Posted By Jim Walker I've no idea, but it seems reasonable to me. Times I've seen these things used a sole fall mitigation when it is quite plain you will hit the ground before lanyard length does its job

Posted By gham Lanyard = 2m Maximim lenght Full absorber length open 1.5m if anchored at foot level add another 2m into the equation so at least 5.5m and the add in any slack in the harness, and factor in the lenght of any limbs that will exceed the fall distance from the d-ring from the start of the fall when anchored foot level anchor point to the d-ring when the fall has ended and the system has fully extended this is assuming the worst case, fixed structural anchor and the minimum distance from the edge(see BS 7883:2005 or 1997 depending on the year fitted) Try fall restraint rather it hurts way less

Posted By RA Cheers Lads, Any suggestions for scaffolders working on quick stage scaffolding at lower levels? RA

Posted By Geoff Parkinson Use an adjustable lanyard. The answer to the question is.....MYTH! The MAXIMUM faling distance is 6.25m, not the MINIMUM (as per question posed). All the equations relate to worse case scenarion - anchored below feet, max 2m lanyard length, full-weight of body making energy absorber fully deploy. Feel free to argue :-)

Posted By gham If 6.25m was the maximum distance to fall then any less that that distance from the ground you would likley hit it therefore would you not have a minimum height of 6.25m to ensure you don't hit it or have i gone and confused my wee self i.e the max deployment would be 6.25m meaning the working height would have to be greater that this, as such it would be the minimum working height analgesic please!

Posted By Geoff Parkinson My point is one of 'contrbutory factors'. A number of key points go together to decide how far one can fall. These include your (the user) weight, lanyard length and fall factor incurred. For example, a person of 70kg falling onto a lanyard will create a 'tear-out' (operating deployment length of the lanyard) of a lesser distance than a person of 100kg. Many energy absorbers do not fully deploy unless the maximum loading is achieved. Therefore, a 70kg person falling 1m would probably only actually drop around 1.5m in total - due to the energy absorber not fully extending. However, a person of 100kg, falling through the same distance, might well operate an additional .25m of the energy absorber. (obviously, we need to add the 'length' of the operator into the equation, there will be several cms of them below the upper attachment point! So, unless you have the maximum permitted weight of operator (usually around 100kg, in line with test dummy weghts), and fall through a fall factor of two with a 2m lanyard, you won't fall all the potential distances previously discussed. Energery absorbers do not fully deploy on every type of fall. Many of them will partially deploy on a lesser fall. So, to sum up, max fall factor+max weight operator=fall distance of 6.25m. Any downsizing of any of the variables would give a shorter fall distance. Therefore, 6.25m is a maximum distance required, not a minimum (original question. If you method statement and SWP creates an environment that never allows the operator to work outside a fall factor of 1, 6.25m clearance would not be required. Obviously, if there is any doubt in your mind of thew potential fall factor the operastors will be exposed to, you need to opt for worse case scenario - taking us back to the 6.25m. It makes sense to me!! Technical data is available if anyone wishes to see how I came to this conclusion.

Posted By gham Geoff I think we have come to the same conclusion although interperating the question differently I read it as the minimum height you should works at (worst case scenario) You have read it the Max that the system will let you fall The answers are still the same "work higher than 6.25m from the ground and you won't hit it"

Posted By Raj While on this topic, I have a query also. If a work platform at height is safe with proper erection, inspection, has guardrails, toeboards and is fully boarded, is there a need for a harness? If yes, why? If no, what is the reference regulation. Please advise. Thanks and warm regards raj

Posted By gham raj You don't need a harness because you have a physical barrier which is number 3 on the H list. 1 being avoid 2 being do it from the ground 3 being use physical barriers Would there be a suitable anchor point in the scaff tower?

Posted By Geoff Parkinson Adjustable lanyards http://www.sentrysafetys...e-nylon-with-2-Hooks.htm NOT a recommendation, just an example.

Posted By Andy Walker Hate to tell you this Raj but you won't find an official statement it's all down to our old friend Risk Assessment and the work at height hierarchy. (Unless anyone else knows different)The best thing to do is have a look at INDG 401 on the HSE website. Andy W

Posted By MT Agree with Andy Walker. Fall arrest is one of the last things you should be looking at - collective fall prevention being at the top of the hierarchy and if you can't manage that, then individual fall prevention in the form of work restraint i.e. lanyards which prevent you from reach the edge from where you could fall.

Posted By Jeffrey Watt I also prefer restraint systems. Kind regards The Gimp.

Posted By Jeffrey Watt It's OK Andy the Gimp's sleepin'. Counter intuitive (kind of) but lighter people suffer more G force with fall restraint systems. Big boned people (like me, over 100kg) may run out of lanyard but have a very smooth deploy up to that point cos we are heavy and overcome the tear and frictional forces in the block smoothly. So in real terms the research shows that fall arrest blocks should be weight banded and not one size fits all. Down to Ann Summers now to kit out all the contractors. "Is that tartan one EN 355?" Jeff