Training the Masses

Tim Whiteman

Tim Whiteman is the Managing Director of the International Powered Access Federation (IPAF) and President of Aerial Work Platform Training, Inc. The following article was excerpted from a presentation he made at the Aerial Platform Safety Conference November 3-5, 2004 in Dallas, Texas. About 165 people attended the conference, which was held in partnership with AWPT, the U.S. training arm of IPAF.

 

Aerial work platform use is on the rise with already hundreds of thousands of boom lifts and scissor lifts out there. In the United States, approximately 40,000 new platforms were added to the market this year, while European consumers buy about 15,000 new units per year. So, who is using all these aerial platforms and what are they doing with them?

Don't underestimate the danger

Working at height is the easy answer. But, it's lots of different kinds of people working at height. Another, and equally truthful answer would be : “People who have been trained to do something else” Typical aerial platform users are electricians, pipefitters, carpenters, steelworkers, photographers, painters, architects—anybody who needs to get up there to do the job.

 

While aerial work platforms offer a safe method for working at height, all these users—many of them new to aerials—think they know how to use an aerial platform. To them it looks like a simple, easy tool•you push this lever and it goes up, you push this lever and it goes down.

 

But there is a fundamental problem that faces our industry. On the one hand we want aerial platforms to be simple and easy to use so that everybody will use them. On the other hand we know that this strong selling point can make people underestimate the real dangers of working at height.

 

The easier a platform seems to be to use, and the more platforms there are in use, the more likely it is that unskilled people will use them. Results of untrained operators using platforms on site can be tragic and expensive. Studies show that the major cause of accidents is operator error. To me, operator error generally means, an operator has been inadequately trained. IPAF and AWPT have launched a project to collate accident reports and statistics. This project is in its very early stages and will take years to produce comprehensive results, but the trends that are starting to appear point toward operator error as the most common cause of accidents.

 

In some cases machine failure is cited as the cause, but our research suggests that this is rare. In some cases the description of machine failure may be misleading. IPAF performed a detailed analysis of accidents recorded by the UK's HSE, equivalent of OSHA. This revealed that accident summaries could be inaccurate or confusing. An example of this was a case in which a platform was reported to have collapsed • closer investigation revealed that the ground gave way beneath an outrigger. Should this really be listed as machine failure?

 

Commonality of controls

So what is the solution? How do we stop all these thousands of eager and willing potential platform operators from unknowingly, and unintentionally, becoming a danger to themselves and their colleagues? Should we perhaps be making the platforms more difficult to operate, or making them look more dangerous?

 

Certainly not. In fact, I would call on manufacturers to continue to simplify and improve control systems with the specific aim of making it even more difficult to have an accident. I recommend three areas for development.

 

The first was highlighted to me recently while I was being shown the benefits of a new boom lift. An experienced operator was operating the unit with both of us in the basket. He accidentally operated the basket leveling control system instead of the boom down control. As the basket tipped forward we both went very white and gripped the basket rails hard … I don't think that should be an easy mistake to make.

 

Talking to him afterwards he suggested another area of improvement: joystick controls. “Wouldn't it be great if they all moved in the same direction when you pushed forward?” he asked. Seems like a good idea to me.

 

And the third idea came from one of our instructors. This very experienced instructor was trying to demonstrate the emergency descent to trainees during an unannounced visit by an IPAF auditor. To his embarrassment he could not make it work. After reading the manual, he still could not make it work. He scratched his head and looking very embarrassed tried again with no success. As he did so I heard him swear to himself, “Why can't all these &*%$#@ machines be the same?” What a good question.

 

Although there are technical reasons why they can't easily be identical, it must be possible to make them more similar. After all, in an emergency, not even our experienced instructor could have brought that scissor lift down in a hurry. So that's my wish list for the manufacturers and I am delighted to announce that they are working with IPAF on the third of those items.

 

Training encourages safer choices

But, coming back to our band of people wanting to operate platforms, how do we keep them, and our industry, safe?

 

The only solution is to insist that anybody using a platform prove that they have been trained. I do not mean a 10-minute hand over at the moment that the key is collected. I mean thorough training in a small class, generally lasting about a day, in the general use of aerial work platforms. This “primary” training should cover everything from the dangers of potholes, through the basic use of safety harnesses, the effects of wind, the dangers of overhead cables through to checking the machine and preparing to use it. A proper understanding of directly relevant legislation should be included too.

 

There should also be a familiarization when a new machine is delivered. The familiarization is the time when the operator finds out where the controls are on a new machine and learns about any features that are specific to that machine, for example the emergency lowering system or which button tilts the basket.

 

In developing its training program, IPAF members decided that the courses for basic machines should not take longer than one day, should be held in small classes, should involve a mixture of theory and practice and should include a test. The result is that the training is affordable, can be done quickly, and is hugely successful. This is essentially the same training program that AWPT offers in North America but adapted to ensure compliance with all relevant ANSI and OSHA requirements.

 

However, it is important to be clear that training is not actually given by AWPT or IPAF, it is given by companies who become AWPT centers after meeting stringent requirements. They then deliver the AWPT training to our quality standards.

 

So who are IPAF and AWPT? Both are not-for-profit membership organizations which are dedicated to promoting the safe and effective use of platforms worldwide. Membership of the International Powered Access Federation, which is 21 years old this year, is open to any person or organization working with powered access. It includes many rental companies as well as all the major manufacturers of platforms worldwide. AWPT is our U.S. subsidiary and provider of training services. Our members believe that encouraging large numbers of operators to get trained is one of the most effective ways of promoting the safe and effective use of platforms • we do not want accidents in this industry.

 

As the numbers of people using aerial platforms increases so does the need for training. My experience is that even the most “macho” of young men are very interested in self-preservation. A good training program presented by a knowledgeable instructor teaches operators to know their limits. And if anybody ever questions the very low costs associated with operator training, the simple answer must be, “If you think safety is expensive, try an accident.”