RTITB vs ITSSAR

  • ZZJASEZZ
  • BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, United Kingdom
  • Posted 18 May 2016 07:00 AM
I have had Instructor training by both RTITB and ITSSAR. I have found that the mentality of ITSSAR teaches you to never give up and try your very best to get the trainees through the course, give second chances. RTITB I have found to be more stringent, you provide the necessary information to pass the course and basically if they dont deliver, they fail. Having experience from both of these accredited bodies I think that the training I deliver has a fair balance between the two.

RTITB F.L.T/MHE INSTRUCTOR/MANUAL HANDLING INSTRUCTOR.
Showing items 1 - 15 of 22 results.
  • andy_r
  • buckinghamshire, United Kingdom
  • Posted 30 Jun 2016 11:48 PM
I am an ITSSAR instructor, and to be fair, I think we are all trying to do the same job. But some instructors are better than others. I always encourage all trainees to do there best and improve as they go on. the bad bits as an operator you are in charge of that machine :) a basic course is just that, so a new operator needs to improve as he or she goes along. I am sure as instructor's we all try to achieve the same result
  • Posted 21 Jul 2016 04:41 AM
Hi ZZJASEZZ I am wondering about the nationwide validity of ITSSAR vs RTITB Are they two different organisation? Is there one more widely recognised un UK ? What are the main difference that would make me go for one or the other to have my install crew trained (+/- 20 men) Thanks for the infos Ben
  • Pusey
  • Somerset, United Kingdom
  • Posted 1 Dec 2016 10:39 PM
  • • Modified 1 Dec 2016 10:42 PM by poster
Hi, As someone who has worked for both organisations, I can only say that the differences between the two are in culture, rather than content. RTITB arose out of the statutory industry training boards and was the secretariat for the Joint ITB Committee on lift truck operator training. as a result, RTITB printed and published the first Trainer's Guide. Later, when most ITBs had been disbanded, RTITB continued to develop accredited training systems. Many trainers became dissatisfied with the approach made by RTITB and set up their own group, The Association of Industrial Truck Trainers (AITT). They determined that accreditation and monitoring of standards should be done independently. the British Industrial Truck Association agreed to set up ITSSAR and house it in their office. The basic difference was in the training of instructors. RTITB had a formal examination at the end of a training course on a pass or fail basis, which included an associated knowledge test and the presentation of a 30 minute practical lesson. On the other hand, AITT and ITSSAR elected to have a continuous assessment process which could cover associated knowledge and the abilities to conduct a theory lesson, give a practical demonstration, conduct a practical lesson, set up and conduct a practical skills test, and write an end of training report. Ultimately, the training of operators should have remained the same. Over the course of the last few years, RTITB went along the route of operator registration which ITSSAR chose not to follow at the time. As the original designer of the RTITB registration scheme (NORS), I realised that simply registering operators who had been trained by an accredited organisation was more complex than simply printing certificates and maintaining a operator database. Links into accredited organisations' training programmes, their instructor registrations and abilities, minimum durations of training, the ability to adapt for less inclusion for particular situations grew into a very complex and secure system, made more secure by allowing accredited organisations to enter registrations on line. Now, both organisations, as well as AITT are recognised in the UK and elsewhere, but the fundamental difference is still in the manner of training and examining / assessing instructors.

David
  • Posted 21 Mar 2017 09:14 PM
Good morning. I originally trained as an instructor almost 30 years ago & at the time the only choice was to be RTITB registered. David Pusey is as always 100% correct with the evolution of the history of UK Awarding bodies. As commercial trainers & members of the AITT it made commercial sense to become Accredited by RTITB & ITSSAR. Over the years RTITB have been somewhat difficult to work with to the degree that after 30 years we decided to focus our operations around ITSSAR. Now we rarely get asked for RTITB training which means that as our RTITB registrations expire none of us has decided to re-register, which for me is a little sad after an almost 30 year relationship. In my humble opinion the industry needs an awarding body which is more balanced as again in my personal opinion RTITB are a little to rigid & ITSSAR are maybe a little too lax on occasions.

Instructor, ITSSAR Cat' 4 Tutor
  • cb_flt
  • London, United Kingdom
  • Posted 26 Mar 2017 10:48 PM
  • • Modified 26 Mar 2017 10:49 PM by poster
I have done both RTITB, LANTRA and In House training and find RTITB with it's 3 year refresher to be of a good enough standard. Also within Logistics & Warehousing RTITB is the one qualification that most companies seek. The military, more so the RAF are now using RTITB to train with. It is seen as a professional qualification that can be transferable from service life to a civilian one.
  • Pusey
  • Somerset, United Kingdom
  • Posted 17 Aug 2017 09:38 PM
You're correct. From my own personal experience working for both RTITB and ITSSAR, I have dealt with training in the RAF, the Royal Navy and MOD, as well as educational work in the Prison Service, where RTITB has been the preferred accreditation. in fact, I developed the training standards for the vehicle mounted lift truck, the small utility vehicle and the demountable container for the Fire Brigades during their scheme to increase their ability to handle emergencies, in terms of both operator and instructor training, together with conducting instructor examinations for all these specialisms.

David
  • reginald
  • Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
  • Posted 1 Oct 2017 04:32 AM
Hi! I am based in the UAE and looking out to become an MHE Instructor. Could anyone guide me through the process? Also, I would like to know if the Instructor programs are accredited by ITA, or OSHA or any authority? Thanks, Reginald
  • Pjr09
  • Yorkshire, United Kingdom
  • Posted 4 Sep 2018 07:19 PM
  • • Modified 7 Sep 2018 01:24 AM by poster
There is now a new training body - BRITTOp training to all required standards ACOP L117 HASAWA 74 Loler 98 & Puwer 98. Easy to work with and listen to training providers ie. prepared to talk to and respond to changes that are undoubtedly needed in the industry. Great online data base and fastest id card system. Great value for money !
  • FLTS
  • United Kingdom
  • Posted 11 Sep 2018 01:35 AM
After 22 years, the last 17 with ITSSAR I too have gone down the BRITTOp route, I became [url removed] by the amount of paperwork required by ITSSAR, something like 27 sheets of A4 for 3 guys on a re-test, come on!! BRITTOp is far more flexible in this respect, I fully support rigid training standards and yes sufficient paperwork is important,, but I feel ITSSAR are now more interested in creating a mountain of paperwork than they are in ensuring that thorough practical training is delivered, and in my opinion a pile of paperwork is not what good training is about.
  • TSA1
  • United Kingdom
  • Posted 20 Sep 2018 08:07 PM
Anyone who is dissatisfied with their present Accrediting Body should consider that the HSE no longer administer the Accrediting Bodies. I cannot find any reference to any of them (or the ABA) on the HSE website. (I will of course stand corrected if I've missed something) However using the premise that I am correct, why not enquire about the new Organisation, BRITTOp they comply with L117 in every respect and their charges are less than half of the ABA members on an annual basis. Additionally they will work with TP's and welcome input to improve standards that are "real world" and not draconian that have been designed by someone in an office that doesn't even know where the "Coalface" is
  • FLTS
  • United Kingdom
  • Posted 20 Sep 2018 08:53 PM
You are correct in your assumption.
  • Pjr09
  • Yorkshire, United Kingdom
  • Posted 20 Sep 2018 09:30 PM
So am I right that the ABA is whats known as an umbrella company ie. made up of members but does not actually exist separately ( employ or have premises). Its just there to try and justify the members as being better or superior to others. Where the members dont even have a joint operator data base etc. they all have there own agendas and simply attend meetings to keep up the pretence of superiority when they are not even recommended by the HSE ?
  • FLTS
  • United Kingdom
  • Posted 21 Sep 2018 03:08 AM
  • • Modified 21 Sep 2018 03:09 AM by poster
Yes thats a pretty good summary from what I can see. I am certainly becoming very dis-illusioned with the whole set up, they have changed the Counterbalance & Reach practical test scoring twice in 12 months, when there was nothing wrong with it to begin with and have now made it a lot more difficult for students to pass by increasing the points in several area's. It seems they are meddling with things for the sake of it, and I can foresee many more [url removed] as myself who have done the job successfully for years, walking away and joining the likes of BRITTOPs, where an instructor/examiners common sense, knowledge and experience are still allowed to prevail.
  • Posted 26 Oct 2018 02:07 AM
  • • Modified 26 Oct 2018 02:07 AM by poster
I actually think that the change with the test was needed and agree with the change in points on the practical and the changes in the theory. I also attended an ABA meeting yesterday which was based around improving the standards for the A and Z categories. It was a refreshing experience with all four members represented and the input of providers being openly encouraged and welcomed. I understand the comments regarding Brittop but from a commercial point of view it is difficult to sell. ITSSAR, NPORS and RTITB are widely recognised but even AITT struggle sometimes. I know there is no 'accreditation' as such but I've always found ITSSAR to be the better company to deal with and the better standards monitors (and I've seen a few in my time including Mr Pusey!) Paperless is the future and now that RTITB have led the way it won't be long until the others follow
  • FLTS
  • United Kingdom
  • Posted 26 Oct 2018 02:43 AM
  • • Modified 26 Oct 2018 02:45 AM by poster
Please [url removed] why in your opinion the changes to the theoretical and practical tests were needed? so that more people will fail? because the tests were too easy? it makes no sense, for example did the next crop of young car drivers drive any better after taking the revised car test than those of us who had passed the old car test? BRITTOp will not have any more problems gaining recognition than ITSSAR did when they were formed, I was one of the first to move to ITSSAR in its pioneering days, and yes it took a while but eventually it became an established name. I [url removed] surprised if the ABA lasts another 12 months to be honest, if the focus is on tightening already adequate standards the result will [url removed] the polar opposite of the aim, as instructors/examiners will start to disregard the standards and use their own knowledge and experience to decide on the competence of an operator. I could understand the need for an overhaul if MHE accidents had risen sharply, and investigations had continually flagged up inadequate training, however that is not the case, and the new 'standards' will become merely a box ticking exercise for many, I have chosen not to be a part of that, and will continue to deliver thorough training to the tried and trusted standards which are already widely recognised and accepted. As I said in an earlier post, unfortunately training is in danger of becoming more of a document creation scheme than actually teaching good practical skills.

Forkliftaction.com accepts no responsibility for forum content and requires forum participants to adhere to the rules. Click here for more information.

Machinery-onQ Listings
Hyster P2.0L-AC
  • HysterP2.0L-AC
  • 2010 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Linde E14-01
  • LindeE14-01
  • 2012 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
OMG 715BLK
  • OMG715BLK
  • 2003 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster C1.0
  • HysterC1.0
  • 2005 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster H3.50XL
  • HysterH3.50XL
  • 1999 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Sidetracker S025A
  • SidetrackerS025A
  • 2010 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster P1.8
  • HysterP1.8
  • 2008 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Jungheinrich LE16-55
  • JungheinrichLE16-55
  • Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster P1.8AC
  • HysterP1.8AC
  • 2009 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Battioni Pagani HT15
  • Battioni PaganiHT15
  • 2006 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Featured Business
Cascade Corporation (World HQ)
Leading manufacturers of attachments and forks for forklift trucks
Machinery-onQ Listings
Jungheinrich LE16-55
  • JungheinrichLE16-55
  • Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster H3.50XL
  • HysterH3.50XL
  • 1999 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster P1.8
  • HysterP1.8
  • 2008 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster C1.0
  • HysterC1.0
  • 2005 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster P2.0L-AC
  • HysterP2.0L-AC
  • 2010 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Hyster P1.8AC
  • HysterP1.8AC
  • 2009 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
OMG 715BLK
  • OMG715BLK
  • 2003 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Battioni Pagani HT15
  • Battioni PaganiHT15
  • 2006 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Sidetracker S025A
  • SidetrackerS025A
  • 2010 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands
Linde E14-01
  • LindeE14-01
  • 2012 | Used - Sale
  • Netherlands