I have recently moved jobs and lately was carrying out a review of our FLT operator certificates of training. Many of the certs had very little information on them and stated that the training was to be renewed in 5 years. This set off alarm bells with me because previous experience led me to believe that FLT training needed to be delivered by an accredited trainer and renewed every three years. Upon further investigation I found out that this type of training in the UK & IRL is just as loose as most training courses in the fact that accreditation is voluntary? Surely at this day in age this should have a governing body. I thought that's what RTITB/IIPMM/IITSAR were. Seemingly I am mistaken So basically a lot of companies are delivering in house FLT operator course in the hope they never have to have the instructors competence proven. Am I right in my findings? Is the IPAF scheme for MEWPs in the UK the same? Rsherl01

Just because a company delivers an in-house training course and a certificate of competence thereafter if they have met the required criteria does not automatically make the trainer incompetent. In my previous employment we had very highly competent trainers who were fully qualified CPCS Plant Instructors holding both assessors and verifiers qualifications who delivered in-house training courses for forlifts, MEWP's, Telehandlers etc. The courses were developed and assessed in accordance with the CPCS standards which our trainers gained knowledge of and had to assess to as part of their training to become accredited instructors but from simply a cost point of view we did not go down the route of testing to gain the CPCS Cards instead we issued an internal certificate of competence. In the event of an incident we could easily produce evidence of the trainers competence to carry out the training/assessment and the course content with assessment criteria. I know of many training companies who whilst are accredited to offer CPCS, NPORS, IPAF etc accredited training also offer companies the offer of certificates of competence; employees get trained/assessed to a similar standard without all the burocracy that goes along with some of these schemes. I use this system at present in my current workplace and together with the certificate I always file the trainers credentials to prove competence in the item of plant together with a course outline and assessment strategy.

In the UK there is no ‘licence’ that you need before you are allowed to use a FLT (or any piece of work equipment). The HSE does not want the responsibility for policing this so instead there is a general duty to train staff (especially under reg 13 of Managing Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999). The form of that training is down to the employer: it can be in-house or I can be done via and accredited external provider. What matters is that it establishes competence. If something goes wrong then the HSE will come along and then they will tell you if the training was good enough as they take you to court.

Smurf, Thanks for your reply. As a matter of interest what is involved in becoming registered with the likes of RTITB. It is generally advertised as 10 day training. Are you exempt from any of these days if you are already a qualified instructor? 2 weeks is a lot to ask of from a company. Price doesn't seem excessive but the time certainly does.

Good morning All, I am looking to complete the Npors 10 day train the trainer course with a view to delivering the following courses: • FLT to 5 ton • MEWPS, 3a - 3b • Slinger banksman • Crane supervisor • Overhead crane operator • Impact Wrench • Vehicle Marshal • Abrasive Wheels, bench and portable • Safe Working at Height • Fire Warden • Manual Handling • Safe use of Ladders • Harness and Fall Arrest • Safety Awareness We currently use a combination of external training providers and internal training to deliver the above. I would be looking to follow the NPORS course for each of the above with extra elements tailored to our specific needs. There would be a written and practical test for each of the above, however my board of directors is not keen on paying for the NPORS fees for each of the employees to issue cards. So to summarise, the instructor would deliver the main content of the course as per NPORS with extra content which is site specific, all documents, test papers / evaluations would be attached the employee file tied into a training matrix with refresher dates automatically triggering. My main reasoning behind bringing all of the training in house is: • to ensure those trained to perform the task are competent • build confidence in the work force that the H&S managers can actually preform the tasks and fully understand the process • build in flexibility to the training program as we can move to suit the business needs I have approximately 700 employees of which 400 are shop floor. Would the above be in line with HSE guidance, my personal view is I would have more confidence in the employee having spent time teaching theory / practical and observing them preform the tasks. I would welcome any comments / advice as this will be a significant investment in time from myself and the company. Kind regards Angelo

Hi Fscott, I have held operator cards for each of the above, either CPCS or NPORS for at least 5 years, for the cpcs an have also completed the corresponding NVQ. For the health and safety side I have my Nebosh general & construction, SMSTS, Passport to work at supervisor & IOSH managing safety for what its worth. Its the teaching side I feel i am light on, from speaking to the course provider they seam to think that the 10 day is all I require due to my experience. Any information is appreciated Kind regards Angelo

Abdul, yes, the need for FLT driver certificates is ignored =by many employers. The subject of FLT driver training is explained by the HSE only as guidance, but as was mentioned in an earlier post the guidance says there is a legal requirement, a general duty, to train staff in the use of equipment - regulation 13 of Managing Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 - regulation 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER) - general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 - an employer must ensure that all FLT operators, both new and existing, are adequately trained and, when necessary, provided with additional or refresher training. 'Best practice' will always be to get accredited certificated training.