Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Joanne Corr
Hi,
Does anyone know of any Standard which states where roof access hatches need to be positioned and how many to use for a run of fall arrest.
To explain;
I have a project whereby the fall arrest spans approx. 100m along a roof but there is only one access hatch. I know there definately should be two access hatches, but should there be more provided in the same way fire exits have to be a certain distance apart?
Can anyone shed some light?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
Joanne
I look after many large buildings, some range from 20,000 sq ft to 400,000 sq ft, on each of the buildings here there is only one hatch. I am unaware that provision need to be made for two hatches by building control, so is the local building control officer who is a friend.
With respect to latchway systems you should be able to clip on before leaving the hatch and access the complete roof. It may be that you require a couple of stand alone points to enable diagonal access to the corners, the system should be designed so that posts are installed at pre set measurements to avoid cable lag. In addition you should be able to go from post to post without detaching, When you do need to release then the twin tail system will allow you to be clipped at all times. (Don’t forget yearly certification of ‘man safe system’)
With a roof such as you describe and I do not know its width I would guess that you have to single lines connected by 10 - 15 posts on both sides, with maybe 4 stand alones.
I would suggest that one hatch is sufficient, with respect to its placement, it usually gets installed on any mezzanine level or at the top floor area, thus keeping the ladder height to a minimum. The hatch should not be accessible to anyone other than authorised persons and is best kept in a 'locked' off condition which will ensure no contractors etc will be up there without the appropriate person knowing about it.
If you require further information email me direct.
Charles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Elliott
How does just one hatch sit with the general principle in respect of fire, that there should normally be an alternative escape from ALL parts of the workplace? I can see how it may be OK in a small area but 100m is a long way to travel to escape.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
There is actually an alternative means of escape if you think about it...it took me a while but it makes sense, and that came from the local fire service!
Charles
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Joanne Corr
I agree totally with you on this Bill, this was my initial concern. I know there may be no regulations / standards for this but I do feel that there is a need for secondary access on this roof. Interesting to hear peoples comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Joanne Corr
Charley,
What alternative access would there be? I assume you want the person to clip off and jump as on this rrof that would be the only way down, apart from the fire service retrieving the user. Would it not be beneficial to give the guy the option of being able to escape from a fire given the oopurtunity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
Given the opportunity of course I would completely agree, but the fire service are aware that a worker on a roof in a fire does have the option of waiting for a rescue rather than burn to death going inside.
Alas there is never a perfect solution, one must remember that if a building is burning and for arguments sake we will assume it has 4 roof hatches; if the building is burning thoroughly and no one was able to alert the worker, or he/she did not hear the alarm then unlike 2 separate exits at ground level that will lead to safety, it would appear that a burning building may not even provide a safe means of escape with 4 hatches due to the speed and spread of the fire. I would rather take my chance by going over the side and being rescued externally than an officer loosing his life by entering the burning building.
Of course, the situation I quote is extremely rare, and providing the RA's provide suitable & sufficient control measures we will just have to stick with what we have, again we do not have a perfect safe & healthy working environment but we are getting better, perhaps a little more cooperation between Building Control, Architects, DDA representatives, HSE, Local authority, etc etc and we may achieve further advances in safety, with the amount of cooperation I suggest, I would imagine it will never happen!
Until then we do our best, and probably the most important issue from this most interesting thread is that a hazard has been identified, its now up to the building manager/owner to take appropriate measures to ERIC etc!
Charles
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.