Improving crane licensing under the model work health and safety laws

Whilst I do support this and can agree with what has been previously mentioned, I am also partially against this. The main reason for being against this is that when you get to operating C0 type cranes, there is an element of operating a crane at 130t verse a crane at 700t with super counterweights fitted or needing to be fitted to be fitted to the crane. I think that whilst everything slewing crane below 100t is somewhat similar aspects, it more so changes when your open slewing crane is required to be fitted with super counterweights, this is not as straightforward and would require more experience and training.

Should this be introduced, I feel it would easier to train candidates for cranes under 100t, yet over 100t training and assessing could become more challenging with the introductory of cranes fitted with super counterweights, and could require more time in training and or assessing.

This could be still split up as mentioned in the crane safe discussion paper, however, for cranes over 100t if may require a standalone license to capture the larger cranes that require super counterweights, multiple boom set ups, and more complex load charts.

I believe that if a crane in this class, that meetings the description of being a vehicle mounted crane, no matter what the SWL is, should be deemed high a HRWL. I support the idea, I just feel there shouldn't be a minimum weight, even if your vehicle mounted crane can lift 500kgs, should an incident occur, it will still have the same outcome of crush injuries or death.

I'm not sure it would have any negative impact, other than better training provided. If all vehicle loading cranes require a HRWL to operate, candidates are getting longer training, more bum in seat time, and therefore come out a better operator from that product of training rather than a 1-day competence training course.

As mentioned about, you turn a 1-day competence course into a 5-day training, knowledge and skill course, making the candidate more competent, safe and suitable to be operating these types of cranes.

These can be a very different crane to operate, both on site and whilst driving down the road going job to job. These cranes are so unique that this should be a standalone license both the crane training and the driving aspect.

Should this go ahead, more time would be required to spend with the candidate on their driving and road positions abilities to better skill the candidate to safely operate on public roads. As for the original crane training, the candidate would be better trained and specifically trained to this type of crane. This would have an impact on RTO's as they would then be required to not only have a safe and suitable crane, but also a road registered crane.

Pending the above that I have mentioned, there could be a designated driving school set up to cater for this. It could be set up as a two-part course, RTO's could provide either the initial part of training, and or part-two of the driving aspect of this. Should this not be an option for all RTO's, a specific RTO could be set up to cater for this driver training.

As a trainer / assessor, you deem the candidate compete on the day of assessment based on the knowledge and skill they have learnt in the week or so that you have them. By introducing a required number of hours based on size, type or capacity of crane it would be aiding the candidate to gain better knowledge with those that they work with who have been in the industry for a long period of time. This would then give them the experience in the correct or incorrect ways of doing things whilst having seat time. This is where I feel we as a group of industry leaders are failing candidates, by not giving them more seat time, before being deemed competent.

This is hard, it's always going to have positive and negative impacts. It will hurt employers based on the requirement of the candidate or worker to meet a certain number of hours in the seat prior to sitting their final assessment. It will also have a positive for employers, where they will be getting a more well suited and skilled employee who is more capable and safer when operating these types of cranes, meaning it could reduce costs to an extent and increase safety and productivity over time.

I think that time, and cost will impact this. Employers will then be required to have an extra employee on site to conduct this supervision.

I think hours based type training, is best for industry and candidates gaining better skills and knowledge.

The supervisor should have a minimum number of years experienced in crane operations, whilst also having the same for dogging and rigging. I include rigging in here as it forms part of the mobilization and de-mobilization or cranes. This also forms part of knowing your crane and how it goes together and comes apart.

No, I don't think so, I feel that someone can come and do the training, then try to apply for jobs to then complete training. This is something similar to offshore crane endorsements, where you are required to complete the course in classroom and on simulator, then you are required to have hours of experience prior to your practical assessment.

Dogging should be completed over approximately 70 hours, giving them candidate time to experience a wide range of aspects involved in dogging different types of cranes. The hours should be completed in no shorter than 1 month time frame. Tower cranes should be completed over 50 hours of training or 14 days. This giving the candidate time to understand these types of cranes, and how they work. Both Bridge and gantry and Slewing cranes should require either a minimum of 80 hours per crane or 1 month of training so the candidate can understand these types of cranes. All these types of cranes can be highly different, take for example the cranes we operate to unload container ships at the ports in Australia, which fall under CB, have more functions than most people are able to count on each hand. These cranes can be highly difficult to operate and learn to operate in 5 days and require more time and development. Vehicle loading cranes could be kept to either 35 hours or 5 days for practical training. Whilst they are still a crane and require learning, most are a simpler crane to operate and no require as much skill. Articulated cranes could be either 50 hours in crane operation, and or 1 month but also would be required to complete hours of driving on the road to be able to capture all aspects of operation and use,

These types of machines are a sometimes more complex to operate then what people think. They all still complete lifting tasks; therefore candidates should require completing an official HRWL to operate these types of machines.

They would slow training, be a cost to the company, however in the long term, it would be a better skilled workforce for the employer.

I think it would impact time mostly, and time costs money.

No, I believe this should be acted on and introduced to better skill candidates, workers, and employers.

I guess we have to look at types of machines that can lift in some type of way or capacity, so that people don't try and get around this. Example is excavators, once you start lifting with these, you should then require a crane type license, not just be an operator.

Some classes here need to be divided again; example is CB. A bridge crane mounted in a warehouse is a lot simpler to operate than a bridge crane that you use to load and unload ships at the port. This should be a stand-alone license that may then need to be divided up to 2 license classes. As with Portal Boom Crane, these cranes are very unique to the maritime environment and should remain a stand-alone license class. These cranes can be very technical to operate on land, and then if mounted on vessels, you then introduce wave motion characteristics requiring more skill to operate. As previously mentioned, slewing mobile cranes should be divided up on cranes under 100t and over 100t based on the complexity of counterweights structures or cranes boom structures. I do support that to be able to gain a crane license, you should be required to hold DG, RB and RI

It would mean more training for all candidates, slowing down the work, however in the long run, it would give the employer a better skilled workforce over time. Yes it would be a cost, however it would be a cost for the better in the long run.

Time restraint for on-site training and availability of cranes when training on a live site, this having an effect on timeframes for candidates to get hours completed.

These types of cranes are very hard to get a hold of for any training let alone practical training, hours may cause this to be a factor, however employers have to understand that it is important for candidates to get the most effective training to be the best operator they can.

Yes, I strongly believe that due to the complexity of Portal Boom Cranes and their specific maritime fixed attachments, this class should remain a stand-alone license. The sheer size and capacity of these types of cranes, the environments that they work in and the complexity of lifts, mean that this is a highly skilled license that needs to remain a stand-alone HRWL.

These types of machines are highly complex with a diverse range of functions that cannot be learnt overnight or on a competence base type scenario. There are so many different types of piling rigs, plus they are in both marine and land environments, which can be highly dangerous and forever changing environments. These environments are a must for candidates to learn to become better skilled to prevent any incidents occurring. I believe that this would have a more positive effect on the industry and safeguard candidates and employers. I have recently been involved with the Piling Federation of Australia; in conducting their own licensing and assessing for a type of certificate they have now put into place. This is set up as a 2-part type assessment where the candidates come in for a 2-day theory and knowledge training, and then are required to go back to the workplace to then complete 200 hours plus in the work environment prior to being assessed on practical completion before being deemed competent. This is something that has been highly effective within the industry so far.

I do support the requirement for a course to be completed prior to being able to operate cranes on vessels, however at this stage most employers request that employees hold a current HRWL prior to being hired and then operating a particular crane. I have also spoken to a state regulator when enquiring about this, and they said to me, that if the type of crane matches a particular class of license, then the operator must hold that class of license to operate that type of crane. This along with mandating new types of HRWL for other types of vessel mounted cranes is a must and needs to be a high focus point. At current, if you work at the Port it seems to be different, in the fact that if an employer asks an employee to operate a ships crane, they do a basic awareness training then you do a few shifts in the crane whilst a team leader watches you, beofre being signed off to operate ships gear. This should not be happening, and there must be a license type class created for this. There have been too many incidents in Australian Ports with ships gear and loads being dropped or cranes not being to an Australian Standard and companies getting away with this. None of these operators know what to look for on a prestart at all. We need a class of HRWL for this, and offshore cranes.

It would have a positive impact on training candidates for better knowledge and skills, it would obviously be at a cost, but what is the cost of an individual's life?

Better Skilled workforces, more industry knowledge, improved safety standards, better time management, more safety awareness.

We could also add in time in simulator as this is already a factor when completing your offshore crane endorsement. Perth Sim has this course active, however it is only a UOC, where I believe it should be a HRWL.

I believe that constant tension winches need to be included in RB. These are marine type winches used on vessels, that are highly dangerous but very common for bringing two vessels together alongside out at sea.

It would come at a cost; it also may mean that there is less in substance in the training. I feel that they should remain the same as they are now, maybe just streamlined more, or some things that you don't use or aren't as common these days could just become an elective.