Competent person

In Germany, the Industrial Safety Regulation (BetrSichV) defines the person competent to inspect in section 2 by three criteria: vocational training, professional experience and recent professional activity. The technical rule TRBS 1203 explains what is meant. None of the three replaces another – a master craftsman’s certificate without practice on hoists is as insufficient as twenty years of practice without relevant training.

What matters is the link to the equipment. Competence is not general; it applies to the class of equipment being inspected. Someone who inspects racking or industrial trucks is not thereby competent to assess a chain hoist or a jib crane.

Professional experience means having worked hands-on with comparable equipment: having installed, repaired or inspected it and knowing what damage to chain, rope, brake and structure looks like before it leads to failure.

Recent activity means that this practice does not lie years in the past. It includes inspections carried out regularly and knowledge of the current rules. Anyone who has not inspected for a long time refreshes their knowledge before signing again. The employer should record what the competence is based on – after an incident, that is the first question asked.

During the inspection the competent person is not subject to technical instructions and must not be disadvantaged because of the finding. This is the core of the rule. An inspector who is told by production that the hoist has to run on Monday is not inspecting – he is confirming.

The competent person may therefore well be an employee of the operating company. What counts is not who pays the salary but whether the result is reached independently of deadline pressure.

The employer selects and appoints the competent person, in-house or through a service provider. Responsibility for the selection stays with the employer, who must be satisfied that the person is suitable for exactly this equipment. A written appointment stating the scope of the inspection task is not prescribed in every case, but it is the simplest way to prove it.