Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 04 May 2007 12:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Emyr Evans
Has any one seen on the market a device that could trigger an alarm (audible or remote) if someone wearing a safety harness fell & became unconscious / incapable of self rescue.

A device linked to the lanyard that indicates a sudden stop / activation would be ideal (possible with a relay to a partner / our rescue team)

Alternatively a detector that would indicate someone is stationary for a short duration (lone working) - prior to the onset of suspension trauma.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 04 May 2007 14:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Philip Beale
There are lone working systems around but these units only activate when left horizontal for longer than 15 seconds for example. if you are suspended from a hoist then they may not work. also issue if they activate at a base station how will anyone know where the person is.

i would have thought 2 person working would be the simpliest method or carrying out work by other means so the need for harness is not required.

Phil
Admin  
#3 Posted : 04 May 2007 14:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton
There are many tasks which I would assess as being too high a risk to be done by a lone worker. Confined space entry is one, live electrical work another - and - work at height with a harness is another.

It may just be my opinion - but if someone is required to work in a place that requires the wearing of fall arrest harness (because a fall is possible / likely), then I would automatically assess the risk as requiring control measures to include 'no lone working'.

So an alarm of the type described would be unnecessary and may be obscuring the risk rather than reducing it.

As stated this is my opinion only - I have nevcer seen it written in official guidance - I suspect because no-one would think it necessary to write such a basic rule down?

Steve

Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.