By Eamonn Ryan
One of the strongest concerns voiced in the SAIRAC Johannesburg Centre TechTalk on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Q&A was the potential double burden on technicians: existing SAQCC Gas licensing requirements on one hand, and new CPD requirements from ECSA on the other. Participants questioned whether technicians are at risk of being priced out of the profession by overlapping compliance obligations.
Could SAQCC Gas training be recognised as CPD activity under ECSA’s framework?
Pvproductions | Magnific.com
As the conversation turned from engineers to technicians, a seasoned practitioner raised a hard‑hitting question: aren’t we already doing “continuous development” through SAQCC Gas licensing? And if so, how will additional CPD requirements from ECSA affect the financial and practical reality for technicians?
In South Africa, all air‑conditioning and refrigeration artisans are already required to be SAQCC Gas certified and licensed. These licences must be renewed periodically – typically every three years – and renewal involves:
- Attending approved training
- Demonstrating competence
- Paying substantial course and renewal fees
The attendee highlighted that a typical re‑licensing cost can be in the region of R5 000 to R10 000 every few years. For many technicians and smaller employers, this is already a significant financial commitment. Layering an additional ECSA CPD requirement on top of SAQCC Gas obligations raises legitimate worries about affordability and duplication.
Fox acknowledged these concerns openly. He agreed that SAQCC Gas ‘safe handling of refrigerants’ licences already serve a function similar to CPD in many respects: they ensure ongoing competence, update technicians on new regulations and safety practices, and help keep industry standards high.
However, the situation is complicated by the regulatory architecture:
- SAQCC Gas operates in a space focused on safety and compliance for refrigerant handling.
- ECSA is mandated by the Engineering Profession Act as the statutory body responsible for the professional status and registration of engineers and, increasingly, technicians.
From ECSA’s perspective, CPD is part of a broader professional framework that is meant to apply across engineering categories, not just gas handling. The challenge is to determine how these systems can talk to each other.
Fox suggested one possible avenue: could SAQCC Gas training be recognised as CPD activity under ECSA’s framework?
