CITB SMSTS common mistakes
CITB SMSTS · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a scenario asks who must do something under CDM 2015, the candidate assigns the duty to the wrong duty holder - most often giving the client's duty to notify the project to HSE (F10) to the principal contractor, or giving the construction phase plan to the principal designer.
The five duty holders overlap so heavily in the scenario wording that candidates answer from the job title in the scenario ('the contractor on site') rather than from a stored duty-by-duty mapping, and CDM duty tables are rarely memorised as a matrix.
What to do instead
Build and drill a one-page duty matrix with rows for notification, construction phase plan, health and safety file, site induction, welfare and cooperation, and columns for client, principal designer, principal contractor, contractor and worker. Answer every CDM question by locating the duty in the row first, then reading across.
Faced with 'so far as is reasonably practicable', the candidate picks the absolute answer ('all risks must be eliminated', 'the employer must always provide the control') or the cost-driven answer ('if it is too expensive it need not be done'), instead of the answer that requires risk to be weighed against sacrifice.
The phrase reads like a general disclaimer, so candidates treat it as either meaningless or as a licence to do nothing; the underlying two-stage test is not consciously applied under time pressure.
What to do instead
Apply the test out loud in two steps: is the risk significant, and if so do the control unless the sacrifice (time, trouble, cost) is grossly disproportionate to the risk reduction. Reject any option that says 'no action required' or 'must always, regardless of cost' - neither is the SFARP answer.
The candidate treats site welfare as something that can be brought up to standard once work is under way, or believes the legal minimum depends on headcount (for example 'welfare only matters if there are more than five people'), and so approves a site with no running water or no drying room in the first weeks.
Welfare is learned as a list of facilities rather than as a duty owed from the first day of occupation, and candidates confuse the old RIDDOR-style headcount trigger with the welfare requirement.
What to do instead
Remember the rule as: suitable and sufficient welfare from the day the site opens, in proportion to the numbers and the nature/duration of the work - sanitary conveniences, washing, drinking water, changing/drying, rest and eating facilities, and a first-aid arrangement. Treat 'will be provided next month' as a failing answer in every scenario.
The candidate equates a qualification or card with competence - 'he holds a CSCS card, so he is competent to supervise the lifting operation' - and selects the option that relies on certification alone rather than on skills, knowledge, training and experience for that task plus adequate supervision.
Card schemes are the most visible competence signal on a real site, and the exam's competence definition (skills, knowledge, training, experience) is easy to recognise but rarely applied to the specific task in the scenario.
What to do instead
Test competence against the task, not the person's label: does this person have the skills, knowledge, training and experience for this activity, and is the level of supervision proportionate to their experience and the risk? If the option relies on a card, a ticket or length of service alone, it is a distractor.
When asked to improve a control, the candidate goes straight to PPE or to a behavioural control ('ensure operatives are careful', 'toolbox talk the gang', 'issue gloves and a mask') and skips the earlier steps of the hierarchy.
PPE and behaviour are the cheapest and most familiar answers, and candidates conflate 'a control was stated' with 'the right control was selected'; the hierarchy is recalled as a list of words rather than as a ranking to apply.
What to do instead
Force the answer up the hierarchy before accepting it: can the hazard be eliminated, substituted, or controlled by engineering or by segregating people from it? Choose the PPE/behavioural option only when every option above it has been ruled out in the scenario, and be ready to say why.
The candidate accepts a generic or borrowed risk assessment and method statement ('we have a standard template for groundworks') as adequate for a new site, and does not link the risk assessment to the method statement or to the individuals doing the work.
Templates genuinely exist in industry, so the option feels realistic; the requirement for the assessment to be specific to the activity and the site, produced before work starts and communicated to the workforce, is under-weighted.
What to do instead
Screen every document-based option for three things: site- and task-specific content, completion before the work begins, and evidence of briefing/understanding by the people doing the job. If any of the three is missing, the option is wrong regardless of how professional it sounds.
The candidate plans comprehensively for safety hazards but leaves occupational health out - no consideration of silica dust, noise, vibration, manual handling, dermatitis or mental health - or treats health as 'covered by the PPE' and moves on.
Health effects are delayed and invisible, so under exam pressure the candidate's attention goes to the immediate, visible injury risks; health is also mentally filed under 'occupational health nurse' rather than under day-to-day site planning.
What to do instead
For every scenario, consciously run a short health checklist alongside the safety checklist: dust, fumes/vapour, noise, vibration, manual handling, hazardous substances and skin contact, plus fatigue and wellbeing. If the question asks for control of a high-risk activity and the plan has no health controls, add them before choosing.
The candidate misapplies RIDDOR: reporting an over-seven-day injury as if it were a specified injury or a dangerous occurrence, using the wrong deadline, or assuming a near miss or a minor first-aid case must be reported to HSE.
The categories (death, specified injury, over-seven-day injury, dangerous occurrence, disease, gas) blur together, and the reporting clocks are memorised as a single number rather than as separate deadlines tied to separate categories.
What to do instead
Classify first, then apply the clock: specified injuries and dangerous occurrences are reported without delay; over-seven-day injuries within 15 days of the incident. Keep a clear line between what goes to HSE and what stays in the site accident book or is reportable internally only.
The candidate gets statutory inspection intervals wrong for high-risk plant and structures, for example believing excavations and scaffolds need inspecting weekly or monthly, or that a scaffold tag is a legal requirement, rather than knowing that both must be inspected by a competent person at the start of each shift (and after any event likely to affect stability, and after alteration).
Inspection frequencies for different items (scaffold, excavation, lifting equipment, excavations after weather) are learned as a jumble of numbers and then generalised into one 'weekly' rule; scaffold tags are so common on site that their legal status is assumed.
What to do instead
Learn the intervals in pairs with their trigger: scaffolds and excavations - before first use and then at intervals not exceeding seven days, plus after alteration, weather or other event, and for excavations at the start of every shift. Lifting accessories - thorough examination at least every six months; lifting equipment - at least every 12 months unless an examination scheme says otherwise. Treat scaffold tags as good practice, not law.
For work at height, the candidate selects fall arrest (harness and lanyard, netting under the work) as the primary control, or accepts a ladder as a workplace for prolonged work, instead of choosing collective prevention first (avoid, prevent, then minimise).
Harnesses look like the 'safe' answer and are visually associated with working at height, so the candidate jumps to the most familiar equipment instead of following the avoid-prevent-minimise sequence.
What to do instead
Rank every work-at-height option: can the work be done from the ground (avoid); can a collective system such as guardrails, working platforms or edge protection be used (prevent); only then fall arrest or netting (minimise). Ladders are for short-duration, low-risk access and light work only - reject any option that makes them a sustained work platform.