At the training school
WINSFORD

COURSES AVAILABLE
C/Balance Forklift  B1
Reach Truck           D1

P Pallet Truck        A2
P Truck Hand        Z1
All Refreshers

Operator Conversions
RELATED COURSES
Operator Assesmt
Corporate Packages
Forklift Supervisor

1st Aid Training

Rent out the training school


On-Site Training
Warehouse

COURSES AVAILABLE
C/Balance Forklift  B1
                           B2
Reach Truck         D1

P Pallet Truck   A2-A3
Hand P Truck         Z1
Rough Terr     Fix   J1
Rough Terr     9m  J2
            above 9m  J3
   Pivot  Bend/Flex P
Refreshers (All kinds

Operator Conversions
SPECIALIST EQUIPMENT COURSE
Scissor Lift
Lorry Loader (HIAB)
Slinger/Signaller

Overhead Crane
Hand Grinder

FLT Cage Lifting

RELATED COURSES
Operator Assessment
In House Instructors
Corporate Packages
Forklift Supervisor

1st Aid Training

Construction


Mini Digger


Dumper


Scissor lift

££ Price List ££

Publication

Training Manuals

 

Daily/Weekly Check Books

 

ADDITIONAL INFO
On-site Training
 --
Frequent Asked
Questions

 --

 Testimonials


Our own pages

 Contact Us


We travel the countr

Thomas Truck Training Ltd
 Offices in ........
 The Potteries and The Midlands

The Potteries
PHONE +44 (0) 1270 505824
The Midlands
PHONE +44 (0) 1832 731261
Open 7am -7pm inc Sat

 
Skype Me™!

Old Articles
Link to other H&S Pages
    1 2 3 4 5  Lorry Loader Letters 
  FAQ
   

Watch Dog Shows its Teeth
THE Health & Safety Commission (HSC) has issued a new enforce­ment policy statement outlining when and how the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) and other health and safety enforcing authorities (e.g. local authorities) will take action to investigate and prosecute companies for breaches of health and safety law.
The publication revised the previous enforcement statement policy issued in 1995. It comes after the House of Commons’ Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee published a report in February 2000 that was scathing about the HSE’s performance. It concluded that the HSE was failing to investigate a sufficient number of workplace accidents and was not bringing enough prosecutions against companies that flouted health and safety legislation.
In response, in the summer of 2000, the Government and the HSC announced plans to increase the number of investigations by the HSE into workplace accidents. Later in the autumn of 2000 the HSC launched a public consultation on proposed changes to the enforcement policy statement.
The policy applies to all Britain’s enforcing authorities, including the HSE and all local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales.
It makes clear to inspectors, employers, workers and the public, what standards they should expect when it comes to enforcing health and safety in the workplace. The policy determines when enforcing authorities should take action. The enforcing authorities have a range of options at their disposal to enable them to secure compliance with
the law and to ensure a proportionate response to criminal offence committed by companies. These options include writing warning, letters to companies, serving improvement and prohibition notice, withdrawing approvals, varying licence conditions, the issue of forms cautions and their ultimate deterrent, prosecution.
Decisions on whether to investigate a workplace incident
must take into account a number of factors including:
    •   The severity and scale of potential or actual harm.
    •   The seriousness of any potential breach of health and safety law.
    •   The offending company’s previous health and safety record.
    •   The wider relevance of the incident, including the public concern caused by it.
The policy sets out when a prosecution should normally take place in the public interest. These include any one of a number of circumstances, such as:
      •   When the gravity of the offence, taken together with the serious ness of any actual or 
      potential harm, or the general record and approach of the offending company warrants it.
       If there has been a reckless disregard of health and safety requirements by the offending      company.
       If there have been repeated breaches by the offending company of health and safety law which give rise to significant risk, or persistent and significant poor compliance.
       When a company’s standard of managing health and safety is far below what is required by health and safety law and gives rise to significant risk.

The HSE in its 1997 guidance — Successful Health & Safety Management (often referred to as H5G65) states that accidents, ill health and incidents are seldom random events and that they generally arise from failures of control by management. It says the immediate cause may be a human or technical failure, but they usually arise from organisational failings which are the responsibility of management.
Some companies try to pass the buck by blaming health and safety failures on frontline workers who have make a mistake. However, in another guidance published by the HSE in 1999, entitled Reducing Error, Influencing Behaviour (often referred to as HSG48), it says:
“Over the last 20 years we have learnt much more about the origins of human failure. We can now challenge the commonly held belief that incidents and accidents are the result of a “human error” by a worker in the “front line”. Attributing incidents to “human error” has often been seen as a sufficient explanation in itself and something which is beyond the control of managers. This view is no longer acceptable to society as a whole. Organisations must recognise that they need to consider human factors as a distinct element which must be recognised, assessed and managed effec­tively in order to control risks”.
In the past there have been very few prosecutions of directors and senior managers when there have been serious health and safety breaches. But, the policy makes it clear that the conduct of manage­ment should be considered. In particular, enforcing authorities should consider the management chain and the role played by individual directors and managers. It says action should be taken by then where the inspection or investigation reveals that the offence was committed with their consent or connivance or to have been attribut­able to neglect on their part. The policy statement also says that where appropriate, enforcing authorities should seek to have directors disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.
Bill Callaghan, Chairman of the HSC, commented on the publication of the enforcement policy statement that “Inspectors must consider carefully the role of individual managers and directors when serious failures do occur — and ensure that appropriate action is taken against them if the evidence justifies it”.
He also said: “The HSC relies on the co-operation of responsible bosses to safeguard the health and safety of Britain’s work force and tries to give every encouragement for them to do so”.
Last year, the HSC issued a guidance entitled Directors’ Responsibilities for Health & Safety. The guidance sets out five action points which are:
          The Board needs to accept formally and publicly its collective role in providing health and safety leadership in its organisation.
          Each member of the Board needs to accept his/her individual role in providing health and safety leadership for their organisation.
          The Board needs to ensure that all Board decisions reflect its health and safety intentions, as articulated in the organisation’s health and safety policy statement.
    
      The Board needs to recognise its role in engaging the active participation of workers in improving health and safety.
          The Board needs to ensure that it is kept informed of, and alert to, relevant health and safety risk management issues. The guidance recommends that one of the Board members is appointed as the “Health & Safety Director”.Mr Callaghan concluded with a warning for negligent employers:
“Now, more than ever, there is no excuse for those at the top to be ignorant of their responsibilities or to fail to take effective action. If you cannot manage health and safety, then you cannot manage”
FireFighter August 2002
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

HSE urges mobile work equipment users to meet compliance deadline
HSE Press Release E169:02 - 6 September 2002
Users of mobile work equipment have just 90 days to comply with safety regulations, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) warns today.

Mobile work equipment includes, for example, forklift trucks, dumper trucks and tractors. For new equipment the requirement to comply with Part III of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98) has been in effect since 5 December 1998. But for equipment in use before that date, there is now just three months of a four-year transitional period to go.

Timothy Walker, HSE's Director General, said:

"The HSE is committed to reducing the number of deaths involving mobile work equipment. Last year 99 people were killed and over 8,000 people were injured in accidents involving workplace transport. The entry into effect of Part III of PUWER 98 will contribute to reducing the unacceptable level of deaths and injuries."

The serious safety risks involved in the use of mobile equipment include: being struck by the vehicle; the vehicle rolling over; the driver or passengers falling from the vehicle or being struck by a falling object; unauthorised start up of the vehicle; inadequate devices for braking and stopping; and restricted driver visibility.

Part III of PUWER addresses these risks by requiring duty holders to ensure their equipment is safe to use. Duty holders may have to take measures such as retrofitting roll-over protective structures (ROPS), falling object protective structures (FOPS), operator restraints (seat belts, lap belts, etc) and driver visibility aids such as mirrors. For instance, if under the particular conditions of use, mobile plant is likely to overturn, the user must provide a ROPS and operator restraint.

HSE is also reminding duty holders of the need to ensure that when mobile plant is used in conditions where overturn is likely, the operator restraint is worn. ROPS and restraints can be rendered useless if the driver of an overturning vehicle is not wearing the seat belt provided. Supervisors should regularly check that drivers are wearing seat belts where necessary.

NOTES TO EDITORS

1. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98), together with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER), implement the Amending Directive to the Use of Work Equipment Directive (95/63/EC).

2. Part III of PUWER (comprising six regulations) was introduced to deal with the risks involved in the use of mobile work equipment such as forklift trucks, dumpers and tractors. It came into force immediately for new equipment, but mobile work equipment already in use before 5 December 1998 (when PUWER was introduced) has until 5 December 2002 to comply. The transitional period recognised that users need time to adapt or retrofit existing equipment and allows them to spread any costs over several years.

3. The accident statistics quoted in this press release are HSE figures for the year 2000/2001. There were 99 fatalities, 2,490 major injuries, and 5,857 over-3-day injuries.

4. Further information is available in HSE's free leaflet Fitting and Use of Restraining Systems on Lift Trucks (HSE Information Sheet MISC 241).

5. Copies of Safe Use of Work Equipment – Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998: Approved Code of Practice and Guidance (L22), ISBN 0-7176-1626-6, price £8.00, and Fitting and Use of Restraining Systems on Lift Trucks (MISC 241) are available online at: http:/www.hsebooks.co.uk or from HSE Books, PO Box 1999, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 2WA, (tel: 01787 881165, fax: 01787 313995) or from good booksellers.

Press Enquiries: Journalists only: 020 7717 6219

PUBLIC ENQUIRIES:
Call HSE's InfoLine, tel: 08701-545500
or write to: HSE Information Services, Caerphilly Park, Caerphilly CF83 3GG.  
Published on the HSE web site on 10 September 2002

 

National Plant pull out of CPCS Card Scheme
STAN CHAPMAN  (CHIEF EXECUTIVE) National Plant Operators Registration Scheme Ltd
As we are no longer part of CPCS there are a number of changes required to bring NPORS into line as an independent accrediting body and card scheme. Below is the proposed new organisational chart, re-introducing the standards setting committee and sub-committees. Each sub-committee will National Plant Logoelect a chairman to represent them on the main standards committee.
Sub-committees will be able to organise themselves to suit there own particular style of working and may form working groups where the subject matter requires wider consultation.  We will be setting up a series of forums on the web site so that ALL registered instructors may have a say, however, there will be secure areas, one for each committee, for committee members to have private discussions.
Anyone interested in taking part as a committee member should email me at committees@npors.com briefly stating the committee(s) you wish to be a part of. Anyone with any suggestions regarding the new arrangements I will be very interested in your comments.
Ron Andrews and myself will select the first members of each committee and chair the first meetings wherein each committee will elect a chairman, vice chairman and secretary. At this time we will lay out the work of the committee and who to contact for support.

 

Chairman Com. 1

Chairman Com. 3

Chairman Com. 5 Chairman Com. 7

 

NPORS Chairman & Vice Chairman

NPORS Training Standards Committee

Industry Experts / Advisors

 

Chairman Com. 2

Chairman Com. 4 Chairman Com. 6 Chairman Com. 8

 

 

Sub Committee 1

Earthmoving Plant

(Excavator, Dumpers, Etc)

Sub Committee 2

Materials Handling (Lift Trucks, Telhandlers, Etc)

Sub Committee 3

Lifting Operations

(All Cranes, Slingers, Appointed Persons Etc)

Sub Committee 4

Access Equipment

(Scaffolding, Ladders, MEWPS, Etc)

Sub Committee 5

Powered Tools & Equipment

Sub Committee 6

Safety Trng Courses

i.e. Manual Handling

Sub Committee 7

Instructor, Train the Trainer Courses

Sub Committee 8

Commercial Course Approvals

Please note: Committees will cover specific items of plant, equipment or subjects regardless of industry sectors.

Download PRESS RELEASE  on this HERE
http://www.npors.com/corporate/npors_update.asp
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (08/02/07)

"ALLMI" merges with "ALLMI Training"
On the 1st February this year, the Association of Lorry Loader Manufacturers and Importers (ALLMI) merged with ALLMI Training Ltd to form a single limited company. The formation of this company, ALLMI Ltd, brings a new corporate identity, part of which includes the new ALLMI logo (above left).

ALLMI was founded in 1978 at the request of the Health & Safety Executive and has always been heavily involved in forming and influencing “Best Practice” within the lorry loader industry. Although ALLMI has been successfully involved in a number of issues, ALLMI members were polled in 2003 with regard to their feelings towards the Association, its activities and its overall profile. The response was that they wanted the Association to enjoy a much higher profile and to perhaps offer a number of peripheral services to its members.

The poll within the ALLMI membership suggested a natural solution; that the Association should build towards merging ALLMI with ALLMI Training Ltd. This provides the organisation with synergies, a single point of contact and the structure to provide any peripheral services in addition to creating the opportunity for a stronger presence in the industry.

This merger has now taken place and ALLMI is currently 13-months into a 24-month program of implementing some major changes. These include: -

  • Replacing the Executive Committee of ALLMI and the Board of ALLMI Training Ltd with a Management Board for the newly merged organisation. All officers have been elected and include representatives from 3 of the biggest loader crane Manufacturers.
  • Introducing a Buyers' Co-operative to enable all Members, particularly the smaller ones, to be able to buy core items such as steel, oil, hoses, insurance and so on through collective bargaining.
  • Introducing a certificated training scheme and ultimately a recognised qualification for people who carry out Examination & Testing of Lorry Loaders.
  • Re-writing and updating the ALLMI Code of Practice to incorporate all the more recent product innovations and legislative requirements.
  • Establishing a new division of the Association specifically for owners of Lorry Loaders

You can find there details at  www.lorryloaders.info        or        www.allmi.com
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article Article posted (02/06/06)

 

Big H says "Please note that this article superseded by the article at the top of the page. It is left on because this article also refers to Grandfather rights ect."

 

RIDER-OPERATED LIFT TRUCKS: OPERATOR TRAINING APPROVED CODE OF PRACTICE

This OC gives inspectors information on the practical operation of accreditation schemes run by HSC- recognised accrediting bodies, and gives some guidance on basic and refresher training, documentation and certificates of training, supervisor training, non-employees who use lift trucks, and 'grandfather rights'.

INTRODUCTION

1 A revised version of the approved code of practice (ACoP) and guidance: HSE booklet L117 Rider-operated lift trucks: operator training (file 790) came into effect on 1 October 1999. It is a revision of that first published in 1988.

2 L117 gives practical advice on the requirements of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98) reg.9 as they relate to the basic training of operators of rider-operated lift trucks.

3 L117 gives advice to employers on training of lift truck operators and their supervisors. The revised ACoP and guidance has clarified and amplified earlier advice on the types of lift truck within scope, the selection of training providers and competence of instructors, training needs of supervisors, periodic reassessment of operator competency and requirements for refresher/conversion training, and length of courses. It also covers the duties of employers (in the wider meaning of that term given by PUWER 98) and cooperation between them and site controllers to ensure only trained operators use lift trucks.

HSC RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING BODIES

Recognised accrediting bodies

4 L117 para 53 refers to HSC recognition of accrediting bodies for lift truck operator training. The accrediting bodies accredit organisations or individuals - 'accredited training providers' (ATPs) - who are deemed competent to provide (or, in the case of individuals, to be) the instructors who carry out the training.

5 There are 5 recognised accrediting bodies:

1) the Association of Industrial Truck Trainers whose accreditation scheme is known as the Independent Training Standards Scheme and Register (ITSSAR)

2) the Construction Industry Training Board whose scheme is part of the Certificate of Training Achievement Scheme (CTA) which covers many types of construction plant. HSC’s recognition is only for lift truck training;

3) Lantra National Training Organisation (previously ATB Landbase);

4) the National Plant Operators Registration Scheme; and

5) RTITB Ltd.

6 HSC recognition of accrediting bodies is intended to promote professional, consistent training standards and to help employers select good quality training. Although accreditation by recognised accrediting bodies is voluntary, the use by an employer of an ATP provides some assurance that the training provided will be at least to the standard described in the ACoP and guidance. Each recognised accrediting body is required to provide details of appropriately qualified and experienced ATPs to enquirers who seek advice about lift truck training. They should also provide a description of their assessment criteria. The schemes operated by the recognised bodies differ in detail, but the principles are the same.

Accredited training providers

7 An ATP may be an organisation, individual or an in-house training scheme. HSC recognises only the accrediting bodies, not ATPs.

8 The main conditions of accreditation are that ATPs use qualified and experienced instructors only, that they follow course syllabuses approved by the accrediting body and that they be subjected to regular monitoring visits by the accrediting body. The training must also be carried out in suitable premises, which may be a dedicated training centre or an area set aside for the purpose at an employer's premises.

9 To become accredited, a training provider applies to one (or more) of the recognised accrediting bodies. If the training is to be carried out at a training centre, the accrediting body will inspect that facility. If training is to be carried out at employers' premises, then the applicant is asked to demonstrate that they have all the necessary equipment and documentation, and to arrange to conduct a training course at which an assessor from the accrediting body would be present.

Instructors

10 There are 2 levels of instructor associated with accrediting bodies: accredited and registered. Both are trained as instructors, and assessed as being competent, on a course approved for the purpose by an accrediting body.

11 An accredited instructor (AI) will additionally have been inspected by the accrediting body as described in para 9 above, be subject to regular monitoring and have to use a course syllabus approved by the accrediting body. AI registration is valid for 5 years, after which the instructor is reassessed and reaccredited. HSC recognises only the accrediting bodies, not AIs.

12 A registered instructor (RI) is trained and tested to the same standard as an AI. Registration is for a 5 year period after which the instructor is reassessed and re-registered. However, an RI is not inspected, monitored or subject to control over their course syllabus by the accrediting body. This does not mean that the standard of training provided by an RI is necessarily lower, nor that they do not follow a syllabus produced by an accrediting body. However, being outside the accredited system, the training may not be as uniform as that provided by an AI, nor is it subject to the same control. Some in-house training schemes are provided by an RI, and the employer may not consider it necessary to apply for accreditation because they monitor their own standards.

Certificates of training

13 Certificates issued by an ATP (or AI/RI) will quote their accreditation number, the name of the accrediting body, and the name and registration number of the instructor who conducted the training. Certificates should always provide sufficient information to allow the training to be traced back to course content. If training has been limited (eg lifting to (say) 3 metres), then the certificate should identify this limitation to ensure that operators only undertake work for which they have been trained. Note that there is no legal requirement for certificates, which are often confused with licences, but ATPs will always issue them and HSE encourages their use as a good way of demonstrating that training has been provided.

TRAINING COURSES

Duration

14 There are many factors that can affect how long a training course should be. It is not possible to set out hard and fast rules, but the following information is given as a general guide. It should be noted that there are training providers other than those accredited by a recognised body, but their courses should be of similar duration to those of an ATP.

15 A course of basic training for novices with a trainee:instructor ratio of 2 or 3:1 is likely to last 5 days. This will allow time for training as described in L117. Where the instructor has only one trainee, the training is not meant to cover the full range of lift truck work, or trainees are not complete novices, then courses may be shorter (L117 para 34).

16 The length of a refresher training course is dictated by the amount of training required to bring operators back up to the required standard of competence. The content and length of the course will be set by assessment of the operators to identify shortcomings and any unsafe habits which need correction. It is not, therefore, possible to advise on the length of refresher training. However, it is unlikely that refresher courses of less than one day will be effective. The quality of the original basic training may be a factor, but the primary indicator is the assessment of training needs by a competent person. As with basic training, the trainee:instructor ratio will influence course duration.

Frequency of refresher training

17 There is no set frequency for refresher training in legislation, neither is there any logical basis for saying that refresher training should be provided at set intervals. L117 advises that employers should continuously monitor the performance of operators to ascertain whether they might need refresher training (indicators might be near misses, accidents or simply consistently unsafe working practices). Although employers are free to set refresher training intervals, they should not then ignore operators for the intervening period (L117 para 47).

Supervisor training

18 For monitoring to be successful, it is essential that people responsible for supervising lift truck operators are also adequately trained. L117 gives advice on supervisor training. Supervisors need sufficient training to be able to understand the risks involved and to recognise safe and unsafe practices. They do not need full operator training. Accrediting bodies are able to advise on supervisor training (L117 para 23).

Use of trucks by non-employees

19 Use of lift trucks by people other than employees is increasingly common. Typically this is done by visiting lorry drivers and service engineers. Employers and site controllers should cooperate to ensure that only adequately trained people operate lift trucks (L117 paras 25-26).

Grandfather rights

20 The original ACoP and guidance, published in 1988, conferred ‘grandfather rights’, in relation to basic training as described in the ACoP, on people who were already operators when it came into effect on 1 April 1989. This reference has been removed from the new ACoP, but neither version is retrospective and, therefore, grandfather rights are implicit. However, employers will still need to demonstrate that such employees are competent to operate safely the lift trucks they use. Over the period since 1989 it is likely that such operators would at least have needed refresher and conversion training.

ACTION BY INSPECTORS

21 Documentation to look for is:

1) training records, which can take any form (computer or paper based);

2) written authorisations to operate lift trucks for all staff who are expected to do so. This may not be confined to people designated as lift truck operators;

3) monitoring systems, recording near misses, etc, to identify the need for refresher training; and

4) if appropriate, systems showing that employers and site controllers are cooperating to ensure that non-employees who may operate lift trucks are adequately trained.

22 Employers should be encouraged to have their lift truck operators trained by an ATP.

23 Where inspectors observe poor operating practices (see HS(G)6 Safety in working with lift trucks (file 790)) they should consider recommending training or refresher training as appropriate.

24 Notwithstanding the above general information on the length of training courses, inspectors should bear in mind that whether or not an individual has received adequate training will be a question of fact. Allegations of inadequate training will need to be supported by evidence.

25 Where there is evidence that training may have been provided by an ATP other than in accordance with the criteria set out in L117 (the ACoP and guidance), details of the ATP and the possible deficiencies should be forwarded to FOD Safety Unit, NW Region.

26 Enquiries about whether a particular training provider is accredited by one of the HSC recognised accrediting bodies should also be addressed to FOD Safety Unit (via ELO for LA enforcement officers).

http://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/32-7.htm
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article

 

What is it all about ?
You could rightly be confused about the differences between AITT  and ITSSAR. When you ask your local training firm, do they end up waffling? Here is a definitive description extracted from the associations Newsletter. AITT - (The Association of Industrial Truck Trainers) formed in the mid 1980’s felt that training was starting to stagnate and needed a new impetus. As there was no Approved Code of Practice and the Health & Safety Commission accreditation did not happen until 1991. It was a bit hard to formalise standards For AITT to maintain and raise standards of effective monitoring it quickly became obvious that new standards of training courses and a completely independent monitoring body had to be formed. So with the help of BITAITSSAR ( Independent Training Standards Scheme and Register) was born. The support of BITA (British Industrial Truck Association) along with the AITT affiliation means that the standards of training and monitoring of the trainers is assured. So to-day ITSSAR is a totally independent body with no joint databases and monitors from all types of industry that have no vested interest in the individual. Just a responsibility to maintain high training standards 

ITSSAR have been established for 11 years and operate from offices based in Wokingham, Berkshire. It is a totally independent no-profit making organisation and is not in competition with the instructors on its register. It is concerned with the training of operators, instructors, tutors and examiners on all types of industrial trucks and applies the standards set out in the Health and Safety Commission Approved Code of Practive (ACoP) in all industrial sectors.
ITSSAR publishes Performance Standards and Training & Testing Standards for operators and instructors. It also provides advice on instructional techniques for all types of industrial truck operator training. It monitors training organisations and instructors to those standards.
Applications for accreditation carry the acceptance of an initial and periodic monitoring inspections. ITSSAR Training Standards Advisors carry out these and a copy that their report once signed by the Chairman of ITSSAR, is returned to the Training Organisation. Every ITSSAR approved instructor, tutor and examination training course is monitored by an ITSSAR Training Standards Following considerable support from the UK British industrial truck industry associations and in consultation with the confederation of British Industry (CBI), Trade Union Congress (TUC), Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and others involved in the professional training of operators and instructors of industrial trucks, the Association of Industrial Truck Trainers (AITT) introduced an accreditation scheme driven by practical training specialists and aimed at improving standards of training and safety in the operation of industrial trucks.

AITT is a body approved and listed as an accrediting organisation by the Health & Safety Commission (HSC) in the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) for Fork Truck Operator Training. The Independent Training Standards Scheme and Register (ITSSAR), the administration arm of the scheme, is self financing and non-profit making. It has been constructed to cover all sectors of industry which use industrial trucks and it registers and monitors instructors and training organisations meeting its standards. Practical trainers specialising everyday in the industrial truck training industry set ITSSAR standards. The standards are relevant, current, comprehensive and meet national standards.

ITSSAR promotes the high standard of training and operation in industry targeted by the ACoP.
ITSSAR specialises in all types of industrial truck and mobile materials handling equipment.
ITSSAR is dedicated to help you to improve your training.

BENEFITS

• Low cost, because the scheme is industry driven and non profit making.
• Covers all sectors of industry
• Access to information to assist you in maintaining standards of training beyond the required minimum.
• Inclusion in the ITSSAR Directory which is distributed to professional bodies and organisations seeking Accredited Trainers.
• Access to training aides and literature
• A laid down complaints procedure is available if needed
• All members accept that their activites will be independently monitored.
• All registrations are verifiable by certificate and identity card which include a photograph for recognition and security.
• A National Registration Scheme is available to all ITSSAR Instructors for registration of Operators.

ITSSAR offers eight categories of accreditation:

Category 1: Accredited Instructor
Category 2: Operator Training Organisation
Category 3: Instructor & Operator Training Organisation
Category 4: Accredited Tutor
Category 5: Accredited Examiner
Category 6: Site Safety Awareness (Operator)
Category 7: Instructor Site Safety Awareness
Category 8: Plant Operator

ITSSAR also offers the facility for registrations of Fork Lift Truck Operators.

Check out where your local training company is   CLICK HERE


Independent Training Standards Scheme and Register
Armstrong House
28 Broad St
Wokingham Berkshire RG40 1AB
Phone on 0118 989 3229
Fax 0118 979 6058
www.itssar.org.uk

 

 

What's in a category?
Each truck that you operate need's a license. The new ACOP states that very clearly. But what is the categories. Why have categories? The simple reason is that there are fundamental differences in the operation of individual trucks and these categories are designed to highlight the differences and make sure that the operator is given the right training. Did you know for instance that there is 3 categories of counterbalance truck. B1,B2,B3. Which dose your fall into? There is a table that I hope is clear. As always if you need help with it just ring or E Mail.   Need to know the category of the trucks you operate at your work Click here

 

Hanging offence or useful tool?
A new European standard for man-baskets suspended from cranes has been published.
Phil Bishop explores the implications
The issue of lifting persons in baskets suspended from cranes has been a hot topic for several years. There is a strong body of thought that argues that cranes aredesigned for lifting goods and not people and therefore is contrary to the EU Use of Work Equipment Directive 95/63/CE 1995.When crane hire company NMT offered rides in a basket suspended from a crane to visitors to the 2002 SED show, the International Powered Access Federation swiftly called in the Health & Safety Executive. After some discussion the authorities put a stop to the rides (which, it should be added, were merely to raise funds for charity). The basis for stopping NMT was that it was deemed to be using the crane and basket as a fairground ride rather than as industrial equipment. It is, in fact, perfectly legal in the UK to ride in a man-basket suspended from a crane, although some crane owners feel that clearer guidance is required from the HSE.
The HSE says that its attitude to riding in baskets suspended from cranes is very similar to its attitude to the use of work platforms attached to forklifts. In each case, LOLER says that it may be done only in "exceptional circumstances". In effect, this means where a risk assessment has demonstrated that there is not a more appropriate, safer alternative readily available. This is also in line with the Work at Height Regulations' hierarchy of risk. .............. For more on this article
click here
Crane & Access March 2006
No Responsibility accepted for the accuracy of this article  (25/03/06)