According to a case study written by Doctors. R Caesar, M Gajus, and R Davies of the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, "a 29 year old male timberyard worker routinely cleaned the saws with a compressed air gun. The compressed air was thought to have a faulty trigger, with the result that a high-pressure air stream at 75 PSI was directed towards his left eye from close range. He remembers seeing the blast 'shoot him in the eye.' He was immediately aware of swelling and closure of the eye. He reported more shock than pain and presented to the casualty department immediately.
The risks of high-pressure injury to the orbit include direct contusion to the orbital contents, traumatic optic atrophy, the injection of foreign bodies through the conjunctiva with risk of infection and inflammation, displacement of the orbital contents with proptosis, transient corneal exposure, and blow-out fracture.
OWING TO THE RISK OF SERIOUS SEQUELAE SECONDARY TO INJURY WITH COMPRESSED AIR HOSES, APPROPRIATE EDUCATION, WARNINGS, AND PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO ALL USERS OF COMPRESSED HOSES AND COMPRESSED AIR GUNS."

Let me now refer you to the May/June issue of the FPS's own publication - the Fluid Power Journal, page 20 "IFPS Success Story - SMC Corporation."

According to the story "IFPS and SMC formed a partnership in late 2003, when they formed the first company-wide Pneumatic Specialist test event in November 2004."

"Mr. Jon Jensen, North American Training Manager, manages the certification process for SMC Coporation of America and for SMC Pneumatics of Canada, overseeing the general fluid power training, Pneumatic Specialist review training, and Pneumatic Specialist test scheduling."

Mr. Jensen adds "SMC is expert in pneumatic factory automation, and wishes to be known as such. IFPS Certifications, and those cryptic initials (CFPPS) on a business card, lend instant credibility to our sales force when going about their daily business."

On page 20 there is a photograph of a student working within 1.5 feet of a pneumatic simulator - no safety glasses. Page 21 is another picture of a student working on a pneumatic simulator - again, no safety glasses. Again, on page
22 - a photograph of students without safety glasses.

I rest my case with respect to IFPS and its attitude toward safety - it's non-existent and thus, in my opinion, dilutes the credibility of certification.

A final comment on Fluid Power Certification - based on the opinions of the debaters on this issue I get the idea that the fundamental purpose of FPS "certification" is to prove to a prospective employer that a person has a "minimum level of understanding of fluid power - minimum being the key point."
This seems to suggest that a person who graduates from a one-week course in fluid power from reputable companies like Eaton Corporation or Parker, or perhaps from their local technical college, who might be better trained than a FPS "walk-in," is a less desirable candidate for a position than a person who, with no previous training or experience (not apparently required for FPS certification), "lucks out" on FPS's certification test and becomes "certified."
Finally, a friendly word of advice to people who hire employees based primarily on the fact that they are FPS certification cardholders.
These people are no more, or perhaps less, qualified than a person who graduates from a reputable technical college. Please DO NOT hire on the basis of certification alone. Ask about the person's background and training - and get references. The more qualified candidate might not be a FPS cardholder - nor should he or she required to be.
In my opinion, if FPS's wants to continue aimlessly with "certification" programs that miss the mark with respect to the true definition of the respective disciplines in which people certify, that's their prerogative. However, I strongly caution against making their certification the benchmark for measuring the skills needed for employment in the hydraulics industry.
The industry needs a benchmark that meets a much higher standard - especially when it comes to safety.
With respect to bucket trucks, forklifts, and aerial platforms, the machines people "fly" in the course of doing their jobs - not to mention the hydraulic powered pleasure resort thrill-rides, which soar people into the air and spin them around. Bear in mind that the vast majority of technicians who service, maintain and troubleshoot these machines, whether certified by FPS or by the respective machinery manufacturers, are not properly trained in hydraulics and thus their work compromises the safety of people who's lives depend on the safe and reliable operation of these machines.
I have, and always will, strongly urge the FAA to get involved with certification for personnel who service, repair, and troubleshoot these "flying machines" - this responsibility CANNOT be left up to an industry that has yet to recognize itself as "a potential occupational hazard" - the hydraulics industry.
Thank you for the interesting debate.
Vert respectfully,
Rory S. McLaren

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rory McLaren,

Hi Rory.. just a short note about this FPS certification.. what a crock.. i've been in the mobile field for 25 years, 5 years ago we were required by one of our clients hold an FPS certificate. this required that we spend 1 day refresh and then 1/2 day to write and 1/2 day of practical.. what a farce.. anyone with a pencil could pass this TEST and a few that attended did (some shouldn't have)(2 didn't) . I, like you do not look on this certification as the end all, lets get these people on the floor and see just what they are made off. Oh by the way my certification is up for renewal.. just have to send my money to the address below and all will be OK.. Jim