IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Working at Height - transferring personnel from MEWPS
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tom Lindley
I am currently preparing a Standard for my company relating to Working at Height.
Overall we do no have a problem ith HIGH falling risk.
This is mainly due to selction of MEWPS and training.
However I am anticipating non-routine access / work - coupled with observations I have made in construction ... which prompts the question of:
a. Person using a MEWP as an access lift - to transfer to a safe place of work at height.
b. Peron using a MEWP to gain height and then leave the MEWP - using a safety harness. I have seen this during steel fixing where person reach position through the "lattice effect" of steelwork.
I have done some research and continue to do so.
I have on order "operators guide" from IPAF and read in HSE Information Sheet MISC 614 "....people climbing out of the MEWP (this is not normally allowed) ..."
"normally" suggest to me that the practice is known to occur ... but holds back on further information!)
This is what I would wish to probe.
There is a lot of information out there but would be interested in any member offering advice / directing me to further information.
Until then I would take a precautionary view point until someone who can provide with further informed knowledge and experience on this.
Regards - Tom
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher Kelly
Hi Tom - problem is that if they fall they can actually pull the boom-type lifts over with fall-arrest. From memory this has actually happened in the past resulting in a fatality. Personally I wouldn't allow it from scissor lifts either.
Theoretically you could come up with some sort of protection system but I don't know anyone who has done it.
We have totally banned anyone climbing out of MEWPS, in this case access from a fixed platform only.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Dickson
Tom,
You might wish to give a bit more thought to what the HSE actually mean by "this is not normally allowed".
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By bill Strachan
Hi Tom,
When I have been involved on projects in the past where we have used MEWP's to access steel frames I have followed a system where the operator has two lanyards, one work restraint and the other fall arrest.
Before the operative transfers himself to the steel he must clip on to a suitable and sufficient anchor which should be quite simple with a steel frame. Once this is done he then detatches his fall resraint harness from the MEWP and carries out his manoeuvre. Also note the operative must be at least 6.25 metres above ground level or any obstruction to allow the fall arrest system to fully deploy
The addage is always make a connection before you break a connection.
Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Charley Farley-Trelawney
I used to allow under strict control measures exiting from a scissor to a firm and safe place at height when there was no other means of access. A twin lanyard system was used and the scissor would need to be close enough to not allow anyone to fall through the gap.
On exiting one lanyard was attached to the scissor and when on the roof the second tail would be firmly clipped to a man safe system; back to the scissor then to release the original and the worker remained quite safe.
As I started saying, I have now ceased this practice and am looking at other methods that are safe to access an area that has no other means of internal access.
CFT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tom Lindley
Thank you for your thoughts:
We are in challenging job - thank goodness for "goal setting" legislation.
If you get it wrong - it is big time wrong.
Overriding principle we agree is we do what is reasonably practicable to prevent fall - higher standard than sfrp.
There are some very interesting articles in SHP - particularly "Above and Beyond" which was published 2005 June.
Your comments are of value.
Thanks - Tom
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David AB Thomas
Refer to BS 8460:2005, Safe use of MEWPs, Code of practice, Annex B (Guidance on safe systems of work for exiting the work platform at height).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
The operative words here are "safe place" of work.
Three really shouldnt be any reason to get out onto steel during steel erection and this is not industry standard. All work should be done from the MEWP.
You should ensure that the manufacturer states that the machine can be used (some scissor lifts do most cherry pickers are a big no-no)
which can depend on whether there are anchor points that are strong enough for the forces involved should someone fall.
Preferably the MEWP should be used as the safe working platform where possible. If you have to get out of that to somewhere you have to clip on using a harness, you have moved some way down the hierarchy and should ensure its not RP to use collective protection (guard rails, nets etc.) before moving to personal protection.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tom Lindley
Thanks all - a good discussion - and proves value of this forum.
The Standard I am writing will cover this point carefully - to the higher standard of RP.
Interesting the BS reference .... written in same year (before / after Regs?).
Regards - Tom.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By GT
Hi All,
Sorry but I have a different view and application which many of you may not agree........these devices are not designed for, nor should be used for this purpose.
It is not a good safety practice to be attached to two different locations at the same time.
On this project and all my projects it is not allowed, whether for steel erection or any other use, with good planning the problems can be resolved without resorting to this unsafe practice, expect for an EMERGENCY situation.
My views for what they are worth
Regards
GT
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ddraigice
I totally agree.
The mere inkling that some of these can be used to climb out to another work place will give most (all?) people the idea that it can be done wherever and whenever and it is a fact of life that people don't like or forget to clip on so it should be discouraged.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Christopher Kelly
I also agree, as I pointed out in my last post, the fact that fall-arrest is being used implies that there is a chance it will need to be used.
Boom-type lifts are not designed to cope with a suddenly applied loading (such as a 15 stone person falling 6 metres). The SWL etc would have to be re-calculated and most competent persons would refuse to do this.
Regards
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tom Lindley
Of interest - I have contacted an organisation (unidentified) on this aspect.
In a 2003 publication on Mast Climbing Work Platforms (MCWP)- it states in the example Safe Operating Procedures:
"NOTE - Do not step across from one work platform to another unless you have been specifically instructed to do sop by the competent person (if required to do so then a full body harneds must be worn)".
Within the publication, featuring a Tower Block with a pitched roof (like Canary Wharf)being replaced. It appears that roof is fully scaffolded and scaffold has a docking station for allowing the passage of the MCWP. The MCWP is acting as a lift and transferring person.
Of interest? Looks very safe to me.
I asked for information on MEWPs - sent by mistake MCWP information.
Resarch continues.
Continue any comments - they are of value.
|
|
|
|
IOSH forums home
»
Our public forums
»
OSH discussion forum
»
Working at Height - transferring personnel from MEWPS
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.