I wouldn't hire me to work in New York City, and neither would Mayor Bloomberg. Passing the test is not enough. The city's new rules say that candidates must also prove that they have minimum levels of experience. To obtain a Class A license, for example, candidates must have worked seven of the past 10 years on a crane in a large city. It is rare for any jurisdiction in the country to require more than 2,000 hours of experience to qualify for a hoisting license.

In Philadelphia, the city council is mulling rules that would require all members of a lifting team—operators, riggers, signalers and crane inspectors—to be certified by a nationally accredited testing agency in order to do their jobs. Currently, Philadelphia only requires this for tower crane teams. The new law would apply to mobile cranes, as well.

Retesting is another cornerstone of national certification, and my five-year certification comes up for renewal next year. New York City also is requiring that candidates complete a 40-hour training course that covers city safety regulations. Licenses expire there every three years, at which time applicants must complete an eight-hour refresher course to renew.

Tests that are psychometrically robust—which is a requirement to become nationally accredited—have years of data behind them to show correlation between testing ability and competency in the seat. But they don't measure experience. The test sets the floor, and experience raises the bar. And that is one reason why cities like New York are topping off national testing with these and other added requirements.

Best Practices

Another reason is that cities want to adhere to the latest industry standards. Private organizations like NCCCO—with the help of governments, unions, owners, contractors, manufacturers and other crane experts working as a team—have for nearly two decades carved out and defined the basic knowledge and skill needed to operate a crane safely. As technologies and other factors change on the jobsite, these teams have updated the tests accordingly. So then, the argument goes, why should cities reinvent the wheel and create their own ad-hoc tests?

Indeed, OSHA supports these nationally accredited tests because they measure to a consistent standard. The belief that the tests reduce accidents is supported largely by a decades-long study in Ontario, which implemented operator certification in 1979. From 1968 to 1978, the province had 85 crane-related fatalities. From 1979 to 2002, the number was 51. From 1991 to 2002, the total was nine. This and other data, such as studies in California, ">provide the legal basis for the federal government to require standardized testing.

We shouldn't forget that national certification is nothing new to New York City. In 2008, as the city ">was uncovering corruption in its own testing ranks, it moved all of the examinations for its "Class C" license—commonly called a "cherry picker" license because it applies to rough-terrain and other small-boom cranes—to the NCCCO model. Part of the rationale was to eliminate conflicts of interest in the licensing process, which is next on our list.

Sniffing Out Rats

Potential corruption over the licensing process is another reason why cities and states are moving away from in-house testing and self-certification. If people pass the test because of some other reason than knowledge and skill, then the test has failed its purpose.