Calgary hood cleaning requirements

I'm Back

I reread this thread and would like to offer a few final comments:

Phil Ackland Cleaner's Certification (PAC) is no more than a set of values and principles embraced with education. Its purpose is to establish a Standard of Care for responsible exhaust cleaners that is acceptable to the AHJ and other involved parties (restaurant and insurance).

PAC does two important things:

1) In the case of a fire, it protects the cleaning company from liability.

We are trying to share our experience. Yes it is expensive experience -- the best usually is. It is learned, in part, through the painful trials of insurance claims. We want to help cleaners safeguard themselves from damaging claims. The methods and depth of training that we provide reflect this experience.

2) PAC provides the restaurant and fire inspection industries with a basis for confidence in their service provider. It also elevates this cleaning field.

PAC emphasizes that Crew Leader's must have the necessary skills to perform the entire cleaning and reporting in a consistent manner according to NFPA 96.

It was stated on this thread that we discussed PAC with other cleaners and their trade associations. This is true, as far as it goes; we have reached out for cleaner's opinions.

But more important to the overall process, we consulted the insurance and legal industry, the restaurant field, fire and building inspectors as well as other interest groups. This requirement, of Crew Leader responsibility, was a universal demand of these participants. The training, testing and protocol of PAC is, in part, a creation of these participants input. They too, are the stakeholders.

We are now communicating with all these stakeholders, that improvements to the reliability of this cleaning field are available. See the 2007 NFPA 96 Proposals that are now posted on their website.

PAC is a stable platform that cleaners can use to promote and protect their investment. Take the PAC Protocol to the insurance or restaurant industry and see what they say.

It is enviable that some in the cleaning field will not like the PAC level of training and certification. However as we continue to educate the fire, insurance and restaurant fields, these levels will become the accepted norm. It is simply the standard they want to see.

As far as our expecting everyone to become Phil Ackland Certified; that is fallacy. Any trade association that wants to accept these values and principles can do so. It is our preference to work with associations (all stakeholders). Working together will get the word out faster. But we will not compromise the principles of this certification (funny how that hangs some people up). The service provider cannot dictate what the customer will accept; we have been told, clearly that these are the standards restaurant and insurance want.

Fire Inspector and Investigator Seminars

Our unwillingness to allow non PA Certified exhaust cleaners to attend our Fire Inspectors seminars is obvious. Why would we support anyone not willing to step up to this level of accountability?

We offer this cleaner certification "Protocol" to the AHJ, for free. It elevates the image of the cleaning field and improves fire safety. Why would we do anything less? We owe cleaners who have made the PAC commitment; to tell the world that they take their responsibility seriously. Why would we support those who do not?

There is however one Phil Ackland seminar series that non PAC cleaners might attend. We are now presenting one day seminars on Fire Investigation -- based on the Fire Investigation of Commercial Kitchens Manual Contact us privately for details or see www.upyourstack.com

Lastly, we sell education. This education is elevating this cleaning field and improving fire safety.

We respect Freeness of Speech more that any of you know. Those of you who find our effort distasteful, can't figure out how to make money off of it, or feel that we don't have a right to make a living from providing this education are free to make your concern known. We are not asking for your blessing.

To those of you who have supported what we are doing -- Thank you.
 
Stan,

I hope you didn't require him to scrape the hood.



Phil,

1) Do you have a "train the trainer" course setup?
2) Will Rustys course suffice for a certification?
 
Phil Ackland said:
But we will not compromise the principles of this certification (funny how that hangs some people up).
Click to expand...


Phil-

This post shows your great confidence that no other certification can match that of the Phil Ackland checkmark. I have had the opportunity to read over the Phil Ackland workbook, and you may be suprised at the similarities between it and the CHDCA exam. They both contain common sense work safety questions, along with NFPA 96 fill in the blanks and general cleaning knowledge multiple choices. Both would be impossible to pass for the uneducated trunk slammer that has never picked up a copy of the NFPA. But for the eager student of hood washing, studying their manuals and paying attention during their hands on training, there would be no problem passing with flying colors, and venturing out into the amazing world of kitchen exhaust cleaning. Removing grease, identifying discrepancies, and moving commercial kitchen establishments one step closer to fire safety.

It seems the principles of the great Phil Ackland Certification aren't so far from that of the undeserving CHDCA Certification, or any other that may use the NFPA 96 as their model.

I'm eager to see your comment for question #2 in Sean's post.
 
Last edited:
I saw a certified company from Lousiana here in Mississippi last week , they were cleaning a whataburger hamburger joint.. On the van it said licensed bonded and insured.. ( CERTIFIED ) Blah Blah Blah.. I watched them clean this hamburger joint in like 50 minutes.. So I stopped on of the guys and said I was just wondering I didn't see yall go on the roof .... He Said " We don't go on the roofs , we clean the fan and duct from the inside going up the duct .. " VERY VERY VERY FUNNY!!!!!

I think I am going to go after that account next week.
 
You know, we follow a company "Tom's Cleaning" and they are just about the same way! GEEEEZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!

They NEVER even touch a fan. But, what do you do about it? I've thought about calling him and saying "Hey, your lazy ass is costing us! Clean those fans and ducts before we get there next time!"


We don't steal his accounts, just take them when his customers call for a bid.
 
"It seems the principles of the great Phil Ackland Certification aren't so far from that of the undeserving CHDCA Certification, or any other that may use the NFPA 96 as their model." Above qoute taken from Josh's previous post.

Well, werent you guys using Phils information for training at one time or has that changed recently. No wonder its not that different,it was derived from Phils manuals. :rolleyes:
 
Similarities

In response to Sean’s post #2 – No.

Josh,

Of course the CHDCA test looks like Phil Ackland’s test – Rusty uses Phil’s Manual. Rusty has had access to our workbook and our test (when he was going to get Phil Ackland Certified). Which brings up the interesting thought about why CHDCA questions are so similar...

By your own admission you have seen Phil Ackland’s test. Being that you have never taken a Phil Ackland course, where did you see it?

The purpose of PAC is that Crew Leaders have had the opportunity to learn and understand their responsibilities to their company and their customer. That what they learn is a consistent, audited, disciplined package of information that has been developed by the primary “stakeholders” in this field. PAC graduates have studied material related to the recognized codes and standards and are willing to act responsibly. Taking a test is only one part of that.

Regardless of what it is called, CHDCA is Rusty’s marketing organization. Everyone close to this field knows that. Maybe that is okay to some, but where is the leadership? Phil has put in about a dozen proposals for the new NFPA 96 to continue to improve this industry. How many did Rusty put in?

You all want to say what you have is “similar” to what PAC stands for. But all you have is a crude copy missing important components.

Tammy
 
2) Will Rustys course suffice for a certification?
Tammy Tuhkala said:
In response to Sean’s post #2 – No.
Click to expand...

By saying that, are you saying that Phil's class is the only class that is offered that will "certify" a hood cleaner?

Also, I asked if there is / will be a "train the trainer" class offered by Phil.
 
Then why won't Rusty's class certify a hood cleaner?

I havn't had Rusty's class - I am only using it as an example of "what is" and "what isn't" a legit certification school.
 
Rusty's class

grizzley said:
Then why won't Rusty's class certify a hood cleaner?

I havn't had Rusty's class - I am only using it as an example of "what is" and "what isn't" a legit certification school.
Click to expand...

Oh I thought you were just asking a personal opinion.

It's the AHJ, of course, who gets to decide which certifications are "legit" and which are not.
 
Tammy Tuhkala said:
You all want to say what you have is “similar” to what PAC stands for. But all you have is a crude copy missing important components.

Tammy
Click to expand...

Tammy-

You obviously missed my point. Phil's principles are the issue. My point- they would not be comprimised by any certification or training program that has the same principles.

I was trained using Phil Acklands manuals, I've said this before. They have taught me most of what I know about the field of Kitchen Exhaust Cleaning. The only thing missing from other certifications is Phil Ackland.

As far as the test goes....I've got my connections.;)

Grizzley- That seems to be exactly what she is saying.
 
Tammy Tuhkala said:
Oh I thought you were just asking a personal opinion.

It's the AHJ, of course, who gets to decide which certifications are "legit" and which are not.
Click to expand...

See, this could lead to disastrous results if we as hood cleaners don't stand up BEFORE all of this comes rolling down the hill at us.

You say that Rusty's class does not meet the standards, but, from what I understand, he is teaching from Phil's materials. Why wouldn't Rusty's class be certifiable (in your opinion)? If I am wrong about Rusty's curriculum, I apologize.

Also, about the train the trainer... Is that already here? Or is it something that is being developed?

Lastly, in your honest opinion, do you not detect somewhat of a conflict of interest in Phil's classroom and a member of the NFPA committee? From what I see, it is almost like Phil is slowly moving his chess pieces into a grid where NFPA comes out and says "ONLY PHILS CLASS WILL CERTIFY YOU" and if that is done, then the AHJ won't think twice about who/where you become certified.

In the above paragraph, we know it will not be THAT blatant. It won't say "PHIL" but there will be stipulations in the training that only Phil has, such as "The certifying company must have been in business for 20+ years and have written at least 2 books about hood cleaning, etc.".

Again, I MUST say, the certification should come from the hood manufacture! I see here all the time people saying "Scrape the grease"... but with what? There are some hood manufactures that say:
CAUTION: DO NOT USE IRON WOOL, SCRAPERS OR SPATULAS TO CLEAN HOOD!


Now, if Phil teaches to scrape hoods, he is teaching against what the manufacture suggests to do. If I scrape a hood and clean it to bare metal, and it catches fire for some reason or another, would the company be able to say "He did what the manufacture said not to do" just like Phil would say if HE was the expert witness in a court of law?
 
The NFPA never has and never will recommend any company for any purpose. The only references to outside organizations are Underwriters Laboratories and the like.
 
Hood Manufacturers

Sean,

Well you could take a look at the proposals Phil put in to NFPA 96 and see for yourself. Or maybe you don't quite understand how a committee works... If Phil were to try to propose a requirement of Phil Ackland Certified only, Rusty could propose a code that says CHDCA only.

You should start the movement for Hood Manufacturers to certify Cleaners. On the surface it sounds like a good idea...

But then would you need three certifications? One from the Hood Manufacturers to clean hoods, one from the duct manufacturers to clean ducts, and one from the fan manufacturers to clean fans? But then you would only be able to clean hoods by that one manufacturer. So you would have to get certified by the other hood manufacturer's to be able to clean their hoods too. And same goes for different fan manufacturers, etc.
 
Grant said:
The NFPA never has and never will recommend any company for any purpose. The only references to outside organizations are Underwriters Laboratories and the like.
Click to expand...

Correct, that is what I stated in my post.
 
Scraping a s/s hood with a regular scraper will scratch and ruin the appearance - need chem & dwell time, or in the alternative razor blade to remove carbon. Scraping has reference to the plenum, flue, impellers, etc - the canopy 'hood' itself is that to which they refer. This is common sense. Thanks goodness we operate under English common law - the ground mentioned would be unmeritorious and inadmissable - you've got to use common sense. Ackland knows what he is doing - it is apparent he has been involved in every aspect of this business for 40 years. Contrast that to the Rusty Ace experience - he had not, by his own inadvertent admission, not even cleaned an exhaust system before 'training' quite a number of students. Would or should all of these many neo-schools be treated with equal respect alongside Ackland? - you decide.
Richard
 
Tammy Tuhkala said:
Well you could take a look at the proposals Phil put in to NFPA 96 and see for yourself. Or maybe you don't quite understand how a committee works... If Phil were to try to propose a requirement of Phil Ackland Certified only, Rusty could propose a code that says CHDCA only.
Click to expand...
If you re-read my post, you will see that I said that it would not say "Phil" but rather have requirements that only one... maybe two people in the entire world have.

Tammy Tuhkala said:
You should start the movement for Hood Manufacturers to certify Cleaners. On the surface it sounds like a good idea...
Click to expand...
Why only on the surface? I only put it that way as a staring point; a place to begin for certify. In the end, there are always general certifying companies who are trained as a down hill training process. In reality, if Phil or anyone teaches to scrape, they are going against what some manufactures say to do.


Tammy Tuhkala said:
But then would you need three certifications? One from the Hood Manufacturers to clean hoods, one from the duct manufacturers to clean ducts, and one from the fan manufacturers to clean fans? But then you would only be able to clean hoods by that one manufacturer. So you would have to get certified by the other hood manufacturer's to be able to clean their hoods too. And same goes for different fan manufacturers, etc.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.... because ONE of the three would be the authority for this standard or as a group, they could build the minimum standards. Of course, since this is in the startup phases, it would start out with all three manufactures working together and each having some input about HOW TO CLEAN THEIR PRODUCT.

Also, about the train the trainer... Is that already here? Or is it something that is being developed?
 
Train the Trainer

grizzley said:
Also, about the train the trainer... Is that already here? Or is it something that is being developed?
Click to expand...

We do have a Train the Trainer program for government Fire Inspectors and recognized training academies. And we already have trained instructors for Phil's Exhaust Cleaner courses.
 
Tammy Tuhkala said:
In response to Sean’s post #2 – No.

Josh,

Of course the CHDCA test looks like Phil Ackland’s test – Rusty uses Phil’s Manual. Rusty has had access to our workbook and our test (when he was going to get Phil Ackland Certified). Which brings up the interesting thought about why CHDCA questions are so similar...

By your own admission you have seen Phil Ackland’s test. Being that you have never taken a Phil Ackland course, where did you see it?

The purpose of PAC is that Crew Leaders have had the opportunity to learn and understand their responsibilities to their company and their customer. That what they learn is a consistent, audited, disciplined package of information that has been developed by the primary “stakeholders” in this field. PAC graduates have studied material related to the recognized codes and standards and are willing to act responsibly. Taking a test is only one part of that.

Regardless of what it is called, CHDCA is Rusty’s marketing organization. Everyone close to this field knows that. Maybe that is okay to some, but where is the leadership? Phil has put in about a dozen proposals for the new NFPA 96 to continue to improve this industry. How many did Rusty put in?

You all want to say what you have is “similar” to what PAC stands for. But all you have is a crude copy missing important components.

Tammy
Click to expand...

Question for Tammy:
Apparently you are well acquainted with Ace's mode & method - they have included your manuals for every student since at least 2002 - see 'Hood Cleaning School' thread below - post is dated 4/2/2002. Certainly they have ordered many score if not hundreds of manuals from you. I have not read the manual (sniff), but perhaps you can tell me - they cling tenaciously to and actually try to defend the dangerous 'one-man' crew modality. Does either Phil Ackland or the manual itself actually advocate, teach, or suggest this mode?
Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top