Hi all,

We've had a query from one of our MHE instructors re the provision of MEWP training, and not being one to immediately discount any suggestions, thought I'd look into it.

Our risk assessments require all MEWP operators to have an operators certificate / licence to IPAF or equivalent standard. All our MEWP operators have been sent on external IPAF courses for the relevant type of MEWP, and case closed, or so we thought (it's simple, easy and cheap to do it this way).

One of our inhouse MHE instructor, who holds a trainers certificate / membership with AITT (Association of Industrial Truck Trainers) believes he can deliver MEWP training in-house, as he holds an operators certificate in the use of the relevant MEWP (please note he is competent to deliver all the forklift examination / training we require, this is not in question). The training company who trained him in the use of the MEWP stated that as he holds the AITT membership he can now train others.

The issue I have is that HSE guidance states that MEWP operators should have attended a recognised operator training course, and it is the definition of this course / trainer qualifications that I'd like opinions on.

Taking IPAF as the industry standard, and looking at the FAQ on their webpage, it would appear that to deliver a "recognised operator training course" the trainer would have to be an IPAF instructor (or equivalent). To become an IPAF instructor the trainer needs to go through many hoops, which our guy hasn't done. I would immediately say No and thanks for the suggestions, but the AITT site does mention MEWP training (suggesting that persons who have compelted the AITT trainers course could delivery MEWP training), but I fail to see how just holding AITT membership /training certificate and a MEWP operators licence fulfils the same level of qualification as that of an IPAF instructor.

Thoughts?

I would say that the AITT is purely for forklift training, and if you want the inhouse instructer to teach MEWP training, he would have to go and get the specfic training to enable him to instruct.
What you have to bare in mind is that even if he goes to IPAF and get's the MEWP instructer qualification, this does not mean the operatives will be awarded IPAF cards. I dont know what profession you are in, but within construction most contractors (UKCG) will only accept IPAF/CPCS trained operatives on site.
I know you mention that your policy/risk assessments state IPAF or similar standard, with him having this qualification that may meet the needs of your company.

John

Jakes own post states what his company standards/requirements are, which is IPAF or equivelent.

I understand what you are saying, and this would all be relevent in proving compentency, is something was to go wrong.

Agreed

JohnW

Ahh the old should, may and must argument. The only permissive one that is not a direct command is MAY. This allows a choice. "Should" is direct and means for me the same as must. If not obeyed then the command has consequences ie you will not do something else such as work on my site. "Must" is a clearer statement of should and still carries the same consequence. The HSE have said they should be trained etc and if they find those not so trained they can say that they must not operate the equipment.

Treat should and must as equivalents and one cannot be far wrong

Bob

Bob, and to add,

The word 'shall' is the word most commonly used in regulations e.g. HaSaWAetc and that's the word that I treat the same as 'must'.

JohnW

Bob, yes I agree with that. I was thinking that the external pressure for IPAF may be because it was thought IPAF was mandatory.

Some businesses will go the IPAF route without question, and they can't go wrong doing that.

John