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.
  • Posted 18 May 2016 07:00
  • Discussion started by ZZJASEZZ
  • BUCKINGHAMSHIRE, United Kingdom
Showing items 1 - 15 of 22 results.
Suggest you get in touch with BRITTOP WWW.BRITTOPLTD.CO.UK
  • Posted 21 Nov 2019 04:54
  • Reply by Pjr09
  • Yorkshire, United Kingdom
Training to a standard not a price.
I had been an accredited instructor for the past 10 years with ITSSAR and my re-reg was due at the end of May 2019. I decided not to go for it as I feel that I don't actually get any support from them unless it involved me giving them money. Even if I decided to go and do the ITSSAR re-reg now, they have advised me that I would need to go on another full 10 day instructor course even though I've been in constant work as an instructor for the past 10 yrs. It makes no sense...

I have since joined a newly formed accredidting body called "NAMBEX" (National Accredited Members Body of Examiners).

They have supported me more in the past 6 months than ITSSAR have ever done in the past 10 years. I pay a yearly registration fee, but for that, they do everything, all I have to do is go and do the job, send them the completed paperwork and they do the rest. All operator ID cards and certification is completed by them and sent back to me within 5 days.

ID cards are an optional thing, not every company that I do training for wants them and I've never seen a certificate that looks so professional before. The operators that get issued them have said they get a real sense of pride and acheivment when they recieve them.

All course paperwork is provided to me (3 pages of it) included within their study book which means I dont have to keep printing it off every week. Powerpoint Presentations, course syllabus, training videos are free to download.

I have booked a course with them to gain my lorry mounted FLT (moffett) and as im already a registered member with them, I've recieved an 80% discount on the course. Effectively im paying £76 in total, its great...

The course content is more relevant to this century..

They encourage me to train each trainee operator to their own personal strengths. I've never come across that before, certainly not with ITSSAR.

They are constantly updating their members page on their website with relevant information, keeping me up to date with all of the latest regs and even if I have questions after office hours, they encourage all of their members to contact the directors directly.
  • Posted 21 Nov 2019 04:24
  • Reply by COB_09
  • Kent, United Kingdom
Without Prejudice

It was six years ago that the HSE announced that they no longer administered an Accrediting Bodies Scheme, this information is written in the Third edition of L117 which was published in 2013. Page 19 para 95 clarifies a Training Providers requirements and para 96 confirms the ABA status. Page 40 confirms the HSE stance that the ABA is merely a useful contact. ( anywhere that gives information about training etc is a useful contact ! ). This is the truth of the training standards and can be checked on the HSE website you DO NOT HAVE TO USE THE ABA OLD BODIES.

The HSE have not since the Third Edition recognised any Organisations (AITT, ITSSAR, NPORS or RTITB) as Accrediting Bodies, they also no longer recognise the ABA itself as an Accrediting Body as outlined in my previous paragraph.

I do at times despair that ABA registered training providers do not appear to have read the "Bible" to which they are required to operate. There are plenty of other training bodies the newest being BRITTOp who are one year old this month are making great strides forward in the market place. Cheaper alternative to the old bodies and light years ahead in most things.
  • Posted 11 Jul 2019 16:12
  • Reply by angela_g
  • United Kingdom
BRITTOP Training Registration Scheme.
Hello Pest,
If you are who I think you are, I have just discovered your last post on this subject.
I have no influence now that I have retired fully from anything to do with mechanical handling. I stood my ground over the manner in which people with a lot of experience were being treated within one of the accrediting bodies and simply walked away, after I was put under some sort of investigation without any warning, having been spied on by one of my colleagues (I guessed that he was doing so, and accused him to his face in front of our then managing director.) They were obviously too shy to suggest that there might be a discussion to have. I was 68 at the time. They wanted me, and two others out of the way and, unfortunately, they succeeded.
As i have already said, I worked for both ITSSAR and RTITB,including during the days when RTITB was a statutory training board. I had managed a group training association under RTITB and introduced LT operator training into our portfolio, and I knew the author of the original Trainer's Guide, so I have been around for a long time.
under the original RTITB regime, I was appointed a lift truck specialist for the South West and Wales but left to pursue other interests for a time.
Later, as I think you know, I joined ITSSAR in its very young days and helped to develop what was then a friendly, helpful approach to training organisations, on the basis that we were looking for success, not failure (one of your phrases, i think!).
After some time, I was approached by RTITB to rejoin them, and as they were offering a job, rather then being self-employed, I took the offer.
My role at that time was as Development Officer. My first success was to introduce a wider range of trainers' guides for a widr range of truck types. I cannot claim the one for pedestrian controlled trucks, but rough terrain masted and telescopic handlers, pivot-steer, order pickers, VNA trucks, vehicle-mounted lift trucks, demountable containers, multi-purpose vehicles were all my work. in addition, i set up the initial operwtor registration programme and wrote the instructor training manual. these were the core of RTITB's more friendly approach. change of personnel within,including change of personalities who had no practical training experience or experience of being on the road in monitoring activities, but led to degrees of discomfort as far as I was concerned, which was why i left.
I have been approached to develop another accrediting body and di some basic work on guides, policies and procedures, but my wife, bless her, slammed her foot down and said NO - loudly!
so,now, i occasionally read Forklift Action News and the forum letters, and occasionally respond.
I did it Dai's way!!
  • Posted 14 Jun 2019 00:56
  • Reply by Pusey
  • Somerset, United Kingdom
Hello David. Please get in touch. I agree with your explanation of the difference between RTITB and ITSSAR
Unfortunately in my humble opinion all Of the Accrediting Bodies have FAILED. Failed to adapt their training methods to suit modern truck Design and the considerable improvements in Warehousing systems and the type of personnel currently being selected for training.
As you know I was very involved in producing the standards for the Selection & Basic Training of Fork Truck Operators published by the RTITB in April 1969, updated August 1971. Standards produced to cater for the type of Counterbalance and Reach Trucks in use at that time and with the very valuable input of the then Her Majesties Inspectorate of Factories who shared with us their reports on serious and fatal accidents involving fork lift trucks over the period 1963 to 1967 to enable us to seek to reduce the terrible toll of accidents over that period.
Whilst the shape of the machines in use today is similar, the machines themselves have improved considerably so much so, that if we were designing the standards today we would have produced a far different syllabus to the one promoted by the current Accreditation bodies, who appear to be stuck in a time warp. Still "Handbrake Snatching" Still ignoring truck Manufacturers handbooks, still not telling their customers that their method of load handling does not conform to the manufacturer's recommendations. If you want more on this issue feel free to contact me
  • Posted 4 Nov 2018 08:54
  • Reply by Pest
  • United Kingdom
Do it Dai's Way
Agreed on the observation penalties, not sure on things like 'touches course, racking, load' increasing to a 5 though, bearing in mind we have always had the facility to exclude for violent collision.

My main concern as previously stated, is that instructors will become so pre-occupied filling in forms correctly, that practical training will start to suffer.

I also cannot understand why every accrediting body has a separate registration system, surely if the ABA wants to do something useful it should create a centralised system?

For example I recently had to try and find proof of previous training for a new employee of a client of mine, he couldnt remember who had trained him or what accrediting body the training conpany belonged to, and his former employer wasnt prepared to co-operate, a familiar situation when people leave for another job and the previous employer gets the hump.

I was faced with days of chasing through the various organisations to find his registration, I was able to check two of databases as a registered user, but neither turned up anything, so then it was lots of emails and phone calls, a central database would make life so much easier.
  • Posted 2 Nov 2018 03:36
  • Modified 2 Nov 2018 09:48 by poster
  • Reply by FLTS
  • United Kingdom
Changes were needed as technology and standards move on, if no changes were ever required we would still be going through the chicane once and not doing pre-use inspection tests. IMO the test was too easy and during a recent exercise where we looked at one of our clients operators candidates that scored over 30 penalty points were the main cause of accidents in their warehouse.

I certainly think that some of the old point allocations were too low in some areas i.e. failing to check all round being a 3 when it is a crucially important safety element and deserved a 5. Also the more than 3 faults in the same 5 point area being a disqualification is another one I definitely agree with! I do agree however that the mandatory correct questions on the theory test isn't necessarily the right way to go however.

I take your point about Brittop eventually getting recognition but I was also with ITSSAR from pretty much day 1 and remember what hard work it was back then to ween people off of RTITB and at the moment I don't see any reason to change over when my customers are happy with what we currently provide.

I will add however that ITSSAR do need to raise their game in some areas and look at technology and where it is heading but from conversations I have had recently I understand that is very much on their priority list.

I 100% agree that training is exactly that and it should be about giving the candidates the best possible tuition, sadly there are some companies out there (one we all know I'm sure) that can at times do the very minimum required and train people to pass a test not necessarily to be a safe operator (not remotely the same thing) and that has to change. While it doesn't we are all potentially fighting a losing battle.
  • Posted 1 Nov 2018 23:08
  • Modified 1 Nov 2018 23:09 by poster
  • Reply by PMac13
  • United Kingdom
Please tell.me 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 will.be surprised if the ABA lasts another 12 months to be honest, if the focus is on tightening already adequate standards the result will actually.be 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.
  • Posted 26 Oct 2018 02:43
  • Modified 26 Oct 2018 02:45 by poster
  • Reply by FLTS
  • United Kingdom
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
  • Posted 26 Oct 2018 02:07
  • Modified 26 Oct 2018 02:07 by poster
  • Reply by PMac13
  • United Kingdom
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 people.such 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 21 Sep 2018 03:08
  • Modified 21 Sep 2018 03:09 by poster
  • Reply by FLTS
  • United Kingdom
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 ?
  • Posted 20 Sep 2018 21:30
  • Reply by Pjr09
  • Yorkshire, United Kingdom
You are correct in your assumption.
  • Posted 20 Sep 2018 20:53
  • Reply by FLTS
  • United Kingdom
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
  • Posted 20 Sep 2018 20:07
  • Reply by TSA1
  • United Kingdom
After 22 years, the last 17 with ITSSAR I too have gone down the BRITTOp route, I became increasingly.frustrated 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.
  • Posted 11 Sep 2018 01:35
  • Reply by FLTS
  • United Kingdom
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 !
  • Posted 4 Sep 2018 19:19
  • Modified 7 Sep 2018 01:24 by poster
  • Reply by Pjr09
  • Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Having trouble using the Discussion Forums? Contact us for help.

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

SMV (Konecranes) 16-1200B
Balling, Denmark
Used - Sale
Taylor T650L
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, United States
Used - Sale & Hire
Latest job alerts …
Le Mars, IA, United States
West Memphis, Arkansas, United States
Arnold, MO, United States
Chesapeake, Virginia, United States
Latest job alerts …
Kortrijk, Belgium
Arnold, MO, United States
Le Mars, IA, United States
Kansas City, MO, United States
Taylor TXB180S
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, United States
Used - Sale & Hire
Yale GP25
New South Wales, Australia
Used - Sale
Upcoming industry events …
April 10-11, 2024 - Dortmund, Germany
May 23-25, 2024 - HCMC, Vietnam
June 18-20, 2024 - Stuttgart, Germany
Movers & Shakers
Kevin Royal Kevin Royal
Chief Financial Officer, Flux Power
Assistant National Sales Manager, Material Handling Division, New Age Industrial
Senior Vice President of Engineering, Tompkins Solutions
Chief Operating Officer, Clark Europe
Kalmar DCD280-12LB
Hornweg, Netherlands
Used - Sale
Taylor TE650S
Coraopolis, Pennsylvania, United States
Used - Sale & Hire
Global Industry News
edition #1168 - 29 February 2024
Hydrogen fuel cells are in the news again this week, with an unnamed American car maker choosing the fuel source to run the materials handling fleet at a new manufacturing plant... Continue reading
Movers & Shakers
Kevin Royal Kevin Royal
Chief Financial Officer, Flux Power
Assistant National Sales Manager, Material Handling Division, New Age Industrial
Senior Vice President of Engineering, Tompkins Solutions
Chief Operating Officer, Clark Europe