Training

Casuals under test

RA Ulrich Mann, Hattersheim

A working group at the Joint Meeting is discussing the demands made in respect of training certificates which safety advisers are required to hold. This makes a statement for refresher examinations depending on the demands on the DGSA.

The last Joint Meeting in March 2003 took up the topic of the "safety adviser". A working group was set up to clarify a number of open questions concerning the training of these safety advisers. At issue in the discussions were the basic demands and conditions required to obtain a first training certificate or its renewal with particular attention paid to the formulation of the words "additional training or test" as referred to in Subsection 1.8.3.16 of ADR/RID.

In Germany, the training certificate is first awarded following basic training and an examination. Renewal is granted following a course of advanced training or an examination, according to what the certificate holder requests. Experience has shown that the question as to what the basic demands and conditions should be for the acquisition of a first-time certificate or its renewal, is not an easy one to answer. Basically, nothing can fault the existing system, which stipulates that the first-time training certificate can only be obtained following basic training and an examination. This system should be retained.

However as far as renewal is concerned, things look a little different. Today, renewal of the training certificate is possible following an advanced course of training or an examination. This takes place five years after the basic training course was held. During that time at least two regulation change intervals generally occur – as many as five in aviation! We propose that a distinction be made at this point. If the candidate is regularly involved with dangerous goods issues then a "sitting down" examination would surely suffice. But in the case of someone who is not a dangerous goods safety adviser all the time, it could be that an advanced course would not be enough. In such cases an examination by the IHK would be more revealing and convincing, since the examination topics would not be known in advance.

Given that the training courses undertaken by personnel designated responsible in the sector take place every two years (at least in aviation), it seems sensible that the criteria for dangerous goods safety advisers be stricter than those for responsible persons. If this is not readily evident from the frequency of training sessions then it should be at least evident from a check of an individual's success record. For these reasons there would appear to be no objection to regulations that provide for both training and an examination.

(Der Gefahrgut-BEAUFTRAGTE 07/2003, originally published in German)

Comments are welcome.