I have a ticket for a 180 tipping dumper and a 360 digger upto below 5t. I got this through NPORS because i was advised they are "just as good" the CPCS cards. Now every job i look for, they are looking for CPCS and never heard of NPORS.

Can someone please tell me how relevent these NPORS tickets are to help me find a plant operators job in the uk. Is there anyone i can contact who recognises these tickets?

Or are thee tickets just a gimmick?

There are increasing signs that NPORS are becoming as widespread as CPCS cards, even on majors sites, as discussed on the CPCS cards thread.

One of our number, Sustainer, thinks the successor to the Major Contractors Group will start recognising NPORS alongside CPCS and possibly other card schemes too.

I am surprised nobody has heard of NPORS on the sites you've been working on. What kind of sites are they?

NPORS resigned recently from the CPCS scheme in order to relaunch its franchise,(obviously to make more money) CPCS cards are renewed every five years for a small admin fee,as long as you have the minimum 260 hours experience in your logbook.With NPORS you will need to pay hundreds for a refresher course.This is a money making scheme and nothing else,it is a very poor alternative to CPCS.I have been operating plant for over thirty years,and i can tell you that you are right in thinking that most employers have never heard of NPORS.(a select few companies have agreed to recognise it as an alternative,(in theory).Take no notice of the last respondent,he is either part of the NPORS franchise business or has only worked on one site and got lucky. (How can NPORS be widely recognised when it has just recently relaunched?!) To summarise,NPORS is trying to sabotage the CPCS scheme for its own money making ends,CPCS was set up partly to end these scams wich have ripped off operators for years. Im afraid that you have bought a "turkey".

I have no connection to CPCS,im just sick of these conmen. ps if you were given an NVQ ticket,keep it,it can be used when applying for a CPCS ticket,and will save you having to pay the full course fees.

Your first sentence is an outright lie!

Your second sentence tells us what "somebody" thinks might happen!

Your third sentence is condesending rubbish,and proves that you are a part of this scam,and trying to talk it "up"!

Cards schemes are only as good as the people that deliver the assessment/training. Let me tell you where i am at as a CPCS trainer i would not touch NPORS when i first started in this job as it was the low of the low. Since i have had chance to work with different types of companies i have found that it has got some worth.

I have tested on a regular basis telehandler operators that only use that type of machine for unloading/loading wagons or with a bucket on the front.These lads all worked for Balfours and they required them to have CPCS. All these guys were unable to pass the test because they had to place a load onto a tower scaffold  under the test. With NPORS you can set the test to assess the lads against what they are doing in the work place , so you put restrictions on the card to match what you have seen a much better and flexable system you must agree.

The problem with NPORS is that tests are not monitored so there is no way of keeping a check of what test are being done on any given day or what conditions they are being done under. Once NPORS take out some form of monitoring or aduit of testing you will see a greater acceptance of NPORS.

But as i first said if it is done right it is just as good as CPCS.       

Hello preacherman, being a cpcs tester i must admit i have not looked into the NPORS system of testing, but i having read your comments on the NPORS,

 "With NPORS you can set the test to assess the lads against what they are doing in the work place , so you put restrictions on the card to match what you have seen a much better and flexible system you must agree". i tend to disagree and find it may result in a far more restrictive card to possess than a CPCS card for the following reasons:

1, If you initially profile someone for a telehandler test and the outcome is that they have not used a machine at height that is designed for working at height , is that not a training need.

2. Possessing a card that holds restrictions on the disciplines that you are able to use it may cause more concern for employers, site managers etc, in that if the person has only been tested at loading/ unloading lorry beds,(and not at any relevant height that the machine is designed to work at) does that site manager then have to keep an eye on that particular operator in that he/she does not lift any type of material over say, 2.5m....

3.Will a card with operating restrictions on it not have a knock on effect to employement for that individual, where the person would be far better off being trained in working at height.

4.What good is a card for a 12,5m tele handler with a 3m restriction, will that individual be loading/ unloading wagons for the rest of their working life and how many job vacancies are their for tele handler operators (good pay:working at height not essential)

5. If the person has a working at height restriction on their card, will it then cost them the full test fee in the future just to be tested on working from a loading out tower?.

I have a few other concerns, but i have waffled enough mate, i just think that if an employer is paying for their workforce to be tested on a particular item of plant, they should be tested in all disciplines and functions of the machine, and that site managers and employers can quite easily download the CPCS practical test and know that the operator has covered the all the activities of telehandler use ie height,reach,loading and sequence, manouvring, inclines, long loads etc. i know by previous threads of your that you are not the biggest fan of CPCS at the moment, but to be fair i think its the best we have (at the moment) as a standard of theory and practical testing of plant... i think!! 

Good luck and look forward to your veiws.

i have looked at diesel and preachermans comments on the both schemes npors and cpcs and theres some good points. it seems to me they are both flawed. the one cpcs is policed to much with the third riech monitors.and npors has no monitoring at all.in regards to the testing the cpcs has dropped a major bollock in terms of poeple getting quality training all the centres just teach the cpcs test and nothing else.so a new guy who has just passed the 360 cpcs test having done his 2 weeks foundation course great lovely trench with box load a dumper or 2, brill 3 hours 15 mins good boy.now stick him on a muck shift and put 25 volvo,s under him.i rest my case, they don,t do batters berms bunds split level trenching quarter turn speed loading benching all this i used to teach before mr gamble put us freelancers out of biusness.  and the questions come on lads this is just crap 65 questions this is just a memory test that does sweet f.a. in regards to making better operators,scrap the memory test produce a touch screen test like the cscs and make the practical harder and longer inroducing a lot more criteria so that real operators are produced not just operators that can only perform one dutie.

The  training/test is designed to test an individual to a certain standard set out by an awarding body, hence the name cpcs (red) "trained operator card"..  this allows that person to gain entry on to site (without which they wont get on site, Catch 22 ) and THEN gain the neccessary experiance they need...  experiance is gained, not taught!. and then hopefully be allowed to carry out work on batters,step trenches etc

How did you learn to operate plant, no doubt you were given the chance by already experianced machine drivers passing down their knowledge and experiance just as i was.(and hope these guys will be)

but you do have a valid point hoss and until someone comes up with something better, its what we are stuck with i am afraid.

The good old days when the benchmark for a good machine driver was that he didnt get pulled out of the cab by his collar before dinner has gone unfortunatly mate.

all the best and look forward to hearing from you.

I agree with a lot of what your saying diesel, my point about NPORS was that if you are operating a given machine but not using it to it's full potential you can still get a card that deems you competant in that operation.

The telehandler was just to show that not everybody when using a tele handler uses them for lifting onto a scaffold. Why would Balfour Utilities need to demonstrate that they can lift on to a tower when all they do is unload drums of cable and put sand, tarmac on the back of a a wagon. What is the point of training them to do this if they are never going to do this. If a company wants lads training in certain operations they can with NPORS and they don't have to pay for training  they are never going to use again. If these men then decide to move jobs and go and get a job with a house builder well yes they should undergo the training needed to be able to plan lifts and lift loads onto scaffolds safely.

do you get my drift.   

in response to Barry 08, it will be a cold day in the underworld before UKCG recognises NPORS.

 I have nothing against NPORS but at the end of the day its a short training course for plant, the CPCS for all its faults is an NVQ based system which is, in my humble opinion (and that of the UKCG in general) the way to go. Even the HSE make reference to the NVQ system in a positive light in the CDM 2007 ACoP.

If you operate plant then opt for a CPCS card, its far better recognised in the construction industry.

I certainly do get your drift preacherman, i think it is probably a good scheme in terms of  tailored training/ testing to an employers specific requirements or an operators occupational activities but my only concern (personal concern) would be a guy going out of the gate after a test having not displayed the full range of activities a machine has the potential of doing (in terms of testing anyway)...  what is going to stop them lifting at height, lifting with excavators etc and doing activities they have not been tested on.. and what would the outcome be if the unmentionable occured in doing something they have not been suitably tested at.

I can see this being a long thread mate

all the best.

What really needs to happen is that when if any funding becomes available in the New year it should not be used for Plant NVQ's.

99% of operators don't even meet the criteria for this funding and when they are signed up the goal is to get them signed off as quickly as you can based on a couple of observations and a letter from the boss.

This plays right into the hands of the folks who don't give a monkeys about the standards and just want to earn a quick buck.

We as an industry have wasted millons of pounds in funding offering NVQ's to people who don't need them this money could have been better spent on propper training for plant operators.

As for an apprenticship this is the way forward for me multi skilling the plant operator of tommorrow and making him somthing that will be well sort after.

No your right mate, how many lads have you tested that have come with a letter saying they can operate the telehandler and when you ask them a few basic questions about the load charts they don't have a clue what your going on about. It is already happening.

I think us as trainers can only do so much i think as far as what happens on site is concerned the site managers need to think a little more about safety and not just the bottom line, thats me in for some stick.