longer work or take part in CoastGuard
>> activities, I don't need to care too much about certificates at all.
>>
>> I'll do a course if I am interested in what is being taught, but I
>> probably won't bother keeping my Fist Aid certificate up to date.
>
> Does that mean not undertaking training, or undertaking training that comes
> with out a certificate?
Just in case I have been unclear, I don't give a toss for certificates.
If I think a course is worth doing, and especially if folk I know
recommend that course, I'll maybe do it, but, if it becomes part of a
possible paper chase after something goes pear shaped, I might well give
a false name. ;-)
regards,
CrazyCam
Hammo
> Hammo wrote:
>> <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> Hammo wrote:
>>>> 4afe65dd$0$21801$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
>>>> question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
>>>> wonder why.
>>> I, too, wonder why you would question a course which doesn't have a
>>> certificate attached to it.
>>
>> For a multitude of reasons.
>
> Well, go on then, give the reasons.
How long do you have? There are multiple papers/journal
articles/professional organisations position statements on it. I have
already acknowledged your comments that you have listed.
>
>>> In a general sense, the world has gone certificate-mad.
>>
>> Yes, it may seem that way, though I note below you answer many of the
>> reasons as to why/why not they are useful.
>
> I do try to think beyond, "this is my opinion, and if you don't agree,
> you are a dickhead".
Do you feel that this was not the current situation?
>
>>>>> We both thought it was a good course, and recommend it to others.
>>>> That is great. I've done some fantastic courses and others, well....
>>> OK, so this particular course is recommended by two people that you
>>> have, in a sense, known for a few years now.
>>
>> Yes, this is true, you even made me ride at the back of a Ulitilies ride cos
>> I had more cc than the whole ride put together....
>
> That was back in the days that a Kwaka 6 was a seriously big bike.
..and in terms of cc : weight still up there!
>
>>> Frankly, I'd take a personal recommendation from someone that I know,
>>> over the "magic" of a certificate.
>>
>> Yes and no. It would depend on whether the course is useful with out a
>> certificate, if the course is a fundraiser for another organisation, if the
>> information being taught is current practice/best practice and if that
>> information is available else where (geography vs training body).
>
> Can we assume that the general participants of aus.moto actually do ride
> motorcycles?
Yes, and I still stand by what I wrote above.
>
> If we can take that as a starting point, then the course is potentially
> useful, in my opinion.
Courses on any number of topics are potentially useful to the participants
of aus.moto, in my opinion.
>
> It is, at the price, hardly a fund raiser for anybody.
Why? If there is no certification of the course, then, why not?
>
> I dunno about current/best practice, but it sounded logical and sensible
> to me.
That's sorta was what I am saying.....
>
>> It was being pushed as a "specialist" course early on in the discussion,
>> that seems to have dropped off.
>
> Only because it wasn't, afaik, being picked on for not being specialist.
? You'll have to explain that one.
>
> I dunno how many courses you have attended where the mechanics, as well
> as the pros and cons, of removing a crash helmet have been gone into
> serious detail.
You'll need to define "serious" detail. Is this provided in hand outs,
hands on demos, discussion of anatomy and observation of tissue damage, risk
analysis, use of level of consciousness, change in response to stimulus,
change in swelling, patency of airway, blood loss.......
>
> I have only attended two such courses, one, many years ago, organised by
> the ACU for track marshals, and then this "specialised" Red Cross course.
Where does this course that is being advertised fit in? It was my
understanding you had taken part in it? Or have St J taken over the
deployment of it? Did the two offer certificates, ensuring a level of
competence?
>
> The course also deals with situations where the ambos aren't 10 minutes
> away, and you don't have a first aid kit.
Good, they can be several hours away and a first aid kit can be exhausted by
then as well.
>
> It deals with the "traffic management" and safety aspects related to a
> motorcycle accident, out of the city.
As any first aid course should do, imnsho. Danger should be considered very
importantly.
>
>> I have lots of people who I have known for years telling me their opinions
>> on things, that is hardly a conclusive reason to "fall into line".
>
> Fine. Don't fall into line. But don't carp about there not being a
> certificate, 'cos that is just bullshit.
Only to you. Your argument is yet to convince me, and the tone you are
employing to deflect my concerns isn't making your position any stronger.
>
>>>>> I, personally, would not do the course, or re-do the course, if it were
>>>>> an officially recognised, certified course.
>>>> Why not? Does the certificate in some way lessen the usefulness? Would
>>>> you
>>>> do/undertake training for motorcycle riding or the tutelage of others if it
>>>> were recognised and certified?
>>> Interesting you should ask this.
>>>
>>> Just over ten years ago, now, I undertook the training and got a licence
>>> to instruct folk in the riding of motorbikes.
>>>
>>> The instructor's licence needs to be renewed every five years. I renewed
>>> it once, at considerable expense, but when it was again due for renewal,
>>> in September of this year, I decided to let it lapse.
>>>
>>> The reason for this decision was that I had not actually used the
>>> licence to teach people for money, but holding the licence carried
>>> various potential legal problems.
>>
>> What, like not actually following current/best practice/legislation as in
>> accountability and professionalism?
>
> Yes, exactly.
? You wanted the qualification, but didn't want any of the responsibility?
>
> Accountability and professionalism are just weasel words for the buggers
> can sue you.
No, not at all. If I am paying someone for information, services, and the
like, I want to be sure I am getting what I pay for, and for me a
certificate (of some description) is one of many ways I can be satisfied in
that respect.
>
> Joe Soap citizen, without any certificates, only has to behave and act
> as a "reasonable" person, but, as soon as they have some bit of paper in
> their back pocket, the rules change. :-(
..And that is wrong how?
Are you talking about bikes and first aid, or is a too long a bow to extend
it to say, electrical installations, gas fittings, surgery...?
>
>>> Once the licence has lapsed, I'm back to being a motorbike rider, who
>>> may be bought beer in exchange for advice. :-)
>>>
>>> I also do a riding course every three years as a pupil, and the only
>>> thing I do with the certificate of attendance, is send it on to the
>>> Ulysses Club, for my cash back subsidy.
>>
>> So, you can see there is a benefit in obtaining a certificate.
>
> A certificate of attendance..... I really don't think you were rabbiting
> on about an attendance cert.
You never asked me what I was rabbiting on about! So there is no
certificate of attendance either?
>
>>>> At what point does the need for certification and the cost of a course
>>>> become an issue?
>>> I'm in the lucky position that the cost, within certain wide limits, is
>>> immaterial, and, now I no longer work or take part in CoastGuard
>>> activities, I don't need to care too much about certificates at all.
>>>
>>> I'll do a course if I am interested in what is being taught, but I
>>> probably won't bother keeping my Fist Aid certificate up to date.
>>
>> Does that mean not undertaking training, or undertaking training that comes
>> with out a certificate?
>
> Just in case I have been unclear, I don't give a toss for certificates.
Yet, you see the benefit in them for getting a discount or other "benefit".
>
> If I think a course is worth doing, and especially if folk I know
> recommend that course, I'll maybe do it, but, if it becomes part of a
> possible paper chase after something goes pear shaped, I might well give
> a false name. ;-)
My, my, what do they tell you in these meetings?
Hammo
Nev..
> <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> Hammo wrote:
>>> <Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Hammo wrote:
>>>>> 4afe65dd$0$21801$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
>>>>> question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
>>>>> wonder why.
>>>> I, too, wonder why you would question a course which doesn't have a
>>>> certificate attached to it.
>>> For a multitude of reasons.
>> Well, go on then, give the reasons.
>
> How long do you have? There are multiple papers/journal
> articles/professional organisations position statements on it. I have
> already acknowledged your comments that you have listed.
I'm sure he only wanted reasons why an injured motorcyclist lying on the
side of the road would be better served by someone who had done a
certificate level St Johns course rather than someone who had attended
non-certificate St Johns training specialising in common motorcycle
accident injuries. :)
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Hammo
On 15/11/09 10:16 PM, in article
GaKdnSurNqqxfmLX...@westnet.com.au, "Nev.."
<id...@mindless.com> wrote:
That might get tricky as I probably won't include any reports that are
provided by those outside of peer reviewed sources, not to mention the
qualitative/quantitative issues comparing certified vs non-certified
courses.
H
CrazyCam
<snip>
>> Well, go on then, give the reasons.
I've changed my mind.
> How long do you have?
Not enough to pursue this pointless discussion any father.
Nor do I have any more interest in it.
> ? You'll have to explain that one.
Do I?
> You'll need to define "serious" detail. Is this provided in hand outs,
> hands on demos, discussion of anatomy and observation of tissue damage, risk
> analysis, use of level of consciousness, change in response to stimulus,
> change in swelling, patency of airway, blood loss.......
No, no, the weekend course to become a brain surgeon is over in the U.S.
some place.
>> I have only attended two such courses, one, many years ago, organised by
>> the ACU for track marshals, and then this "specialised" Red Cross course.
My mistake there, I typed Red Cross, when I should have typed St.Johns.
> No, not at all. If I am paying someone for information, services, and the
> like, I want to be sure I am getting what I pay for, and for me a
> certificate (of some description) is one of many ways I can be satisfied in
> that respect.
Fine. Good for you.
If it makes you happy, chalk it up as a win for you.... <shrug>
regards,
CrazyCam
Nev..
>
>
>
>
>
> <id...@mindless.com> wrote:
> > Hammo wrote:
> >> <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>> Hammo wrote:
> >>>> <Crazy...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >>>>> Hammo wrote:
> >>>>>> 4afe65dd$0$21801$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
> >>>>> <snip>
>
> >>>>>> Good for you guys. I am all for people getting first aid training, I
> >>>>>> question _anything_ that doesn't have a certificate attached to it, and
> >>>>>> wonder why.
> >>>>> I, too, wonder why you would question a course which doesn't have a
> >>>>> certificate attached to it.
> >>>> For a multitude of reasons.
> >>> Well, go on then, give the reasons.
>
> >> How long do you have? There are multiple papers/journal
> >> articles/professional organisations position statements on it. I have
> >> already acknowledged your comments that you have listed.
>
> > I'm sure he only wanted reasons why an injured motorcyclist lying on the
> > side of the road would be better served by someone who had done a
> > certificate level St Johns course rather than someone who had attended
> > non-certificate St Johns training specialising in common motorcycle
> > accident injuries. :)
>
> > Nev..
> > '08 DL1000K8
>
> That might get tricky as I probably won't include any reports that are
> provided by those outside of peer reviewed sources, not to mention the
> qualitative/quantitative issues comparing certified vs non-certified
> courses.
What?? So all this time you've been making assertions as to the worth
or otherwise of first aid courses aimed at an audience of
motorcyclists with no peer approved journal published evidence with
which to substantiate your comments!!
Nev..
Hammo
On 16/11/09 11:26 AM, in article
94b97643-76c2-450f...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Nev.."
<id...@mindless.com> wrote:
I only asked why doesn't it have a certificate attached?
I didn't expect a Spanish Inquisition!
H
Hammo
On 16/11/09 7:08 AM, in article
4b005fc5$0$8696$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au, "CrazyCam"
<Craz...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Hammo wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Well, go on then, give the reasons.
>
> I've changed my mind.
>
>> How long do you have?
>
> Not enough to pursue this pointless discussion any father.
>
> Nor do I have any more interest in it.
>
>> ? You'll have to explain that one.
>
> Do I?
>
>> You'll need to define "serious" detail. Is this provided in hand outs,
>> hands on demos, discussion of anatomy and observation of tissue damage, risk
>> analysis, use of level of consciousness, change in response to stimulus,
>> change in swelling, patency of airway, blood loss.......
>
> No, no, the weekend course to become a brain surgeon is over in the U.S.
> some place.
No, I was being serious. I consider the things listed above as "serious"
detail (and far from comprehensive). You asked what first aid courses I had
attended and what detail they went into......
>
>>> I have only attended two such courses, one, many years ago, organised by
>>> the ACU for track marshals, and then this "specialised" Red Cross course.
>
> My mistake there, I typed Red Cross, when I should have typed St.Johns.
A mistake, fair enough.
>
>> No, not at all. If I am paying someone for information, services, and the
>> like, I want to be sure I am getting what I pay for, and for me a
>> certificate (of some description) is one of many ways I can be satisfied in
>> that respect.
>
> Fine. Good for you.
>
> If it makes you happy, chalk it up as a win for you.... <shrug>
As I stated many posts ago, I question courses that don't have certification
attached. Apart from your opinion as it being something that is worthwhile,
you would seem to be annoyed that I don't take your word for it being so.
Why would I chalk it up as a win? You have one view, I've another....
H
Fraser Johnston
"Zebee Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhfreru...@gmail.com...
> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:19:25 +1100
> Hammo <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/09 6:23 AM, in article slrnhfjfcv...@gmail.com, "Zebee
>> Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> because it's a specialist course in road trauma.
>>>
>>> It goes much more into what you need for the road crash than the
>>> normal certificate does.
>>>
>>> Zebee
>>
>> Errrr, right, that doesn't make any sense at all.
>>
>> If it is a specialist course, then why not certify it?
>>
>
> I expect because there's a lot of paperwork and no good reason.
>
> I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
> a piece of paper. So?
>
> It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
> roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
>
> So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
>
> Who would want to see it, and why?
You could slap it on a wound to try and control the bleeding.
Fraser
Fraser Johnston
"Hammo" <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote in message
news:C724CF62.2581%ha...@aapt.net.au...
When I did my Emergency First Responder course for my rescue diver qual I got a
shiny plastic card that I can show someone that is bleeding to death. I'm sure
they will be impressed.
Fraser
G-S
>
> When I did my Emergency First Responder course for my rescue diver qual I got a
> shiny plastic card that I can show someone that is bleeding to death. I'm sure
> they will be impressed.
>
> Fraser
>
See! You have a shiny plastic card... I have a cloth patch.
There are lots of courses out there without certificates ;-)
G-S
Fraser Johnston
"G-S" <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote in message
news:0312597d$0$1301$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
At least your cloth patch would soak up some blood. My card would only be good
if the victim was a 1%er wanting a few last lines of meth before they shuffled
off the mortal coil.
Fraser
G-S
Sounds useful to me... many motorcyclists regard Harley Davidsons as
exceptionally good boaty anchors, so I'd expect that you'd run into the
odd 1%er near his 'boat anchor' as you scuba dived :) [1]
G-S
[1] It might be hard for them to snort it off the shiny plastic card
beford it dissolved though [2]
[2] Ignoring the whole issue of needing to hold their breath anyway!
Peter Cremasco
To me, a certificate means two things:
a) the organisation providing the course has probably had to meet some
minimum standards and are more likely to be accredited trainers.
b) I have a higher degree of confidence that the person holding the
certificate is more likely to know what they are doing, as opposed so
someone simply asserting that they know what they are doing.
Nev..
>
> To me, a certificate means two things:
>
> a) the organisation providing the course has probably had to meet some
> minimum standards and are more likely to be accredited trainers.
But they were talking about courses run by St Johns Ambulance. Not
credible without a certificate?
> b) I have a higher degree of confidence that the person holding the
> certificate is more likely to know what they are doing, as opposed so
> someone simply asserting that they know what they are doing.
LOL. So you'd feel better receiving some emergency medical treatment
from someone who could produce a certificate before they commenced
assisting. :)
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Hammo
On 19/11/09 9:15 PM, in article 7mkk66F...@mid.individual.net, "Peter
Cremasco" <FirsName...@bigpond.com> wrote:
Yep, that is pretty much it.
Those trained, meet a minimum level and are capable and competent.
H
Hammo
On 19/11/09 9:28 PM, in article
nZSdnT1EqKtOgJjW...@westnet.com.au, "Nev.."
<id...@mindless.com> wrote:
> Peter Cremasco wrote:
>>
>> To me, a certificate means two things:
>>
>> a) the organisation providing the course has probably had to meet some
>> minimum standards and are more likely to be accredited trainers.
>
> But they were talking about courses run by St Johns Ambulance. Not
> credible without a certificate?
But the course isn't certified and is being touted as "specialist".
>
>> b) I have a higher degree of confidence that the person holding the
>> certificate is more likely to know what they are doing, as opposed so
>> someone simply asserting that they know what they are doing.
>
> LOL. So you'd feel better receiving some emergency medical treatment
> from someone who could produce a certificate before they commenced
> assisting. :)
Why does someone need to produce the certificate? It is about the course
being certified, i.e. the person has reached a minimum standard of
care/skill/competence. You keep doing the training until you are.....
H
Hammo
On 19/11/09 10:53 PM, in article 1sbag5lcu6pa9vehl...@4ax.com,
"GWD" <g...@nsw.chariot.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:18:37 +1100, Hammo wrote:
>
>> Yep, that is pretty much it.
>> Those trained, meet a minimum level and are capable and competent.
>
> If only that was the case in real life. I wonder how many
> backhoe/bobcat/tipper operators (and others) I've met with
> certificates from "reputable" places whose skill level was such that
> they were virtually unemployable.
> As Cam said, the world has gone certificate mad, to the extent that
> there is virtually no value in them except for the paper they are
> written on.
Yeah, it sucks to have standards.
H
atec7 7
what does suck is the huge pressure on those tutoring to allow
marginal passes which dependent on the thing being certified may well
cost a body part or life . Speaking personally the expectation of a pass
is often subject to over confidence in the system which is and will
continue to be greedy and corrupt .
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:18:37 +1100, Hammo wrote:
>
>>Those trained, meet a minimum level and are capable and competent.
>
> backhoe/bobcat/tipper operators (and others) I've met with
> certificates from "reputable" places whose skill level was such that
> they were virtually unemployable.
> As Cam said, the world has gone certificate mad, to the extent that
> there is virtually no value in them except for the paper they are
> written on.
A kid got bitten by a death adder here last week, and his mother knew
to get a compression bandage on him and to the nearest hospital, who
then shipped him off to Dubbo base. They were skeptical that it was a
death adder at all, despite the swab, because he displayed no symptoms
until they took his bandage off.
I was rather impressed that his mother did so well, given that I have
the same piece of paper she had, and yet I would have been running
around like a headless chicken (if I hadn't already fainted).
I get paid $16 extra a week for having a first aid certificate, but
it's utterly useless. However, work required me to take it. Because
everyone's got to be a building warden, a fire warden, and first aid
certificated. We can all wear the orange hard hat and direct everyone
else! Wheeee!
--
TimC
I hate mornings. I know they hate me back, too. -- Joel Gluth
Peter Cremasco
>> b) I have a higher degree of confidence that the person holding the
>> certificate is more likely to know what they are doing, as opposed so
>> someone simply asserting that they know what they are doing.
>
> LOL. So you'd feel better receiving some emergency medical treatment
> from someone who could produce a certificate before they commenced
> assisting. :)
You betcha. Knowing that someone has a great chance of knowing what they
are doing, would give me some degree of assurance.
"Hang on, Nev. I'll perform this emergency tracheotomy on you. She's
right, mate. I've seen it done on ER!"
Hyperbole, I know - but it seems to fit the forum. :)
Hammo
On 20/11/09 1:27 AM, in article 125864059...@hexane.ssi.swin.edu.au,
"TimC" <tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
> On 2009-11-19, GWD (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:18:37 +1100, Hammo wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, that is pretty much it.
>>> Those trained, meet a minimum level and are capable and competent.
>>
>> If only that was the case in real life. I wonder how many
>> backhoe/bobcat/tipper operators (and others) I've met with
>> certificates from "reputable" places whose skill level was such that
>> they were virtually unemployable.
>> As Cam said, the world has gone certificate mad, to the extent that
>> there is virtually no value in them except for the paper they are
>> written on.
>
> A kid got bitten by a death adder here last week, and his mother knew
> to get a compression bandage on him and to the nearest hospital, who
> then shipped him off to Dubbo base. They were skeptical that it was a
> death adder at all, despite the swab, because he displayed no symptoms
> until they took his bandage off.
Antivenom aint cheap! This is a good reference.....
http://www.toxinology.com/generic_static_files/cslavh_contents.html
>
> I was rather impressed that his mother did so well, given that I have
> the same piece of paper she had, and yet I would have been running
> around like a headless chicken (if I hadn't already fainted).
That's why you redo the training regularly. It is a skill that if you don't
use, it is more likely you will forget and or lose confidence in.
>
> I get paid $16 extra a week for having a first aid certificate, but
> it's utterly useless. However, work required me to take it. Because
> everyone's got to be a building warden, a fire warden, and first aid
> certificated. We can all wear the orange hard hat and direct everyone
> else! Wheeee!
The pay is useless or the certificate? Why not ask for more training?
H
theo
I have a cloth patch on my Firey jacket, but I had to get a
certificate before I could sew on the patch.
Theo
Zebee Johnstone
theo <theo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 5:26?pm, G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> See! ?You have a shiny plastic card... I have a cloth patch.
>>
>> There are lots of courses out there without certificates ;-)
>
> I have a cloth patch on my Firey jacket, but I had to get a
> certificate before I could sew on the patch.
That's because you are a boy, they reckon girls can do sew things on
to jackets without needing the long course.
Zebee
G-S
No... we're talking about certificates.
Being trained, meeting a minimum level and are capable and competent
isn't the same thing. [1]
G-S
[1] I saw some of the people who passed 'senior' first aid, and even
some of the ones who did level 3 seemed a bit lost. They ALL still
passed though (which is part of the problem I suspect). Not the
training, not the certification but the testing.
G-S
That part is all done on a computer database over here.
G-S
Hammo
On 21/11/09 5:20 PM, in article 031773f8$0$1270$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
"G-S" <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
? I don't know what you are talking about, GS.
A certificate is what you get when you complete a course that has been
certified to a particular level. This applies to the trainer and trainee.
...are you saying that no certificate would make it better?
H
Obmoto: Those who pass a "test" for whatever level of licence are capable
and competent for that level, some of them seem a little bit lost, but, they
are still gaining skills.
Andrew
The sewing?
--
Regards
Andrew
Hammo
On 21/11/09 5:55 PM, in article
s9MNm.56422$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au, "Andrew"
<amckNOS...@telNOSPAMstra.com> wrote:
Computers are sew handy.
H
CrazyCam
<applause>
regards,
CrazyCam
Nev..
If you keep attending the courses, and failing, you won't get a
certificate, or $16/week, but you can insist to your employer that you
keep spend 2 days per week attending St Js training until you pass. :)
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8
Kevin Gleeson
I get where GS is coming from. For sure you have lifted the level of
most of the passees, but there are some people who get the certificate
who just don't get it and I'd hate to see them try and resuscitate
someone. They could possibly do more damage than good. There has to be
a cut-off level.
But playing devils advocate I guess trying is better than nothing if
you are watching someone possibly die.
Flip side again: You see someone working on a patient and they say "I
have a St Johns certificate" I'd be inclined to leave them to it. Too
many cooks and all that. But my Rescue Diver training which did
involve a St Johns course even if it was years ago, along with other
medical training I have had with car racing and flying proaby means
I'd do betterer than some of the recently certified people who have
just been handed the piece of paper just because they did the time.
It's a hard call.
Hammo
On 21/11/09 7:07 PM, in article 4k7fg5p40rbrfvd8m...@4ax.com,
"Kevin Gleeson" <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
Hmmm, it would seem that there are some different points of view going on
here. One is the volunteer who happens across an accident and assists,
another is a employee who has the role of first aid person and the other are
people who are part of volunteer agencies that require a level of first aid
training. There may be more, feel free to add in others.
The most common way to get experience/exposure for people is via courses run
by a number of organisations.
These organisations are recognised trainers (i.e. Recognised Training
Organisations, RTO) and the course involves theory, practice and assessment.
There is a line drawn in the sand as to what the minimum will be and that
the training, practice and assessment will be uniform, allowing it to be a
nationally recognised qualification.
> But playing devils advocate I guess trying is better than nothing if
> you are watching someone possibly die.
Yes, absolutely. No arguments from me there.
I feel that everybody should have access to a first aid course that has a
recognised qualification attached. See below for more.....
>
> Flip side again: You see someone working on a patient and they say "I
> have a St Johns certificate" I'd be inclined to leave them to it. Too
> many cooks and all that. But my Rescue Diver training which did
> involve a St Johns course even if it was years ago, along with other
> medical training I have had with car racing and flying proaby means
> I'd do betterer than some of the recently certified people who have
> just been handed the piece of paper just because they did the time.
> It's a hard call.
First aid is an important skill and has many implications for the community.
The obvious one is saving lives. There is also the monetary benefit of a
live saved vs a fatality. There is also some very real risks. Due to these
risks, it would make sense to have proper training, practice and assessment.
I am yet to see how attending a certified course in first aid will open a
can of worms for anyone offering assistance in a volunteer capacity.
H
Kevin Gleeson
I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying the piece of paper doesn't
guarantee that person is qualified if they simply do the course. I
reckon it would be great if we all had to do the course regardless.
But if someone was trying to revive me I'd prefer they had done the
course, even if they were pretty useless at it. It's better than
nothing. But if there is someone there that actually is better at it,
how do you qualify those levels? Like I said, if I was in a situation
where someone said "It's OK - I'm St Johns trained". I'd probably let
them go for it, because they are probably more recently trained than
me. But how do I know they are better at it? I don't think there is
really any solution to that question.
Hammo
On 21/11/09 8:12 PM, in article 98bfg554meki12t9p...@4ax.com,
"Kevin Gleeson" <keving...@imagine-it.com.au> wrote:
Are we still talking about volunteer status? There is nothing stopping
people from undertaking higher levels of training. What might stop people
doing that is the cost. It is also one of those skills that if aren't used,
you'll, well you know, forget.
The reality of being engaged in CPR and EAR is that it is very tiring and if
more than one person there, it makes sense to change roles often. This
would address your concerns as to what to do about who does what.
The "push hard, push often" mantra that has been deployed in recent years
w.r.t. CPR, acknowledges that people who don't practice it often get stuck
in the "I'm not good at this and what do I have to do'? Hopefully the days
of trainers that penalised people who don't measure out the "correct" place
and adopt the "correct" hand orientation are long gone.
There will be times that regardless of the level of training, the outcome
may not be what the volunteer (assuming we are still talking that level) and
the "victim" want. I think it is also important to consider what impact
that may have on the volunteer, the community, the victim's family etc.
This goes beyond mental health, where the life-long legacies of blood born
diseases are a reality. I do not consider legal issues to be a factor when
a volunteer offers assistance.
H
Doug Jewell
>
>
> On 14/11/09 7:03 AM, in article slrnhfreru...@gmail.com, "Zebee
> Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In aus.motorcycles on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:19:25 +1100
>> Hammo <ha...@aapt.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/09 6:23 AM, in article slrnhfjfcv...@gmail.com, "Zebee
>>> Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> because it's a specialist course in road trauma.
>>>>
>>>> It goes much more into what you need for the road crash than the
>>>> normal certificate does.
>>>>
>>>> Zebee
>>> Errrr, right, that doesn't make any sense at all.
>>>
>>> If it is a specialist course, then why not certify it?
>>>
>> I expect because there's a lot of paperwork and no good reason.
>
> No good reason?
>> I mean what does a "certificate" mean? You do, I vaguely recall, get
>> a piece of paper. So?
>
> Really? Rhetorical or, you don't know?
>> It's not going to fulfill the requirements to get your name in the
>> roster at work as the first aid guy but it's not aimed at that, is it.
>>
>> So what would this piece of paper do? What use would it be to you?
>
> For me, and others, lots.
>> Who would want to see it, and why?
>
> Welcome to world outside of yours!
What world would that be, the public service?
These sorts of certifications mean squat in the real world
outside the public service. For some reason government
bureaucrats get wet at the thought of creating paperwork and
issuing certifications and rules and regulations. Out in the
real world, people just get the job done and only fuck
around with the bureaucratic bullshit sufficient to keep the
government off their back.
I'm certified as a workplace Health & Safety Officer. 2
weeks that I was out of the workplace to do a bullshit
course that pretty much taught me nothing that common sense
hadn't already imparted, and a bill for a grand and a half
for the boss, as well as my wages for 2 weeks that I was
unproductive. All that to get a bit of paper that makes the
department happy because he has 30+ employees. Probably the
most enlightening thing of the whole exercise is how
meaningless a lot of public servants are. The useless cunt
that taught the course was also working for Emergency
Services as a health and safety officer. A more useless
waste of oxygen I don't think I've ever encountered. I don't
know what this useless shit earns, but I'm sure he'd be
sponging at least $60k/annum off the taxpayer. He spent most
of his time in bragging about how important he was as the
WHSO for the local Emergency Services Dept. The most
important task he had (and he said this with all
seriousness, and passed around the final report) was that he
spent several months of research in order to produce a 16
page illustrated guide on the safe use of the gas lift
chairs used in their Comm's department. WOTTA FUCKING WASTE
OF MONEY!
No bloody wonder QLD now needs a fuel tax and a huge hike in
rego fees. It's because the public service payroll is full
of useless cunts like that. First step in running a balanced
budget should be to go through the public service and sack
everyone who has no useful purpose.
>> Zebee
>
> Hammo
>
--
What is the difference between a duck?
Hammo
On 21/11/09 10:25 PM, in article
8ZudnTacp-fcU5rW...@westnet.com.au, "Doug Jewell"
<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
Could be, but not my world.
> These sorts of certifications mean squat in the real world
> outside the public service. For some reason government
> bureaucrats get wet at the thought of creating paperwork and
> issuing certifications and rules and regulations. Out in the
> real world, people just get the job done and only fuck
> around with the bureaucratic bullshit sufficient to keep the
> government off their back.
That is your opinion, an interesting one, especially if all competencies
fall into the classification of "bureaucratic bullshit".
> I'm certified as a workplace Health & Safety Officer. 2
> weeks that I was out of the workplace to do a bullshit
> course that pretty much taught me nothing that common sense
> hadn't already imparted, and a bill for a grand and a half
> for the boss, as well as my wages for 2 weeks that I was
> unproductive. All that to get a bit of paper that makes the
> department happy because he has 30+ employees.
You don't agree that OH&S is an important issue?
> Probably the
> most enlightening thing of the whole exercise is how
> meaningless a lot of public servants are. The useless cunt
> that taught the course was also working for Emergency
> Services as a health and safety officer. A more useless
> waste of oxygen I don't think I've ever encountered. I don't
> know what this useless shit earns, but I'm sure he'd be
> sponging at least $60k/annum off the taxpayer. He spent most
> of his time in bragging about how important he was as the
> WHSO for the local Emergency Services Dept. The most
> important task he had (and he said this with all
> seriousness, and passed around the final report) was that he
> spent several months of research in order to produce a 16
> page illustrated guide on the safe use of the gas lift
> chairs used in their Comm's department. WOTTA FUCKING WASTE
> OF MONEY!
> No bloody wonder QLD now needs a fuel tax and a huge hike in
> rego fees. It's because the public service payroll is full
> of useless cunts like that. First step in running a balanced
> budget should be to go through the public service and sack
> everyone who has no useful purpose.
Not sure what this has to do with first aid though.
H
Doug Jewell
yourself this question - if the government didn't have in
place all the red tape over cerifications for all sorts of
petty things, would you be so particular about whether the
person was certified, or would you be more concerned about
whether they could actually do the task at hand?
I have employees in my office who are "certified" with
various business skills, some who have university degrees,
and some with no qualifications whatsoever. All of them took
about the same amount of time to train, all of them are now
competent in their job. In a past life I worked in a fitting
and turning workshop. We had certified tradesmen as well as
a couple of old salts with no formal training but who had
been doing it for a long time. They knew far more than the
certified tradesmen. Officially I could only get the
certified tradesmen to train apprentices. Unofficially it
was the old salts training both the tradesmen and the
apprentices.
When it comes to first-aid, I'd prefer someone who has done
a training course with a reputable organisation, where the
course is specific to situations likely to be encountered in
the particular scenario being dealt with, over a generic
"Level 1" certification any day.
Rather than sending a few people from my office every 24
months to a 2 day course, I'd rather get someone from St
John's in for a couple of hours after work over a few days,
to teach ALL the staff the basics of dealing with the types
of things likely to be encountered in our office situation.
Such training would have greater applicibility to my
workplace, would probably be cheaper (although that would be
a secondary concern), and would be an improvement to the
scenario of what happens when one first aid officer is on
leave and the other is sick. Of course they wouldn't have a
certificate that keeps the government happy, but the reality
of the situation would be my office would be safer.
>
>> These sorts of certifications mean squat in the real world
>> outside the public service. For some reason government
>> bureaucrats get wet at the thought of creating paperwork and
>> issuing certifications and rules and regulations. Out in the
>> real world, people just get the job done and only fuck
>> around with the bureaucratic bullshit sufficient to keep the
>> government off their back.
>
> That is your opinion, an interesting one, especially if all competencies
> fall into the classification of "bureaucratic bullshit".
there is a huge difference between "competent" and
"certified", and most of the certifications are simply there
to deal with red-tape, not proving real-world competency.
Take a drivers licence. It is a certificate that says that
someone has proven over the course of half an hour that they
are able to change gears, put their indicator on at the
appropriate time, keep the car travelling roughly in the
direction they want it to, and do a reverse parallel park,
and that they have then paid a fee to the government every
few years. Doesn't say anything about whether they are
actually competent to drive.
>
>> I'm certified as a workplace Health & Safety Officer. 2
>> weeks that I was out of the workplace to do a bullshit
>> course that pretty much taught me nothing that common sense
>> hadn't already imparted, and a bill for a grand and a half
>> for the boss, as well as my wages for 2 weeks that I was
>> unproductive. All that to get a bit of paper that makes the
>> department happy because he has 30+ employees.
>
> You don't agree that OH&S is an important issue?
I don't agree that the crap taught in the course is an
important issue, and I don't agree that a business needs to
spend a small fortune on having a WHSO certified just
because they hit a magic number of 30 employees. Once again,
relevance is the issue too. I don't need to sit for 2 weeks
going over statutes regarding the safe handling of
explosives, being taught by someone who has polished chairs
with his bum all his life, to know that it is a bad idea
for one of my staff to run a power cord across the office
floor.
Furthermore, other than covering the legal requirements, I
don't believe the course and the corresponding expense
taught anything that a little bit of common sense shouldn't
already have imparted. I know I'm straying away from
first-aid here, but my point is that having practical useful
knowledge is far better than a certificate.
If it's me laying bleeding on the ground I couldn't give a
rat's arse whether my mate has a certificate or not, all I
care about is if he is going to a) improve my situation, b)
keep the situation neutral, or c) make things worse, until
the ambo's arrive. If he has gone to a course that deals
with the specifics of motorcycling, such as securing the
area, and whether or not to remove the helmet and how to do
so, then IMO that is far more valuable knowledge than if he
is certified to perform CPR. While having someone certified
to perform CPR or a number of other first aid skills might
be an advantage in some situations, I'd prefer someone with
the aforementioned knowledge over those skills.
>
<snip my comments about a useless prick>
>
>
> Not sure what this has to do with first aid though.
The point is, this bloke has certifications coming out his
arse, and furthermore is registered to certify more people,
yet he is more useless than the proverbial tits on a bull,
and collects a taxpayer funded wage to do it.
> H
Hammo
On 22/11/09 8:10 AM, in article
96-dneEGRI-rypXW...@westnet.com.au, "Doug Jewell"
<a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote:
I'm particular about certification for any organisation that is offering a
course that claims to cover x, y and z.
>
> I have employees in my office who are "certified" with
> various business skills, some who have university degrees,
> and some with no qualifications whatsoever. All of them took
> about the same amount of time to train, all of them are now
> competent in their job. In a past life I worked in a fitting
> and turning workshop. We had certified tradesmen as well as
> a couple of old salts with no formal training but who had
> been doing it for a long time. They knew far more than the
> certified tradesmen. Officially I could only get the
> certified tradesmen to train apprentices. Unofficially it
> was the old salts training both the tradesmen and the
> apprentices.
I see what you are saying, however, you still ascertain that people needed
training to be competent. How is their competency established? By someone
who knows what they are doling? Being able to complete task to a certain
level? This also comes back to what is acceptable in house vs what is being
rolled out for an industry or nationwide.
>
> When it comes to first-aid, I'd prefer someone who has done
> a training course with a reputable organisation, where the
> course is specific to situations likely to be encountered in
> the particular scenario being dealt with, over a generic
> "Level 1" certification any day.
Task orientated learning is great to address a certain issue and get basic
skills. It is not so great if things happen outside of those parameters. I
believe you comment on this regarding driving licences.
>
> Rather than sending a few people from my office every 24
> months to a 2 day course, I'd rather get someone from St
> John's in for a couple of hours after work over a few days,
> to teach ALL the staff the basics of dealing with the types
> of things likely to be encountered in our office situation.
Yes, that is a much better idea. However, you mention your lack of
productivity when undertaking training, so who is going to pay for the "down
time" when all the people in the workplace are being trained?
> Such training would have greater applicibility to my
> workplace, would probably be cheaper (although that would be
> a secondary concern), and would be an improvement to the
> scenario of what happens when one first aid officer is on
> leave and the other is sick. Of course they wouldn't have a
> certificate that keeps the government happy, but the reality
> of the situation would be my office would be safer.
Yes, training is expensive, there are costs related to cessation of
productivity during that training and it needs to be relevant to the
environment.
Why do you think there is a need for the certificate? Is it purely to keep
the government happy?
>>
>>> These sorts of certifications mean squat in the real world
>>> outside the public service. For some reason government
>>> bureaucrats get wet at the thought of creating paperwork and
>>> issuing certifications and rules and regulations. Out in the
>>> real world, people just get the job done and only fuck
>>> around with the bureaucratic bullshit sufficient to keep the
>>> government off their back.
>>
>> That is your opinion, an interesting one, especially if all competencies
>> fall into the classification of "bureaucratic bullshit".
> there is a huge difference between "competent" and
> "certified", and most of the certifications are simply there
> to deal with red-tape, not proving real-world competency.
How so? If some one is competent they are competent and have attained a
minimum level in that skill, being confident with those skills is another
matter.
> Take a drivers licence. It is a certificate that says that
> someone has proven over the course of half an hour that they
> are able to change gears, put their indicator on at the
> appropriate time, keep the car travelling roughly in the
> direction they want it to, and do a reverse parallel park,
> and that they have then paid a fee to the government every
> few years. Doesn't say anything about whether they are
> actually competent to drive.
They have reached a minimum level of competence. It is somewhat unfair to
assume that a person is now magically able to do the same as "old salts" if
they have been doing it for half an hour. Is this why there is graduated
licences? It gives people to do certain things to a certain level and then
have the option of going further.
>>
>>> I'm certified as a workplace Health & Safety Officer. 2
>>> weeks that I was out of the workplace to do a bullshit
>>> course that pretty much taught me nothing that common sense
>>> hadn't already imparted, and a bill for a grand and a half
>>> for the boss, as well as my wages for 2 weeks that I was
>>> unproductive. All that to get a bit of paper that makes the
>>> department happy because he has 30+ employees.
>>
>> You don't agree that OH&S is an important issue?
> I don't agree that the crap taught in the course is an
> important issue, and I don't agree that a business needs to
> spend a small fortune on having a WHSO certified just
> because they hit a magic number of 30 employees. Once again,
> relevance is the issue too. I don't need to sit for 2 weeks
> going over statutes regarding the safe handling of
> explosives, being taught by someone who has polished chairs
> with his bum all his life, to know that it is a bad idea
> for one of my staff to run a power cord across the office
> floor.
Yes, it may be difficult to see the relevance in some courses and I can
understand that. If your workplaces handles explosives and you are the OHS
rep, I can see significant benefit in understanding the statutes. It goes
back to why there is a need for such training, and do you really think it is
all about keeping the government happy?
>
> Furthermore, other than covering the legal requirements, I
> don't believe the course and the corresponding expense
> taught anything that a little bit of common sense shouldn't
> already have imparted. I know I'm straying away from
> first-aid here, but my point is that having practical useful
> knowledge is far better than a certificate.
I follow your argument on a cost-benefit concern, but why do you think the
training is required? Also, how do you get the knowledge if you have never
had the training?
>
> If it's me laying bleeding on the ground I couldn't give a
> rat's arse whether my mate has a certificate or not, all I
> care about is if he is going to a) improve my situation, b)
> keep the situation neutral, or c) make things worse, until
> the ambo's arrive. If he has gone to a course that deals
> with the specifics of motorcycling, such as securing the
> area, and whether or not to remove the helmet and how to do
> so, then IMO that is far more valuable knowledge than if he
> is certified to perform CPR. While having someone certified
> to perform CPR or a number of other first aid skills might
> be an advantage in some situations, I'd prefer someone with
> the aforementioned knowledge over those skills.
The issue is a bit bigger than just you laying on the ground. It is of
concern that you have been injured at work and why. If due to a failure of
something, there is a chance that your work mates may be harmed assisting
you. Regular training allows those steps to safely assist someone to be
gone over. Part of making sure it has been presented properly, it is an
idea to have set standards.
>>
> <snip my comments about a useless prick>
I wasn't in your training, so I don't have any point of view on this other
than yours.
>>
>>
>> Not sure what this has to do with first aid though.
> The point is, this bloke has certifications coming out his
> arse, and furthermore is registered to certify more people,
> yet he is more useless than the proverbial tits on a bull,
> and collects a taxpayer funded wage to do it.
It is unfortunate that you had an experience that was less than your
expectations, there are things you can do. If you are unhappy with the
training, why not put your concerns to the training organisation? I wasn't
in your training, so I don't have any point of view on this other than
yours.
G-S
Computerized sewing machine have been made by Janome for a couple of
decades now... do try and keep up :)
G-S
G-S
I'm saying that a certificate isn't a good indicator of competence when
the testing procedure is flawed, as it is in many first aid courses.
> H
>
> Obmoto: Those who pass a "test" for whatever level of licence are capable
> and competent for that level, some of them seem a little bit lost, but, they
> are still gaining skills.
>
Capable and competent implies a good knowledge of the skill set, being
'lost' implies poor knowledge of the skill set.
If someone passes the test but is still 'lost' then the certification
procedure needs to be improved.
In my experience much of the St. Johns certification procedure is lacking.
Given that the certification procedure is flawed it logically follows
that the certificates you place so much faith in are also flawed.
Does that mean that an uncertified course is better?
No, it just means that you can't assume anything about the relative
merits of either the certified or uncertified courses one way or the
other without any certainty.
G-S
G-S
> Hopefully the days
> of trainers that penalised people who don't measure out the "correct" place
> and adopt the "correct" hand orientation are long gone.
Nope.
Kevin Gleeson
Can't be bothered going back through the thread, but someone made the
reference to driver training. They have the licence, but there is no
guarantee of their proficiency. And, like with first aid, there are
lives at stake.
Is there a good answer?
I'm all for people doing St Johns courses or any bloody thing that
gives them a clue. But I'd prefer to have an intelligent person with
common sense looking after me in an accident than a clueless fuckwit
with a bit of paper.
Hammo
On 22/11/09 11:28 AM, in article 031872d8$0$1383$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
"G-S" <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
No, it implies it to you. Being "lost" can mean and be due to a number of
factors, poor knowledge is but one possibility.
>
> If someone passes the test but is still 'lost' then the certification
> procedure needs to be improved.
Why? Define lost, level of certification and to the extent procedure needs
improving.
>
> In my experience much of the St. Johns certification procedure is lacking.
Have you fed that back to them? What did they say? Do you still use them
for training?
>
> Given that the certification procedure is flawed it logically follows
> that the certificates you place so much faith in are also flawed.
That is a big jump there, you from "your experience" to a "logical"
conclusion! You mean to imply that I am aware of what ever issues you have,
and we haven't established if you have recorded your concerns yet?!
>
> Does that mean that an uncertified course is better?
>
> No, it just means that you can't assume anything about the relative
> merits of either the certified or uncertified courses one way or the
> other without any certainty.
Nice try, but you have assumed. One (certified course) has set guidelines,
the other, well, who knows. If the certified course does not met its
criteria, there is redress, the other, well, it wasn't promising to do
anything, was it?
H
theo
> theo <theodo...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
> > I have a cloth patch on my Firey jacket, but I had to get a
> > certificate before I could sew on the patch.
>
> That's because you are a boy, they reckon girls can do sew things on
> to jackets without needing the long course.
Hey, I even know the PIN for Helen's fancy sewing machine, and I was
the last person to use it.
Theo
G-S
Other factors such as?
>> If someone passes the test but is still 'lost' then the certification
>> procedure needs to be improved.
>
> Why? Define lost, level of certification and to the extent procedure needs
> improving.
The levels of certification were itemised earlier in the thread when I
posted, I was talking about St. Johns mainly about 'senior' and not the
'leval 3' certification.
The 'leval 3' certification deals with some (but not all) of the issues
in the 'senior' certification but for various claimed reasons St. Johns
persist with the 'senior' certification.
>> In my experience much of the St. Johns certification procedure is lacking.
>
> Have you fed that back to them? What did they say? Do you still use them
> for training?
Their response was a pre printed form letter stating simply that our
letter had been received. Further letter merely generated a follow up
form letter saying that our letter had already been received and read.
No comment either positive or negative was made about the points in
those letters.
>> Given that the certification procedure is flawed it logically follows
>> that the certificates you place so much faith in are also flawed.
>
> That is a big jump there, you from "your experience" to a "logical"
> conclusion! You mean to imply that I am aware of what ever issues you have,
> and we haven't established if you have recorded your concerns yet?!
See above for 'recorded'. My experience relates to outsourcing a
substantial number of training places from an internal industry
organization RTO which previously performed first aid training to St.
Johns and the subsequent issues that resulted. We aren't talking about
my personal experience 'doing' a course. I was not a trainer but I was
on the RTO training committee and I do hold a current level 3
certificate plus some other related quals.
>> Does that mean that an uncertified course is better?
>> No, it just means that you can't assume anything about the relative
>> merits of either the certified or uncertified courses one way or the
>> other without any certainty.
>
> Nice try, but you have assumed. One (certified course) has set guidelines,
> the other, well, who knows. If the certified course does not met its
> criteria, there is redress, the other, well, it wasn't promising to do
> anything, was it?
> H
>
You have also assumed that if the certified course does not meet
specified criteria that there is redress. That has not been my
experience at all. St. Johns (in particular) seem to practice a
particularly insular and unresponsive form of bureaucracy that is
extremely unresponsive to outside input.
Look, I'm not saying that uncertified courses are automatically good (or
bad for that matter), I'm just saying that certified ones aren't
automatically good either and that each course should be judged on it's
own merits and that the most honest way to do that is to listen to the
people who've actually done the course and not to the people who have a
vested interest in making people believe that their particular bits of
paper have some inherent value.
G-S
Zebee Johnstone
G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
> Look, I'm not saying that uncertified courses are automatically good (or
> bad for that matter), I'm just saying that certified ones aren't
> automatically good either and that each course should be judged on it's
> own merits and that the most honest way to do that is to listen to the
> people who've actually done the course and not to the people who have a
> vested interest in making people believe that their particular bits of
> paper have some inherent value.
And if necessary ask people why they think the course is good.
Did it cover scenarios you - with your personal knowledge of the space
it is supposed to cover - think likely?
Did it cover ones you think unlikely or unrelated?
Did the instructor seem knowledgeable by experience rather than just
training?
Were the techniques taught ones that you think you could do if you
found yourself in that situation?
Did the instructor talk about limitations of what was taught?
Did the instructor talk about difficulties you might strike?
Was it too theoretical, was there enough theory?
The answers I give for the one I did are:
Yes. The scenarios covered were your basic sportbike crashes. If
your mate has come off, how do you assess what's been damaged, and how
do you deal with it. Mostly aimed at road bikes rather than dirt (no
mention of dealing with dusty or muddy conditions that I recall) but
usable by dirt riders in the main.
No. All the things he talked about seemed likely to me, and there
were no techniques or problems talked about that weren't crash
related. Some of the injuries mentioned, such as penetration injuries
surprised me as I'd never heard of someone having a mirror stalk
inserted forcibly but I agree they could happen.
Yes. The bod running it had been a rider himself for many years, and
had attended a lot of crashes as an ambo. He'd also dealt with
exactly the scenario he was teaching: out with a bunch of friends and
someone gets hurt. Including once on a desert trip which was
seriously difficult because the ambulance wasn't coming....
Yes. It's all fairly simple stuff as long as you go through the
sequence given in the right order so you handle the most important
things first. CPR was taught which is a fairly difficult thing
really and the instructor said it wasn't likely you'd be able to
do it well after this one short lesson, and that few casualties in
need of it survive even if experienced users do it, especially if
the heart stops. I felt confident I could do the non-CPR stuff.
(I've had several bouts of training in CPR and didn't feel confident
after any of them....)
Yes. Aside from CPR he made it clear that this was how to stabilise
someone until the ambulance got there, so you pretty much kept them
right where they were in the position they were in as much as
possible. NOthing about moving them or longer term care like changing
dressings. I think there was a quick rundown of splinting but only
quick.
Yes. Problems with helmets if the person isn't breathing and you have
to get them off as modern helmets are hard to remove. Problems with
traffic, with multiple injuries. Problems with feeling inadequate
especially if the person dies or is crippled. Problems with not
being able to do everything at once.
Dunno theory is really a problem in this case. We practiced
everything he talked about except dealing with penetration wounds
which are sorta hard to simulate. It seemed a solidly practical
course with enough "and this is why" to show why it made sense.
Zebee
Hammo
Really? Fear, anxiety, adrenaline, grief.....
>
>>> If someone passes the test but is still 'lost' then the certification
>>> procedure needs to be improved.
>>
>> Why? Define lost, level of certification and to the extent procedure needs
>> improving.
>
> The levels of certification were itemised earlier in the thread when I
> posted, I was talking about St. Johns mainly about 'senior' and not the
> 'leval 3' certification.
>
> The 'leval 3' certification deals with some (but not all) of the issues
> in the 'senior' certification but for various claimed reasons St. Johns
> persist with the 'senior' certification.
>
>>> In my experience much of the St. Johns certification procedure is lacking.
>>
>> Have you fed that back to them? What did they say? Do you still use them
>> for training?
>
> Their response was a pre printed form letter stating simply that our
> letter had been received. Further letter merely generated a follow up
> form letter saying that our letter had already been received and read.
> No comment either positive or negative was made about the points in
> those letters.
But do you still use them for training?
>
>>> Given that the certification procedure is flawed it logically follows
>>> that the certificates you place so much faith in are also flawed.
>>
>> That is a big jump there, you from "your experience" to a "logical"
>> conclusion! You mean to imply that I am aware of what ever issues you have,
>> and we haven't established if you have recorded your concerns yet?!
>
> See above for 'recorded'. My experience relates to outsourcing a
> substantial number of training places from an internal industry
> organization RTO which previously performed first aid training to St.
> Johns and the subsequent issues that resulted. We aren't talking about
> my personal experience 'doing' a course. I was not a trainer but I was
> on the RTO training committee and I do hold a current level 3
> certificate plus some other related quals.
? You didn't experience the concern? Is it related to first aid training
or another issue?
>
>>> Does that mean that an uncertified course is better?
>
>>> No, it just means that you can't assume anything about the relative
>>> merits of either the certified or uncertified courses one way or the
>>> other without any certainty.
>>
>> Nice try, but you have assumed. One (certified course) has set guidelines,
>> the other, well, who knows. If the certified course does not met its
>> criteria, there is redress, the other, well, it wasn't promising to do
>> anything, was it?
>> H
>>
>
> You have also assumed that if the certified course does not meet
> specified criteria that there is redress. That has not been my
> experience at all. St. Johns (in particular) seem to practice a
> particularly insular and unresponsive form of bureaucracy that is
> extremely unresponsive to outside input.
I'm sorry to hear that that has been your experience. Do you still use
them, and if so, why?
>
> Look, I'm not saying that uncertified courses are automatically good (or
> bad for that matter), I'm just saying that certified ones aren't
> automatically good either and that each course should be judged on it's
> own merits and that the most honest way to do that is to listen to the
> people who've actually done the course and not to the people who have a
> vested interest in making people believe that their particular bits of
> paper have some inherent value.
I find it hard to agree that you judge the individual courses on its merit,
if, first aid training is supposed to be a uniform thing. From your
concerns raised, the RTO in question sounds like they should be avoided,
however, you haven't actually clarified what if any of the issues were/are
other than their processes are not what you like.
I asked why the course that was being advertised and endorsed as a good
course here did not include a certificate. The responses I got were
challenges to attend it myself and that certificate courses cause some
concern about legal implications. There was further talk about it being
specialised, yet no information as to why this was the case. It was pointed
out that it covered helmet removal and motorcycles........and with out any
certification, would it really be _that_ specialised?
Do the pieces of paper matter more than the person's "honest" opinion? Yes.
Why? As you described above, despite your reservation, RTOs are set up to
deliver training to a prescribed level. I'd ask a trainer or the
organisation what value the course has. A fellow student may be able to
provide advice if the trainer was any good, as much as what bike is the
best. I'm happy to make up my own mind.
H
Hammo
On 23/11/09 6:49 AM, in article slrnhgj5e4...@gmail.com, "Zebee
Johnstone" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:25:49 +1100
> G-S <ge...@castbus.com.au> wrote:
>> Look, I'm not saying that uncertified courses are automatically good (or
>> bad for that matter), I'm just saying that certified ones aren't
>> automatically good either and that each course should be judged on it's
>> own merits and that the most honest way to do that is to listen to the
>> people who've actually done the course and not to the people who have a
>> vested interest in making people believe that their particular bits of
>> paper have some inherent value.
>
> And if necessary ask people why they think the course is good.
>
Some aren't going to bother, especially if they see no value in the course.
Personal opinion is something that might be of value, to others, it won't
count for much.
> Dunno theory is really a problem in this case. We practiced
> everything he talked about except dealing with penetration wounds
> which are sorta hard to simulate. It seemed a solidly practical
> course with enough "and this is why" to show why it made sense.
The CPR covered/included EAR as well? From your description, not for me and
it based on it being an 8 hour course, possibly not many others.
H
Nev..
Me either. Anything less than a university medical degree (with a
certificate of course) is a waste of time and not to be bothered with
and I wouldn't listen to any advice given on the subject by anyone who
hasn't got one.
Nev..
'08 DL1000K8