Training is an ongoing issue within the crane industry, affecting everyone from the guy operating the crane to the supervisor in the site office, placing demands on both theoretical and practical competence.
The blame for many accidents, injuries and deaths can be laid squarely at the feet of insufficient training, with cranes tipping, loads falling or superstructures collapsing as a consequence of inexperience and a lack of knowledge.
Training needs to be an important element of any crane or crane operating company’s working method. Take Lewis Paisley, of haulage and plant hire firm R Paisley & Son, as an example. He qualified as a crane operator at 18, and says qualifying has benefited his father’s company, as well as his own professional development. He was tested on paper and on site operating live machinery, and is planning further tests to extend his qualifications.
“It has changed everything,” he says. “It has made it a lot easier and I’m doing more jobs on my own now; it has given me more confidence. It means I’m busy all day as I can go out onto jobs without having to be supervised. That means there’s a lot less hassle for my dad and I.”
Training needs to be an ongoing process, says Ian Simpson, HM principal specialist inspector, mechanical engineering, for the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
“Companies need to provide the right training as operators move to new cranes, from 25 tonners to 30 tonners, 50 tonners and higher. At the moment, with the crane industry being in turmoil due to the credit crunch, a lot of companies are shedding drivers but not vehicles. That means drivers are being asked to operate new machinery. They need to be trained on all the equipment they use.”
Appointed Person
One of the key people involved in any lifting operation in the UK is the Appointed Person (AP). They have overall control of the lifting operations on site, and are there to develop and implement safe systems of work.
The role of an AP was given legal status by the introduction of the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and is defined in British Standard 7121.
Prior to LOLER, there were a number of industry-specific sets of regulations, such as construction, quarries and shipyards, with more than 200 individual regulations outlining responsibilities for lifting operations. LOLER simplified these and ensures that most lifting operations are covered by one set of regulations that are applicable everywhere.
BS7121 lays out the requirements for an AP, with adequate training and experience to carry out duties competently a key element. These duties include: lift planning, selection of lifting equipment, instruction and supervision, responsibility for organisation and control of the lift; essentially managing the people, the equipment and the lift itself. It is a comprehensive mission statement from when the crane enters the site until it leaves. And while the role of an AP allows duties to be delegated to other suitably competent persons, responsibility remains with the AP.
APs do not carry out checks and inspections on equipment, geology or other areas in which they may not be suitably qualified, but make sure a competent person carries out these checks properly.
APs then make sure the mission of work has been read and understood by everyone on site involved in the lift, and should make sure they are all signatories to it to ensure their full cooperation and understanding. This can form part of the paper trail that could be called on at any moment by an HSE inspector. It reveals and removes any misconceptions and ambiguities over the work. It also provides useful documentary evidence should the AP go for further training and qualification.
Like Lewis Paisley, where his training has benefited not only his personal competence but his father’s business, having APs on the books can prove beneficial for a crane company’s lift services to potential customers, particularly those hunting out contract lift solutions and without their own qualified and competent persons to call on.
UK crane hire firm Winterlift has around seven APs in its office, from all areas of the business. These are sourced from the sales to the planning team, with even the hold music on the phone system carrying a message about the company’s AP offering.
Anthony Shufflebotham, one of these APs, says being able to offer a comprehensive service is good for business, as well as making sure working practices are within the legal framework.
“It’s very important,” he says. “It’s very important from our side with British Standards and LOLER; it’s important you meet the legal requirements. It’s also important we do a professional job for our customers who don’t have their own APs.”
Moving into 2009
LOLER came into force 11 years ago, so where is the UK industry now in terms of training and qualifying APs?
I travelled to Leyland in Lancashire to visit Ainscough Training Services’ new centre, opened in January this year, and joined six others and instructor Ray Poulton for the start of an intensive four-day Appointed Person Novice course.
Poulton, with 54 years experience working with cranes, was quick to point out that, although LOLER was introduced towards the end of the last century, there are still some companies that are not up-to-speed and working within the legal requirements of the regulations and British Standards.
This is particularly important with regard to the role of APs, which Poulton sees as one of the most important elements of a safe lift operation.
He showed us a letter sent out by the HSE in 2002 to companies outlining how the regulations were not being followed by all and drawing attention to how there was still a lack of knowledge and understanding, and a need for complete control over operations.
Ian Fisher, managing director at Ainscough Training, agrees. “Only in the last few years has the importance of management and supervision training taken on real prominence. There has been a realisation in the last few years of the importance of APs and safety.
“In terms of the industry, the lid is now very much off the can.”
For the six students and I, it was clear from the outset the depth of theoretical training that laid ahead as we were handed two weighty folders, one for us to take home and digest and another, including copies of LOLER, PUWER and BS7121, to reference throughout the course. Conversations during breaks were focused heavily on the work that would need to be put in to pass the CPCS technical test at the end and emerge from the AP course with something to show for it.
Shufflebotham says he too found the course to involve more than he’d imagined. He spent a year working with Winterlift before qualifying as an AP, having moved to the company from the aerospace industry.
“I realised the depth of what you have to look at down on the site. I wasn’t going in blind, but I thought, ‘Crikey, there’s a lot more happening on site’.”
Of the six, five passed the CPCS technical test at the end of the week. Ainscough said this is in line with the national average
“The role of an AP is a safety critical activity and the CPCS technical test is designed to identify those who can meet the high standard required to operate in the role,” Ainscough said.
“Currently, the pass mark for the AP technical test is around 85% and with Ainscough accounting for approximately 55% of all CPCS AP testing in the UK, the results of this particular course are a fair indicator of the standard set by CPCS.”
American standards
In the US, the role of a lift director outlined by ASME B30.5, carries many of the same responsibilities as an AP in the UK.
A lift director directly oversees crane and rigging work. They watch operations, stop operations if something is unsafe and address the concerns of an operator who raises a query that is overruled.
They make sure ground preparation for the crane, and any traffic controls around a crane, are completed before work starts. They make sure all people involved in the crane operation understand their responsibilities, duties and the associated hazards. They appoint a signaller and tell the operator, making sure the signaller knows and uses standard hand signals.
The lift director tells the crane operator the load weights, lifting path and destination. They check with the operator that the load is within the crane’s rated capacity. They check riggers are designated people, and that the load is properly rigged and balanced before it is raised high. They prevent any crane working near electric power lines, doing multiple crane lifts, lifting personnel and doing pick-and-carry operations unless strict guidelines are followed.
Bill Smith, vice president of NBIS Risk Management Unit, says the new B30.5, implemented in March this year, is a document 10 years in the making that evolved from the need for greater clarity of the various responsibilities for a lift.
Smith says previous standards from the late 1960s had made the operator responsible for everything under their direct control, including the authority to stop work if something was wrong. The wording of this clause was revamped in the 1980s to say the operator had the right to refuse work with a supervisor on hand, but maintained responsibility.
“It doesn’t make sense that he has responsibility, but has no control over the operations,” says Smith.
In 1999, Smith and other people working on B30.5 began to outline a new system for defining the various jobs and responsibilities for lifts. This outlines the role and duties of the crane operator, crane owner, crane user, site supervisor, and the lift director.
B30.5 states that, while the organisational structure of various projects may differ, the roles are intended to delineate responsibilities.
“It has been separated this way to make sure that everyone has responsibility and the responsibility is in the right place,”?Smith says.
“We’ve laid out a job site game plan for everyone on the site so everyone is responsible, not just the crane operator. This is a systematic approach that spreads responsibility more than it did.”
Smith says B30.5 has overcome the practice of larger companies involved in jobs contracting away their responsibility, with signatories taking the brunt of the legal costs and blame if there is a failure in health and safety protocol. B30.5 has given all parties back their responsibility meaning more attention is paid to safety.
“I like to describe it as putting skin in the game, and this puts more skin in the game and makes sure there’s more thought put into safety.”
This is akin to the Corporate Manslaughter Act, which has been in force in the UK since April 2008. The Ministry of Justice says the act has introduced “a new offence, across the UK, for prosecuting companies and other organisations where there has been a gross failing, throughout the organisation, in the management of health and safety with fatal consequences”. Poulton says it has helped raise awareness of responsibilities from the top down.
Smith adds the way the legal system works in the US means B30.5 carries a lot of weight. He says in the event of an accident, prosecutors and litigators pick up the latest ANSI documentation and use this to make their case. This is now B30.5.
