Rank: New forum user 
|
We have a medium size compressor serving machinery and my production manager has asked me to authorise a works instruction which lays out the system of maintenance as per the manufacturers manual. All hazards are clearly explained.
The two machine/maintenance operatives are experienced in cleanroom machines but have never maintained / serviced a compressor. They are quite reliable workers and I believe they wouldnt have a problem changing filters and oil however the manual says quite clearly that maintenace personnel should be adequately trained and competent.
I completed a risk assessment based on the manual but then I saw this months SHP magazine and there on page 11 was a case where untrained workers were erecting the jib of a tower crane and it collapsed causing injury and damage.
Am I being too pedantic or should I insist on training to achieve competence?
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Of course they should be trained - but maybe reading the manufacturer's manual and the works instruction (which has presumably been compiled by a competent person?) would be sufficient for the tasks you have in mind?
If your risk assessment (which should ideally have involved those doing the work in some way) shows that the worst-case consequences are not too serious, then why are you worried about the tower crane case, which had very high consequences?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I asked the question to an HSE inspector a month ago what would class as a competent person. My reference was to the occasional hire of a scaffold tower, the question being whether the reading of the manual provided by the company upon delivery of the tower would class as training and status of competent person. Despite the question being answered I am still none the wiser, it was like listening to a non-commital politician. I guess it depends on the complexity of the device in question - in this particular case it was a fairly straight forward assembly and having read the manual we erected and dismantled 2 or 3 times under supervision of a guy who had been doing it for several years and in conjunction with the manual. As a result I am confident we have 3 guys competent in that particular unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Grim72, I think that you were badly served here, since there is a standard ticket for the use of scaffold towers. A quick Google produced this advice: "If you are planning to rent Scaffold Towers you must be fully compliant with the "Work at Height Regulations". Full details of compliance can be found on: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2005/20050735.htmWe are able to PASMA Certify your operatives to comply with the Work at Height Regulations." Hope this helps, regards, martin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
where in the WAH regs does it state you need to be PASMA trained?
''Competence
5. Every employer shall ensure that no person engages in any activity, including organisation, planning and supervision, in relation to work at height or work equipment for use in such work unless he is competent to do so or, if being trained, is being supervised by a competent person''
the old 'competency' argument again, knowledge / experience over certification ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I am not sure anyone is helping here with the original question...
Simply look at the sevice requirements of your equipment and skills of your guys.
If they have sufficient skills to do what is requested then you are okay. If you identify any gaps in their skill set, train to fill the gaps.
Too many people are getting dragged into finite detail.
I suggest you risk assess the task, discuss the task and assessment with your guys and deterimine if they are confident they can do the job. Then make your decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
apologies jimb
the WAH reply doesnt fully answer your query (sidetracked) but its that 'competency' rating again and what is expected
But PUWER regs state the requirement for them to have had adequate training in relation to what you are expecting them to do. If similar to other tasks they undertake then would say they may be competent and ok without knowing the specifics
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
PS Look at PUWER not WAH, unless your compressor is in the roof.
PUWER will cover your compressor maintenance much better
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The problem with risk assessments and competence is that there are no easy answers.
BUT the ACOP to the Management Regs says for Section 3
"They should also look at and use relevant examples of good practice from within their industry."
This tends to raise the expectations of competence, especially as some courses become de facto standards. It could easily be argued , in court, that such a readily available course would be considered a minimum standard for an activity.
Merely saying that they are competent to do a job is hardly an acceptable answer any more - surely workers must have some defined competencies - even if only assessed internally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I get a little bit worried about our profession nowadays. If we consider ourselves to be professional then we should be able to carry out an assessment, advise training and, when carried out and we are satisfied, declare people competent. I know that many of our colleagues make their living by offering training courses and I’m sure they do a very good job. But to infer that, for example, that operatives cannot erect a mobile tower unless trained by a PASMA accredited organisation is going too far. Certainly main contractors, to ensure that training is adequate, may require that certain training is carried out by accredited bodies. But that is their way of complying, for example, with CDM2007.
Of course there are statutory requirements (gas, first aid and electric for example) but most training can be (and is) devised and delivered by competent persons – us! And we can deliver, often at our clients premises, the level of information required rather than padded out to fill a half day or full day. That does not make the training less suitable. For example, there are half day courses in the use of ladders. Now I’m sure that the half day is full of useful information but if it is argued that this is the standard then some 12 million employees takes an awful lot of training – and it brings H&S into disrepute. Trying to make every aspect of work procedures a subject for formal external training will lead to either an unacceptable burden on industry or employers taking chances.
The point I am trying to make is that specifying accredited training is taking away an element of our competence – the skills to provide suitable and sufficient training. We are the people, after all, who may have to stand up in court and justify our advice – just like real professionals then!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I had good advice from an EHO a few years ago when i ask them can i do my own food hygiene training now. I have advance food hygiene and a trainer cert. They said yes you don't have to become accredited as long as you document what you have taught and it is relevant and you can show that the person receiving the training has taken in the training we will be happy.
In this case i would look at the skills these men have and match them to the job you are now asking of them, then see where you are. an electrician does his training but goes to new types of jobs he might never have done before but his standard knowlegde and skills become transferable, he wouldn't keep having new training for each and every job situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
MikeSweeney wrote:I get a little bit worried about our profession nowadays.
But to infer that, for example, that operatives cannot erect a mobile tower unless trained by a PASMA accredited organisation is going too far.
The point I am trying to make is that specifying accredited training is taking away an element of our competence – the skills to provide suitable and sufficient training. Unfortunately, HSE are a little more prescriptive about this. CIS10 says: "Towers should be erected following a safe method of work. There are two approved methods recommended by the Prefabricated Access Suppliers’ and Manufacturers’ Association (PASMA), which have been developed in co-operation with the Health and Safety Executive. Towers should only be erected by trained and competent people. There are a number of organisations that provide training for the safe erection and use of tower scaffolds following the methods described above. To prevent the use of incorrectly erected or damaged mobile access towers, they must be inspected by a competent person. This is someone with the experience, knowledge and appropriate qualifications" This suggests that our competence, our understanding of "relevant examples of good practice from within their industry" should be advising this level of training, being beyond our ability to provide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Morning all,
Competence. I had this problem with Itallian workers on a UK site - what a nightmare topic! I consulted with the HSE Inspector I Know. They cannot be definative as the law wont allow it - its not fair to expect that answer from anyone. Look at the legislation LOLER PUWER etc. lo and behold no definition! reference to practical knowledge and experience etc. but no if you complete course 'x' you are competent to do job 'y' which is what everyone seems to want.
It is for the employer to deem the competence of his workforce not CSCS NPORS PASMA etc. The idea is that the employer sets learning objectives for his workforce - some of these may be available courses - some may require a specialised course - then if the employee successfully passes the training and therefore meets the employers learning objectives the employer deems him competent to do the job. That way the employer retains the responsibility for the competence of his workforce - one which he may need to defend in court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.