Why is being shown by a competent person insufficient?

That competent person will have been instructed by a competent person and so on back to the first grunt of a homonid.

If they need the equipment for their employment task the only reason it may be insufficient is that their employer did not arrange for it but should have?

I'm competent in a MWEP however I cannot show someone how to use it and them to be able to use it alone, it doesnt work that way, hence my question.

Isn't this more of a "proof of competence" issue, than an actual competence issue. What proof do you have that the original competent person is compentent? What proof do you have that the training was suitable and sufficient? And what proof do you have that the people recieving the training are now competent?

Training, skills, knowledge and experience are all you need to show. For MEWPs it is stated on the HSE that 

"MEWP operators should have attended a recognised operator training course and received a certificate, card or 'licence', listing the categories of MEWP the bearer is trained to operate.

The expiry date of the training licence or card should be checked."

Which supports your MEWP post. However I can't find the same level of training required for mast climbers. The best I can find is

A mast climber can be expensive to use, and workers will need to be trained to operate it.

Although I can find plenty of sites that offer training. Of course the same goes for FLT licences, and they aren't mandatory.

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

Isn't this more of a "proof of competence" issue, than an actual competence issue. What proof do you have that the original competent person is compentent? What proof do you have that the training was suitable and sufficient? And what proof do you have that the people recieving the training are now competent?

Training, skills, knowledge and experience are all you need to show. For MEWPs it is stated on the HSE that 

"MEWP operators should have attended a recognised operator training course and received a certificate, card or 'licence', listing the categories of MEWP the bearer is trained to operate.

The expiry date of the training licence or card should be checked."

Which supports your MEWP post. However I can't find the same level of training required for mast climbers. The best I can find is

A mast climber can be expensive to use, and workers will need to be trained to operate it.

Although I can find plenty of sites that offer training. Of course the same goes for FLT licences, and they aren't mandatory.

Thats why I've posted and asked, I dont know much about mast climbers and cannot find much information about the training, but  as its at height and (as was the case in liverpool yesterday) incidents happen and people unfortunately die, I need to ensure that if certified training is required, then its done and not a 5 min TBT from another tech.

http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t127314-who-trains-the-trainer

Post #4

Unfortunately construction and wider industry has a tendency to brain wash people in to believing that there is no competence without a card, on-line test or certificate and providers exploit this fear by claiming skills must be regularly assessed (in case their bank accounts run dry)

Originally Posted by: CptBeaky

. For MEWPs it is stated on the HSE that 

"MEWP operators should have attended a recognised operator training course and received a certificate, card or 'licence', listing the categories of MEWP the bearer is trained to operate.

The expiry date of the training licence or card should be checked."

Which supports your MEWP post.

Although I can find plenty of sites that offer training. Of course the same goes for FLT licences, and they aren't mandatory.

Yet again the HSE web site is offering advice which is not enforcable by law, sometimes i wonder who writes thier stuff, these days - not trained inspectors looking at some of it.

In 30 years as an inspector i never prosecuted a compnay or served a notice because staff had not attended a MEWP course, FLT course or PASMA training - and as for licences and expitering dont get me started. I did however serve plenty of notices for people needing training where obvioulsy they had not got the necessary skills.

Sorry i have quoted enough regulations today so i will let you look up PUWER yourselves - ne where does it say external training is required by law.

Edited by user 21 May 2021 12:26:50(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling mistake obviouse even to dyslexic me!

Originally Posted by: Roundtuit

http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t127314-who-trains-the-trainer

Post #4

Unfortunately construction and wider industry has a tendency to brain wash people in to believing that there is no competence without a card, on-line test or certificate and providers exploit this fear by claiming skills must be regularly assessed (in case their bank accounts run dry)

Spot on but unfortunatly i think its also true that some people think you have a card you must be compitant. A number of years ago i completed a "Scaffolding Inspection" course. For about 6 months i did a few inspections and was feeling OK about them. Then my role changed and i stopped. 2 years later i was asked to carry out another inspection. The person requesting it could not understand why i said no. As far as he was concerned my card had 6 months to run so i was still compitent - 2 years with no practice i had to beg to differ.

Originally Posted by: craigroberts76

They way I look at these things is -

A tech has an accident on site with a mast climber, HSE ask to see the RAMS and SMOW, issue 1 - mast climber isnt in the RAMS as I dont know about it, then issue 2 is that they "may" then ask how did I know the guy was competent to use it, and if it was cascade training, then how did i verify the training.

There may not be courses for mast climbers, which is what I'm trying to get to the bottom of.

Absolutly spot on - and if they are not covered in your RAMS and SMOW you are right could spell big trouble. You are also right about veryfying the training - but that does not mean it has to be external. As i said above i did an external scafolding course as we had no one compitent withing the company. But we also have lots of people training internaly who are compitent at what they do.

The advantage of external training i sometimes licken to insurance - it gives you some level of reasurance - but dont assume its a legal requirement.

So the discussion is not actually about someone else providing instruction to make the employees safe at site rather that you as the employer representative were unaware of an equipment/training need to complete a contractual task and therefore did not include it in your paperwork?

Is this the joy of standard pre-printed RAMS rolled out to every contract or time to find a new employer as you are obviously on the payroll to be the sacrificial lamb when the proverbial hits the fan?

I am always looking tbh, currently doing a MSc in Risk and crisis management as I want to expand into business risk as its the next step for me from H&S and is incorportated into enterprise risk.

But yeh, I wasnt aware that these works were at height or using a cradle, that info wasnt provided.

and therein is why we have to learn about the market we choose to operate in.

Wholly incorrect to assume because the UK often follows a "train the trainer" approach it would be applicable or acceptable for other markets.

I was going through the forums and thought it relevant to post on this topic (my first post by the way and coming late to the party I know)

Having used both mast climbers and cradles during my time on the tools - maybe 15 plus years ago, those who erected the fixed plant i.e. mast climber / cradle were the ones who instructed us (as cavity wall insulation installers) how the controls worked and what was expected in terms of PPE or more specifically fall protection.

In terms of competence, is it too much of an assumption to think that the up and down controls of either system is not difficult to grasp. A hand over sheet was signed and counter signed and we were left to get on with the job of insulating the cavity walls of structures that were 22 stories high (mast climbers) and 18 storeys high (cradles). The definition of 'competence' in the world of OSH is relvent here - Trained? Yes in how the controls work. Experience? Yes, work at height, working with equipment - practice at low levels on how twitchy controls are and how responsive they are. Knowledge? Yes - just received the trianing and coupled with experience.

Aside from failure of equipment or an operative dismissing his own safety in regards to risk of falling, I see no need for there to be certificates banded about to show so-called competency.

Hope this helps, or at least gives another persepctive.