Posted By Jim Walker El Nino needs to do a risk assessment. Maybe he will conclude that risk is trivial and not even bother documenting. However be careful of twists when reconnecting your feet with the ground. Incidentally does El nino believe a fall from 1.9999 meters is safer than one a bit higher?

Posted By Jonathan Breeze El Nino could always exempt himself by donning a climbing harness at work and claiming he was leading a team of paying clients to scale new heights. The exemption also works for caving and plumbing new depths, if he felt that way inclined.

Posted By Keith Ralph I hope that El Nino has not been forced to work at height, and if he has, he could always wear a high chair harness

Posted By Ken Taylor Before he falls off his chair, let me say that there is a serious point here for employers and H&S advisers. We are now in a situation that if someone falls from a work platform or the like below 2m and sustains any injury it can be argued that we have failed to meet the new WAH Regs. If the area could have been accessed by more than one person, it can also be argued that we should have provided 'collective protection' rather than personal. It could also be claimed that we should have provided training specific to working at height. Until we get a clear code of practice and guidance from the HSE on the interpretation of this legislation in practice, we will be in uncharted waters on this one. I have just gone through amending my training OHPs and literature deleting all the well understood references to the superseded parts of the Construction (H,S&W) Regs and the CITB have still to remake videos and trainer's notes. The removal of the sensible '2m rule' is yet another pain and unwelcome imposition from Europe as far as I am concerned. (And I haven't fallen out of my pram yet).

Posted By Heather Aston El Nino should be careful of having a scaffold erected around his chair - it sounds like a hanging matter to me with a tie like that, perhaps his team might agree? I realise the serious point behind the question. We had an accident a few years ago where someone tripped and fell from a six inch high platform (no the platform was not on the bottom of their shoes - these do sound like El Nino's sort of shoes though don't they?). As a result we reviewed all our working platforms and now have a regular programme of repainting the non-slip surfaces and the yellow lines round the edges, etc, etc. It was suggested to me that we consider rails around the side, but I dismissed this as ridiculous. This is of course working at heights, although I'm not sure it's what the regs were really intended for..... Heather (I'm sure El Nino has excellent fashion sense really and will understand the tongue in cheeck nature of the comments!)

Posted By Ken Taylor No Jim - but we knew where we needed the edge protection, etc.

Posted By Heather Aston Jim The Regs most definitely do not say you must reduce noise to the lowest level practicable - we would all be out of business by now if they did. What they actually say is: (Reg 6) "Every employer shall reduce the risk of damage to the hearing of his employees from exposure to noise to the lowest level reasonably practicable." and (Reg 7) "Every employer shall, when any of his employees is likely to be exposed to the second action level or above or to the peak action level or above, reduce, so far as is reasonably practicable, the exposure to noise of that employee" Note that Reg 6 refers to risk of damage to hearing from exposure to noise, not specifically to the noise level. Most importantly the compliance degree is "reasonably practicable" - it's a vital distinction in manufacturing industry I can assure you. Heather

Posted By J Knight I am lower down while in my chair than when I am standing; since rattling away at this keyboard thingy is my normal working position, should I risk assess myself when i stand up to make coffee etc etc? When will HSE produce working at depth regs? Or do the confined spaces regs cover this? My chair is quite confining, John

Posted By Ken Taylor Strange as it may sound, John, the new WAH Regs do cover falls below ground level. it's just that we do not have a definition of height or depth. That's why the Construction Industry (and I) lobbied to retain the well-established UK '2m' rule - but, as usual, conformity within the EU was considered more important.

Posted By J Knight You have an ASSISTANT to make you COFFEE!? I have to slope off to the kitchen and pour hot water on some rather inferior freeze dried stuff (made from dried acorns I think), but I suppose the exercise helps my workplace wellbeing, John

Posted By el nino Jim - You've lost the plot on this one, you don't make coffee like that. My boy tells me that you have to insert a ten pence coin into a slot, select a number 81 and then step back. Said hot beverage will then be delivered through a small opening. Heather once again provides the sensible and calm solution with her herbal brews ( I think Heather should be moderator, that Linton-Smith bloke is always warning me to "stop antagonising other users" or words to that effect ). Still, the drinks issue is fairly academic. My boy refuses to work at heights and I refuse to come down from my chair scaffold ( they didn't leave a trap door and I don't think I'm supposed to scale down the outside ). It could be a long night. El Nino

Posted By Robert K Lewis The old maxim say "Fall of thirty metres doesn't hurt until the last centimetre" Seriously the intent, for me, of the new regulations is to make us think about those presumptions we have all seen made that the fall of say 300mm from the edge of the ramp is OK to leave as it won't result in any really major injury. I have seen nasty injuries from 75mm off the edge of ramps from dorrways. Trips on the level can be fatal as well, it just depends on how you fall and what is there etc etc. The degree of injury is not causally linked to the fall height, it is merely a consequence of a series of factors - if the fall is eliminated the factors do not matter. It is our risk assessment which will determine the extent of what is required but let us not forget that all STF accidents have a serious potential for injury. Bob

Posted By Ken Taylor All the theoretical stuff about the need to risk assess every fall hazard may be fine for simple and permanent workplaces but when you come to the construction and related sectors it's another situation altogether. In frequently-changing environments with entwined workforces under pressure to complete and trying not to get in each others way while surrounded by potential risks from people, tools, plant, cables, materials, etc, it is valuable to have imposed standards of H&S based upon legislation, CoPs and HSE published guidance. This has meant that we can instantly say such as 'You need edge protection there', 'You can't work up there from a ladder', 'You can't leave that trench uncovered', etc (sometimes through an interpreter these days). We now have contractors claiming that their risk assessment has decided that a particular fall-risk is low so doesn't need the protective measures (co-incidentally saving time and money), others claiming that their employees can work from ladders above 9m direct height and citing the new WAH Regs, etc. The former situation was that above 2m you took the control measures and below you did if there were other risks from fall other than height (eg spiked railings below). Now it seems that it's all down to the duty holder to decide with all the confusion and arguments that this can entail. In areas where people will do the least they can get away with to protect others at work, I must prefer known standards to subjective assessment - sometimes by persons with vested interest in the result. When the injuries occur and the enforcement action and prosecutions follow we will no longer be able to claim compliance with legal standards in these respects but will be subject to the claim that: there was a fall; there was a 'height'; and therefore we should have provided a control measure to have prevented it. A very shaky defence could follow unless we get some clear standards from the HSE for compliance with these Regs.

Posted By Jonathan Breeze Merv, Re: the Police exemption, I took it as a more general comment that even if you are a HSE inspector you shouldn't mess around with mounted police officers. Am I wrong here?

Posted By Rich Hall A word of warning , a little publicised area of WAHR 2005 that may well affect the 'el nino' situation is the requirement for a maximum torque rating for castors. The ACOP on this subject is fairly specific however consideration is advised to be made of the OFR ( overall friction rating) of the ' in-contacticable' (IC)material. In this case carpet tiles maybe? Consider linoleum as a potential 'full assitant tool' (FAT) on the uncontrolled spinning of the castor inducing centrifugel forces of a 'potentially hazardous velocity'(PHV) to the chair resider , and work back from there. Control measures may be collapsable arm rests/ body restraining barriers installed to either side of the item the ' drop load' (DL) of which should be inspected quarterly. Consideration should be given to new and expectant mothers and the infirm. G