What A.M. says about qualifications not being the be-all and end-all is a good point in my opinion. It's the combination of academic stuff, skills and relevant experience that matters. The professional interview is obviously similar to other types of interview undertaken by institutions to assess competence and gather evidence of such and is actually what one should expect to undergo in the future to be passed as a fully qualified, registered Clinical Technologist, I think.
It's based on an idea that the majority of professions share to some extent. What some should not expect, however, is that the "old-boys network" should extend beyond the current profession back to their previous profession to accept them automatically as fully qualified individuals into the new profession, unless the previous professional role is very closely related to the current one.
Not on day-one, not unless they meet ALL of the requirements that other fully qualified individuals have - otherwise there is bias, preference, unfairness and effectively a system of patronage in action. Lets leave that sort of system to the Georgian Navy of the late 18th Century shall we? Some period where relevant experience is obtained and an additional interview or assessment of competence in the new career must be necessary, even when moving between closely related professions, e.g. those such as electronics related or mechanical engineering related roles.
Perhaps a "fast-track" method to obtain professional status in a new career is acceptable to the majority? There is still, however, the basic issue of qualifications, assessment of competence and recognition of prior skills. Lets cut to the real chase here; let's decide what's the minimum qualification and what is the subject, what skills do you need, how is competence assessed, how long is relevant experience before you're accepted as a fully qualified individual, whats relevant skills, what's relevant experience, etc, etc.
These are the issues that are probably being honed by VRCT, NHS and HPC as we speak but we can't get away from the fact that not everyone currently employed in responsible posts that one would normally expect to be fulfilled by a fully qualified individual, in the ideal scenario, will meet all the requirements of the VRCT. Some individuals will therefore have to "jump through hoops" to become fully qualified if regualtion is applied. If they are committed they will - the others will just cry "foul" as ever.
What some want, it seems to me, those who are currently tradesmen, technicians and non-professionals, is to moan about not being accepted as a professional in the NHS now that regulation is on the horizon and get their own way. I don't know any engineering profession that will accept ONC as the minimum qualification, not since about 1977, anyhow. IEE - M.Eng or B.Eng(Hons) 2:1+ until recently for C.Eng; IIE - Degree for IEng; IPEM - degree for IEng; plus all the other requirements on training and skills, plus an interview.
Perhaps some ex-trades and techncians are forgetting the level that the HPC is pitching at? Not EngTech for fully qualified but at IEng level I suspect. Those already with IEng have the basis for the training and academic element but still need relevant experience to give evidence of competence and CPD.
How long would it take for me to be considered fully qualified as an avionics engineer if I moved from the NHS next week? Would I even be considered for an interview to get my foot in the door? How desperate is the aviation industry for skills? How well regulated is the industry? Would my ONC, HNC and first-class B.Eng(Hons) in Electronics Engineering make me fully qualified and able to pass the CAA interview on day-one?
How long would I need to work for to gain the appropriate experience? What grade would I have to work at during this period? Would I be allowed to work straight away on avionics without supervision? How much responsibility would I have and would it be in preference to those that had more training, experience and avionics-biased qualifications? Would I be obliged to undergo industry standard training or could I just wing-it (pardon the pun)?
Others, from non-NHS roles, some non-professional even, seem to think that this sort of thing is acceptable without a defined period of experience, minimum of training and relevant experience, plus assessment e.g. an interview being imposed on them by the VRCT or HPC in the future.
This indicates to me that some think that the skills required to do this job, in the NHS, are relatively worthless compared to the skills they possess in lieu. They must remember that experts in the VRCT vet the applications and compare the evidence to the requirements - not everyone will meet them despite the jobs they've managed to secure in the NHS.
The discrepancies have been created because individuals are currently not being matched appropriately to job-roles because of high-demand and a lack of technical staff who do not even come close to meeting the ideal in some circumstances. That's due to the very fact that we are not being regulated at the moment, of course.
