Improving crane licensing under the model work health and safety laws

You cannot be expected to have been trained on a crawler crane of a certain capacity, and then to jump into a wheeled crane and be absolutely confidant that you can set it up and operate it competently and safely. The same would be if you were trained in a hydraulic crawler and then went to a lattice crawler crane.

It may be an extra cost to get some licenses changed over to a function based crane. It would need a stat dec or something from the operator to say that they have been trained only in a crawler or wheeled type of crane, and then to be trained up in the other type of crane.

It is a lot simpler to understand rated capacity.

an extra cost would possibly be involved

All non slew cranes have the same inherent safety issues, whether they are under or over 3t. I don't believe that a non slew crane ticket is "given" to someone who has completed a slew crane ticket, as they are two completely different types of crane with different safety considerations. I also believe that the CICA non slew crane "driving on road" initiative should be part of the non-slew crane licensing, and shouldn't be put back on the individual crane businesses to perform.

I believe that this would keep the industry much safer, and give the operators the correct tools to enable them to safely operate and drive non-slew cranes. This may be an extra cost to the busines, but a worthwhile cost if it keeps everyone safer

It would ensure that inexperienced operators were not put in the hot seat whilst still "green". There are too many people getting rushed through the industry from entering the industry inexperienced, getting their crane ticket in a week long course, then being set loose in the industry. To become an operator, it is vital to know what goes on on the other end of the hook. It should be treated a bit like an apprentice. You enter as an unskilled labourer, gain your dogging ticket, keep a log for 12 months, then get your RB Rigging ticket, and hold that for at least 12 months, and if you can prove that you have logged the arbitrary hours during that period, then be allowed to look at getting a crane operators ticket.

It would slow down the rushing through of people into a crane. The industry is crying out for more operators in the general crane industry, which is forcing businesses to get people into a crane probably before they really have enough experience. Whist I think that ALL operators have a minimum of a Dogging ticket, I would prefer to see them have a basic rigging ticket before embarking on a crane operating career. This would incur further costs on the business, but it would improve understanding of the fundamental tasks involved in this high risk industry.

The operator actually needs to tick off different operating scenarios, i.e, installing steelwork, pipe work, manbox work, piling work etc. not just log hours for sitting in the seat, with nothing happening at the other end of the hook. There needs to be not only supervisor sign off, but a sign off by the PCBU of the business as well.

The person would need to be ticketed for at least what the trainee is getting experience doing. I do not believe that someone can sign up to get a crane ticket through a provider, attend a week long course and walk away with a ticket, with absolutely no experience except that from the course.

I think that they should be employed by a crane operating business. I don't think that construction companies that own their own cranes, should be ticketing operators. I have seen examples of construction companies that own cranes, fast track people into getting their ticket, especially on track mounted cranes, with very little experience.

I believe that all cranes, and doggers should be supervised for at least 2 months before they are allowed to sit for their ticket. this would allow enough time to be able to undertake various crane operating roles. This would of course depend on what sort of work was being done, and if it was 2 months doing exactly the same thing, then the timeframe should be extended. Bridge or gantry cranes are usually done in a safer, more routine environment, and may not need the 2 months supervision.

These telehandlers have evolved a lot since they were introduced into the construction environment. I support the changes, as there are many configurations available now.

It would not impact on our business, as we do not have telehandlers and will not be getting any in our fleet of cranes. I believe that the proposed licensing will keep the industry safer, as piling is a very dynamic and dangerous field of work, and any proposed changes will make it safer for employees, and therefore employers.

Business will have to consider what they actually need their operators to be ticketed for, and it shouldn't be too much more cost to get the extra endorsements, otherwise businesses will just go for the cheaper option.

I think that 1 month is all that is required to add on each extra telehandler ticket, but if they were doing a combination of these tasks on a daily basis, then they could all be drawn into the 1 month supervised period

I think that the new proposals seem ok, but I'm a bit concerned that some of the elective options may not be included by some businesses due to cost, which may leave the operator only ticketed for one option, but he/she may find themselves on another worksite operating another crane, with not the correct ticket needed. Most of our wheeled slew cranes have flys, so this should not be an elective, but part of the general slew crane ticket.

I think this proposal will keep people a bit safer, but only if the elective options are chosen correctly, and as I previously mentioned, some may find themselves with not quite the correct ticket, and this may be accepted by some more unscrupulous businesses.

There would need to be more emphasis placed on worksafe / Workcover inspectors doing on-the-job checks for correct ticketing of operators

I think that using a fly should also come under the general slew crane ticket, as most slew cranes have a fly that can be used, and I've seen LOTS of operators not know how to put their fly on and use it correctly.

Yes, there is the issue that some may not take elected tickets because of the cost, and try to wing it, which may be accepted by some crane businesses, and certainly in the construction industry where a construction company may own many cranes and have lots of operators, but may not want to get elective tickets for operators.

Because of the inherently dangerous job that piling is, with vastly different risk profiles

I have worked on cranes on barges on the water, and they behave vastly different to working on a solid surface

This would not impact our business, as we d not operate on barges as a rule, and if we were asked to provide a crane to set up on a barge, we would probably not take it on after considering the risks involved

There is the danger that there will be ticketed operators that may take on more than they are ticketed to do, as they may not see it as being vastly different to what they do anyway. There is also the risk that companies will chose the minimum requirements, to keep the cost down, and force operators to extend themselves outside what they are actually ticketed for.

No

I think that the basic and intermediate rigging could be combined, and the advanced rigging stay as it is