Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Joanne Corr
Hi,
I visited a site recently where the roof contractor was using a Scissor lift to access the roof at high level. As far as i was aware these MEWP are platforms only and cannot be used for access purposes... can anyone shed some light?
Thanks
Jo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Woodage
JO,
You are correct Guidance isssued by IPAF is that the operative should not leave the basket at anytime. I have seen it dine with a cherry picker, where the Basket was positioned over the flat roof area, away from the leading edge and then the operatives dissembarked. But from a scissor lift would mean stepping onto the leading edge of the roof.
I hate to say it but it's Risk assesment, if there is no other means of access that is practicable. In general it's a NO to climbing out of the machine to gain access to a roof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris W
Joanne
If you refer to BS 8460 of 2005 - Safe Use of MEWPs Code of Practice there is a section included in the main body and further detail in the appendix which refer to 'leaving platform at height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
Joanne
This alway comes up and nobody can ever agree to agree I personaly think it is fine as long as it risk assessed the BS states the following
Exiting the platform at height may only be undertaken where a rigorous risk assessment carried out as part of planning the job indicates that this is the safest and most effective means of accessing a particular location taking into account the availability on site of other more suitable access equipment and the practicability of providing the same within the required timescales for the task to be carried out. The risk assessment should take into account the following factors:
a) falling of persons during transfer from the work platform to the structure;
b) falling of tools and materials during transfer from the work platform to the structure;
c) sudden movement of the MEWP or work platform;
d) additional loads imposed on the MEWP for which it was not designed which could affect stability or
overload the machine;
e) dynamic and impact loads from personal fall protection equipment;
f) damage to the MEWP or structure by an unintentional movement of the MEWP;
g) stranding of people at height;
h) use of extending decks and gates, use of double lanyards, etc.;
i) maintenance/replacement of fall protection measures for persons whilst they are on the structure. Once the risks have been assessed, measures should be devised to reduce these risks to an acceptable level and a method formulated so that a safe system of work can be put in place. This safe system of work should
include supervision by the responsible body so that the method is adhered to by personnel at the worksite.
Im very sure that someone will say that this in rubbish, even though it is verbatum from the Code of Practise BS:8460:2005
Hope this is of some help
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
Off the top of my head I seem to recall that the guidance suggests that this is not usually permitted (and in law the guidance has higher status than the BS and the BS says that compliance with the BS does not mean you are doing everything to comply with the law).
It depends upon the associated risks (some of which mentioned above from the BS) and also the manufacturers guidelines. Usually if you have to cross the gap between the roof and the MEWP then it is not acceptable.
There are other risks to consider - for example are they accessing a roof where there are risks of falls? Is there anywhere to clip on? Some MEWPS are not designed to be clipped on to - usually only as work positioning and not for fall restraint. However, the manuf. guidance will say whether it can be used for this or not.
If you follow the letter of the law, the roof should not be accessed, even for short duration work without, as a minimum, a place to clip on. If the MEWP can be used for that purpose you need to assess whether the place of work can be accessed without having to unclip.
However, if the MEWP can be placed further onto the roof so that you are not crossing a gap and the other risks on the roof are considered then I don't think anyone would shout too much about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By gham
I always though guidance was based on approved code of practice.... well i must be wrong
I looked at the guidance and it says on one of it's four pages that this is not normally allowed and the provide no further guidance. The word 'normally' leaves it wide open. The code of practice at least give more 'guidance'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ali
The actual 2005 WAH Regulations makes reference to a "hierarchy of controls" , which is what we should all be following when assessing risks. This should help determine the best form of access for any given situation. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.