PAR2007 - IPAF

“There is big growth
in MEWPs at the
moment, and there is
the perception that
they’re safer, but of
course, they’re only
as safe as the person
using them.”
Andrew Brown
continued from page 13
AB: I would also argue that for an electrician,
for instance, a MEWP should
be regarded as a tool of his trade in the
same way that a drill is. Why shouldn’t
it be part of an electrician’s training?
TW: We’re trying to persuade the colleges
to do that.
AB: There is big growth in MEWPs at
the moment, and there is the perception
that they’re safer, but of course,
they’re only as safe as the person using
them, and they are very technical bits
of kit. If you extend the car analogy,
people think 30 to 40 lessons are necessary
to pass – yet we say MEWPs are
more technical than cranes and we ask
for less training!
TW: Though you could argue that traffic
conditions are more dangerous than
average site conditions, which is why
you need all those lessons.
AB: I would hate to be a site manager
at present: there are so many cards out
there it must be almost impossible to
establish if someone is competent to use
a certain item of kit.
SD: With CSCS, there have been more
and more fraudulent cards about. An
agency might supply us with labour
that either did not have the appropriate
cards, or had fraudulent cards, but they
are not prosecuted. We try to manage
this as best we can, but there’s no real
deterrent. However, if someone was
caught with a fake driving licence, they
would quickly be prosecuted.
AB: And if it was established someone
on our site was using kit they were not
qualified for, the HSE will quickly come
down on us.
SD: There needs to be some sort of
central controlling authority to suspend
these agencies. We can say we’ll never
use them again, but they will still work
elsewhere in the industry. At present,
agencies don’t want to be responsible
for who they have on their books.
AB: Would the HSE ever take enforcement
action against an individual who
had procured a fraudulent card?
JL: The HSE can take enforcement
action for lack of training, but fraud
would be investigated by the police.
SD: One thing that could make a difference
to the fraudulent cards issue is
online authentication – if you could do
a simple check on the web to authenticate
the operator, that would be a huge
help to our site managers.
TW: It’s certainly something we could
look at. I also wonder if some kind of
swipe system could be integrated into
the ignition system?
WM: I guess that would be an issue for
manufacturers, but it raises an interesting
question: should there be pressure
on manufacturers to bring features into
their kit that help make the industry
safer? Should there be greater standardisation
in their kit to cut down on
confusion?
SD: Yes, better ergonomic design is
needed, with standardised controls. It’s
ridiculous that you could pull the lever
one way with one kind of MEWP to go
up, but the other way with a different
manufacturer’s machine and you would
go down! In a car, you know the accelerator,
brake and clutch will all be in the
same place.
WM: But how do you get the manufacturers
onside?
SD: It’s difficult. They’re strong.
TW: Well, we’ve got EN280, which
eventually brought dramatic safety
improvements and one of the issues
that the IPAF Manufacturers’ Technical
Committee is looking into is how to
standardise controls on machines.
WM: Maybe when we next do this
debate, we need to have a manufacturer
representative here as well!
14
IPAF POWERED ACCESS REVIEW 2007