A question of competence
October 01st 2005 In common with many engineering sectors, the lifting industry suffers from a shortage of appropriately trained and experienced staff, writes Derrick Bailes, chief executive, Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (pictured right). There are a number of factors behind this, not least the steady decline in traditional apprenticeship schemes. Rising levels of employment over the last few years have also lead to fierce competition for staff, inevitably resulting in some experienced engineers leaving the lifting industry for other areas.
The ‘skills gap’ within the lifting industry poses some real challenges for those responsible for ensuring the safety and legality of lifting operations. Reflecting the fact that most accidents are the result of human error rather than straightforward equipment failure, modern risk-based legislation such as the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations (LOLER) quite rightly emphasise the need to use competent staff. In response, there has undoubtedly been a greater focus on training within the lifting industry. The results, however, have been mixed. In particular, there still appears to be some confusion over precisely what level of skills and experience are needed for the various staff involved.
In broad terms, safe and legal lifting encompasses four distinct job functions: planning, supervision, operation, and thorough examination of the equipment involved. Depending on the precise nature of the lifting operation, it is possible that more than one of these roles is handled by the same person. However, it is vital that training reflects the fact that they each require a distinct set of skills. This should influence not just the content of the training programme, but also the initial selection of suitable candidates. For those chosen to plan lifting operations, areas that the training must address include identification of hazards, assessment of associated risks, and methods of controlling them. Supervisors will need to exercise a level of control appropriate to the risk. However, even for low risk, routine operations, they need to be capable of ensuring that the competence of operators is monitored and any need for additional or refresher training is identified. Obviously the operators themselves will need to be trained in the correct use of the equipment and in identifying and understanding equipment markings. Their training should also cover the daily in-service inspection of lifting equipment, pre-lift checks such as load and angle estimation, reporting defects and correct methods of attaching loads.
The thorough examination of lifting equipment is a rather more specialist role, usually undertaken by a different company to the one actually operating the lifting equipment. Under LOLER, employers are required to have all lifting equipment thoroughly examined. In very broad terms, a thorough examination is required before the lifting equipment is put into service for the first time (with some exceptions), and periodically throughout its working life. Usually this is every six or twelve months (depending on the equipment involved), but a more flexible, risk-based approach can also be adopted.
Thorough examination is defined by the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA) as "a visual examination carried out by a competent person carefully and critically and, where appropriate, supplemented by other means such as measurement and testing, in order to check whether the equipment is safe to use".
Across all the job functions associated with lifting operations, there is a clear need for effective training.
In response to the skills shortages affecting the industry, a wide range of training provision has been established, both ‘in house’ and by specialist training companies.
Standards vary widely, but it would be fair to say that much of it is too vague and lacks the rigorous assessment necessary to make a real impact on either safety or efficiency.
Of the four roles outlined, thorough examination is undoubtedly the most technically demanding. LOLER does not define ‘competence’, but both the approved Code of Practice that accompanies it, and LEEA, have produced definitions which place particular emphasis on the need for both practical and theoretical knowledge, as well as experience of the lifting equipment. However, given the problems that can be encountered in recruiting and retaining appropriately qualified staff, unfortunately it is inevitable that some companies are tempted to cut corners when it comes to the ‘competence’ of the staff used to undertake thorough examinations. In doing so they put both themselves and their customers at risk.
For organisations seeking to ensure the integrity of their lifting equipment supplier, LEEA’s role within the industry can help to identify companies that are capable of delivering effective thorough examination of lifting equipment. For many years, LEEA has been running a well respected diploma examination designed to test whether students can demonstrate adequate knowledge of the theory of test and examination of lifting equipment. It encompasses several papers, each dealing with a different equipment group.
Furthermore, to achieve full membership of the LEEA (and with it the right to display the LEEA logo) companies must pass an initial technical audit by the LEEA, and subsequent periodic audits. The audits cover the availability and suitability of facilities and test equipment, procedures and records, including proof that the employees responsible for thorough examinations have at least one or two years of suitable experience, in addition to passing the appropriate exam.
Along with its diploma exam programme, the standards demanded by LEEA of its members provide those responsible for sourcing suitably-qualified suppliers of lifting equipment and services with a valuable means of quality control. And as far as the industry-wide skills shortage is concerned, it is reassuring to find that membership of LEEA is growing steadily, with most applicants citing access to the distance learning courses that prepare students for the exam as a key benefit. Indeed, in response to demands from members for practical as well as theoretical training, LEEA has just undertaken one of the most significant developments in its 60 year history. On September 5th 2005, the association moved not just to a new head office, but also to its first ever training centre. Located in Huntingdon, the centre will provide LEEA with the means to offer ‘hands on’ training on the inspection, test and examination of lifting equipment.
With a history that stretches back to the building of the Pyramids, overhead lifting is such a commonplace activity in so many industries that it is all too easy to overlook its significance. Typically, lifting operations are critical to the efficiency of a wide range of commercial activities. And when things go wrong, the consequences are not always just financial. Death and serious injury as a result of lifting accidents remain a significant problem. For example, between 1996 and 2001, the HSE investigated nearly 2,000 lifting incidents, which involved over 100 deaths and nearly 700 major injuries. There are numerous causes, but it is safe to say that many, if not all, could have been prevented by better trained staff, particularly in the fields of planning and supervision. Whilst the current skills shortage undoubtedly makes things more difficult, it does not change the employer’s legal duties to use staff with the right skills and experience. Fortunately, LEEA’s long-standing commitment to improving professional standards within the industry at least ensures that those responsible for lifting operations have an independent means of assessing the competence of potential suppliers and their employees. More articles from Lifting Equipment Engineers Association: |
