Rank: Forum user 
|
Certification = Competence, errrrr not quite.
I need to ask a question please!
I recently requested that more of our employees take an MEWP test, as we are using Mobile Elevated Work Platorms daily basis and am continually catching non certificated operatives operating them.
This was agreed with my director and 5 of our employees were booked on the course.
The day of the course i vsited our site to see how the operatives had fared, our site supervisor said that the examiner had said that one of them should have failed, but as the examiner had never failed anyone, he would give him a pass.
The following day i visited the site, where the errrr person who should have faild was working, he was asked to use the MEWP (Boom) and raise a hose pipe up, to spray water over the work face of the Demolition, thus attempting to supress dust, he could not even start the Boom and even when he was shown how to start it, he raised it up and then was not knowlegeable as to how to make it go left or right, he was ordered to lower the Boom and a more proficiant operative carried out the task.
Ok, so in the eyes of the law, we have given this person adequate training, but in my opinion he is not competent.
How does this work and should i cut up his IPAF card, sorry but i find this is a joke and not a very good one.
I brought the subject up with my director and he simply replied, that the operative/employee had undergone adequate training and was deemed as being competent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The examiner should be shot!
LB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Or worse mate, but i cannot quite work out the right course of action
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Except that i told the site supervisor not to allow the errrr incompetent person to operate MEWP's until i say otherwise, and the site supervisor is a mte, so i know that he will do as i ask and at the end of the day, the supervisor was not happy about it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Rick
I don't think you have provided adequate training to this person (although it seems to have been ok for everyone else) as it clearly didn't sink in. You're right to stop him using a MEWP but you need to convince the director that you are right.
LB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Rick
This person is not competent to use a MEWP - it's really that simple. Competence is based on not just qualifications (this is dubious anyway given what you have already said) but experience and knowledge. The latter one in particular.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From what you have witnessed i would deem him not competent. 100's of people are on our roads driving cars and we know from experience that they are not competent and lord knows how they got a licenses , the difference in that situation is we have the police eager to pounce on those that show bad driving and take them of the road. maybe you need to consider the same by either issuing a verbal warning and document it same with any other employee who may drive a forklift or any other piece of equipment. There still needs to be supervision just because someone has been given a license or certificate doesn't mean they don't need to be monitored.
i would put a letter of complaint into the trainer and also the governing body. Having 100% pass right i don't think is something to be proud of as surely not everyone should measure up to the standard otherwise what's the point in having such a course if the expectation everyone always passes. Same with the uk driving test you have to have failures to ensure there is a high enough standard if everyone passed first time then the standards on the road would be even worse.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The PAL (Powered Access Licence) card serves as the main proof of training and works in conjunction with the IPAF trained users logbook. The logbook should have been issued to the trainee on the day that the course was completed and the IPAF ticket should follow a few weeks later.
The first two entries of the logbook (page 4) should be completed and signed by the instructor, stating the machine type (scissor lift SL and self-propelled boom SPB) and models used on the course. The logbook should be kept up to date detailing what type, make and model machines used by the operator, where and when and if the operator was involved in any reportable accidents or incidents.
PERMIT-TO-USE. The holder of the logbook is permitted to operate the MEWP machine types listed on the accompanying PAL card. The permit-to-use and the training do not substitute the specific familiarisation for each machine. (The eyes of the law would be advised to read this twice)
As an experienced MEWP operator I can testify to the vast and varied range of makes and models on offer within the UK. I often have to read the supplied operators manual and take the time to familiarise myself with a machine and there have been occasions when my experience has been questioned by managers and supervisors that have an opinion that a MEWP is a MEWP.
I can understand your frustration regarding an instructor/course provider that offers fail proof courses. Your eyewitness account of a newly trained operators incompetence to operate a particular type/model of MEWP is not proof that he did not show competence enough on the day of training, he could have had his finest hour that exceeded his greatest expectations and that maybe the instructors argument in his defence and very difficult for you to prove otherwise.
I find the use of the word “incompetent” in the context of the nature of your posting as being very harsh. IPAF is a one-day course and not a three-year extensive training programme. Competence has to be nurtured from basic skills i.e. supervision, training and the opportunity of gaining work based experience.
If you feel that the operator is unfamiliar (rather than incompetent) with a particular model of MEWP you should prevent him from using that machine unsupervised but also arrange for supervision/training to help him gain confidence and competence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Rick,
I personally believe you have done everything right so far.
It is you who is competent to provide H&S advice to your Director, and you have personally witnessed events which indicate that the operator in question is 'not yet competent' in the duties he has been asked to perform in accordance with the training he has been given.
Yes it appears the Trainer has himself been less than competent - formally ask IPAF to investigate.
One of your vital roles is to give advice to Directors 'et al' in order that they are fully equipped to make important decisions - like whether an operative should be allowed to continue working in an unsafe manner - you would be advised to get an email response from him on this, just after you remind him about Corporate Manslaughter/Homicide Act 2007!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Having suitable or sufficient skill, knowledge and experience, defines competent, does your one days training provide what is required,
“In the eyes of the law”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I must admit i am assuming that the MEWP used as training on the course would be the same they would be expected to use day in day out as normally the training takes place on the customers site.
Are log books a new thing as i completed my training nearly two years ago and they never mentioned anything about training logs or provide them.
phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
IPAF Trained Operators Log Book.
PhilBeale,
I think you may have been short changed.
I have just visited the IPAF website, double clicked on training and was informed that on completion of your training you should have received a PAL card, IPAF certificate, operators safety guide and a trained operator’s log book. I also searched the website to purchase a logbook but could not find a link. I then called IPAF to inquire about the logbook and was asked my PAL number and will be receiving a new logbook (no charge) in the next few days.
If you have a copy of IPAF operators safety guide then please refer to 3.0 The Operators qualifications and responsibilities and the last paragraph of 3.1 Training
“Further evidence of competence and experience is provided by holding and maintaining the IPAF Trained Operators Log Book”
As your PAL ticket is valid for 5 years it is only proof that you operated a MEWP for one or two days less than 5 years ago, whereas a properly maintained logbook accompanied with your PAL card is a true record of your experience and the type, make and models that you have successfully operated.
Rick Warner,
The logbook can also be used to record accidents or incidents i.e. “operator failed to control machine type and model” and may help controlling your problem.
Sorry for the delay.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Phil...
forgot to mention, completed my training 2007 and not a new thing.
james
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.