Post on 23-Oct-2021
Proficiency Testing Program for Inspection of Lifting Equipment Accessories
31
Participants
No. of inspectors = 167 (> 95 %)
No. of inspection bodies = 33 (100 %)
32
Procedure
Each inspector was asked to inspect:
- 16 Lifting Equipment Accessories in (180) min.
- Report all faults that are reason for rejection.
- Report the final judgment for the equipment as
(Safe to use) or (Unsafe to use).
33
Results evaluation
All inspector results were
compared with the reference
faults identified and evaluated
by LEEA approved senior
experts.
Shackle
1- Incorrect Standard on
Declaration of
Conformity.
2- Jaw width
reduced.
UNSAFE TO USE
34
Results Reporting – Table (1)
# Item Reference
Faults
Valid Faults
(VF)
Invalid Faults
(IF)
Correct Final Judgment
(CFJ)
1- Shackle 2 0 2 1
2- Eyebolt 2 1 2 1
3- Chain Sling / Wire rope sling
7 5 1 1
4- Hand chain block / Lever hoist
0 0 7 0
5- Flat Webbing Sling 4 2 1 1
6- Round sling 4 3 0 1
7- Components 5 5 0
8- Wire Rope Sample
5 1 4
9- Plate/ Beam clamp
1st Station
35
Results Reporting - Table (2)
2nd Station
# Item Reference
Faults
Valid Faults
(VF)
Invalid Faults
(IF)
Correct Final Judgment
(CFJ)
1- Shackle 2 0 3 1
2- Eyebolt 1 0 2 1
3- Chain Sling / Wire rope sling
1 1 4 1
4- Hand chain block / Lever hoist
1 1 2 1
5- Flat Webbing Sling 4 2 2 1
6- Round sling 2 1 1 1
7- Components 5 4 1
8- Wire Rope Sample
9- Plate/ Beam clamp
0 0 2 0
36
Report content - Table (3)
Summary of the results for each inspector
Total Reference Faults 45
Valid Faults detected by the inspector (VF) 58%
(42) inspectors got better results
Invalid Faults reported by the inspector (IF) 34
(113) inspectors got better results
Correct Final judgment based on valid and invalid faults (CFJ)
85%
(42) inspectors got better results
Correct judgment based only on invalid faults 3%
(96) inspectors got better results
Overall Indicator (OI)
50 (42) inspectors got better results
37
Overall Results
38
Faults Detected by Inspectors
38 37 4034
5750 50
90
172
103
90
5244
152
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Shackle Eyebolt Chain Sling/ Wire ropesling
Hand chain block /Leverhoist
Flat Webbing Sling Round sling Plate/ Beam clamp
Faults (%)
Valid Faults Found (%) Invalid Faults Found (%)
39
Correct Judgment (%)
83
68
82
73
8785
68
27 28 27
13
6
13 13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Shackle Eyebolt Chain Sling/ Wire ropesling
Hand chain block /Leverhoist
Flat Webbing Sling Round sling Plate/ Beam clamp
Total correct judgment based on valid and invaled faults (%) Correct judgment based on invaled results (%)
40
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
48
87
65 6
146
123
160
13
68
71
25
39
129
152
79
124
142
58
145
44
85 1
127
167 7
16
106
53
35
51
122
52
164
42 8
141
97
75
107
162
108 5
31
64
37
158
88
96
45
15
134
12
23
109
30
19
99
100
78
89
54
111
10
27
91
114
17
69
60
135
131
139
67
21
40
143
63
77
121
50
94
29
163
149
Valid
fau
lts (
%)
Inspector ID # from best to worst
Valid faults detected by inspectors
41
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
48
87
65 6
146
123
160
13
68
71
25
39
129
152
79
124
142
58
145
44
85 1
127
167 7
16
106
53
35
51
122
52
164
42 8
141
97
75
107
162
108 5
31
64
37
158
88
96
45
15
134
12
23
109
30
19
99
100
78
89
54
111
10
27
91
114
17
69
60
135
131
139
67
21
40
143
63
77
121
50
94
29
163
149
inv
alid
fau
lts (
%)
Inspector ID # from best to worst
Invalid faults reported by inspectors
42
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 3 5 7 91
11
31
51
71
92
12
32
52
72
93
13
33
53
73
94
14
34
54
74
95
15
35
55
75
96
16
36
56
76
97
17
37
57
77
98
18
38
58
78
99
19
39
59
79
91
01
103
105
107
109
111
113
115
117
119
121
123
125
127
129
131
133
135
137
139
141
143
145
147
149
151
153
155
157
159
161
163
165
167
Ju
dg
men
t (%
)
Inspector ID # from best to worst
Correct judgment based on valid and invalid faults
43
9
150
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
48
87
65 6
146
123
160
13
68
71
25
39
129
152
79
124
142
58
145
44
85 1
127
167 7
16
106
53
35
51
122
52
164
42 8
141
97
75
107
162
108 5
31
64
37
158
88
96
45
15
134
12
23
109
30
19
99
100
78
89
54
111
10
27
91
114
17
69
60
135
131
139
67
21
40
143
63
77
121
50
94
29
163
149
Ov
era
ll i
nd
icato
r #
Inspector ID # from best to worst
Overall indicator for all inspectors
44
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
48
87
65 6
146
123
160
13
68
71
25
39
129
152
79
124
142
58
145
44
85 1
127
167 7
16
106
53
35
51
122
52
164
42 8
141
97
75
107
162
108 5
31
64
37
158
88
96
45
15
134
12
23
109
30
19
99
100
78
89
54
111
10
27
91
114
17
69
60
135
131
139
67
21
40
143
63
77
121
50
94
29
163
149
Exp
eri
en
ce i
n lif
tin
g e
qu
ipm
en
t (Y
ear)
Inspector ID # from best to worst based on the overall indicator
Relation between experience and overall indicator
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
48
87
65 6
146
123
160
13
68
71
25
39
129
152
79
124
142
58
145
44
85 1
127
167 7
16
106
53
35
51
122
52
164
42 8
141
97
75
107
162
108 5
31
64
37
158
88
96
45
15
134
12
23
109
30
19
99
100
78
89
54
111
10
27
91
114
17
69
60
135
131
139
67
21
40
143
63
77
121
50
94
29
163
149
Ag
e (
Year)
Inspector ID # from best to worst based on the overall indicator
Relation between age and overall indicator
46
6763
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
From non-accredited IB From accredited IB
Co
rre
ct
Ju
dg
me
nt
(%)
Inspector
Impact of Accreditation on Inspectors Judgment level-Form the Pilot Study-
47
Comparison between
2014 - 2015
48
Average valid faults found (%) by all inspectors participated in 2014 PT program compared with all inspectors participated in 2015 PT program
43
50
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
2014 2015
Target = 48%
49
Average correct judgment (%) by all inspectors participated in 2014 PT program compared with all inspectors participated in 2015 PT program
64
78
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
2014 2015
Target = 69%
50
PT workshop
51
PT workshop
52
48
83
87
26
65
150
6
32
146
46
2015 - Top 20 AD InspectorsOverall indicator < 27
123
49
160
157
13
119
68
34
71
154
53
THANK YOU
555
555