No, I would be bored stiff and not concentrating or taking in the content.

I'm not convinced this is as binary as previous posters have aluded to.

I think that there are pro's and cons with both approaches and the sucess or failure of either delivery method is dependent of the attitude of the participants and the skills of the trainer.  The nature of the information transfer also plays a part.

Much like the days when overhead projectors were critisised for communicating content in a sterile way, things move on and 'the old ways' are not always a panacea.

Good in person presenters with an interactive audience are excellent and virtual courses delivered in the right way can also be excellent.  Conversely a presenter who hasn't mastered their craft can sometimes be worse in person than online.

I do both types of training delivery depending on the content and the delegates and change my techniques accordingly.  It is generally accepted that I am the boring safety guy either way ;)

I understand what you are trying to say Peter and am in general agreement however I still think this is too binary a viewpoint.

a few months ago I had to re-complete a specific safety passport course (completely pointless for my level, or most of the delegates for that matter, but that is another topic).

The first time around, 5 years previously, the course was a full day in person.  To be fair to them, the presenter was very poor indeed.  Not only unengaging but factually incorrect in a number or areas where they added their own take on a subject, including one issue that was one of the old HSE Myth Busters series.  The whole day was painfull and did more harm to working safely in the field than not doing the course at all.

Roll things forward 5 years and the online, full day, multi-delegate course was excellent (using the same content).  Engaging, interactive and the presenter involved all and picked up, via camera, those delegates that were drifting off or getting distracted.  Yes the content was still pointless for me but the delivery was very good indeed and what I didn't get out of it interms of safety knowledge I picked up in presentation/delivery skills.  A couple of the 'boots on the ground' delegates even admitted that it wasnt as bad as they expected; which is high praise indeed!!

I can honestly say thay the day flew along.

Morning Lee - the mind boggles. Two DAYS on laser safety by Teams. I really sympathise.

Thanks Holliday

Clearly if someone doesn't know their stuff then perhaps they might be better delivering (probably poorly) if forced to use standardised materials.

I think I can just about imagine an online tutor keeping people's attention for a full day on a Safety Passport course as there would be so many substantially different topics to cover, 

In contrast, if the course is effectively covering a single issue, "Designing with health and safety in mind", with the unsaid subtitle "on construction projects" the tutor would still have to put a Designer's duties under CDM into context and so go through what each of the other CDM duty holders has to do, which means that inevitably a significant proportion of the course programme SHOULD be about setting out the legislative rules AND exceptions - all very dry and perhaps why so many OSH professionals end up being dubbed the "boring Safety Guy" however much you used those words tongue in cheek, 

So, as example, in the content would NEED to be some comment on the role of the Principal Designer, when that PD is NOT required, but also that the PD role will usually extend into the "construction phase", Does the Designer NEED to know that the role of PD might well be transferred from one party to another? May be, may be not and probably varying between attendees.

Can't even see how a tutor could appropriately get over the message to a sufficient standard without going through most of the definitions in Regulation 2 of CDM - for the simple reason that otherwise the design professional won't know when the scope of their duties comes into play - so as example they might not treat some investigation that involves an excavation a couple of years before the building site exists, as being "construction work". 

I can envisage that some trainers MIGHT try to get round this by going through the WHOLE of CDM (and perhaps more) to illustrate to the Designer what construction site workers may face and start waffling on about the need for a worker cutting tiles to wear RPE when the Designer's objective should be to minimise the need for cutting of tiles in the first place.

This was precisely what often happened when CDM was extended in 2007 to include what is Part 4 of the Regulations. So, instead of a one day training CDM training programme that focused on duty holders, an hour or two would be lost to the basics of e.g. supporting excavations and welfare requirements.

.....and if that happened there was less time in the course programme to go through the duties of the front end duty holders, including Designers.

A topic made even more difficult to deliver online as there are so few stories of what has gone wrong due to the failure of CDM front end duty holders and enforcement action (or civil litigation) having been taken against Designers under CDM (and most of those could probably have been contested given the will!).