Posted By kitty
I would like to know opinions on whether the following is an acceptable form of working at height.

A worker is dropped onto a flat roof at a safe distance from its edge (similar position to where a latchway would be installed)and is harnessed to the cherrypicker.

Is this acceptable whereby no plant exists, roof has ten year warranty and access will not be frequent. Accesss will be restricted via a permit to work system.

I cant see any major problems, basically i want to know whether fall arrest systems are required on all flat roofs where realistically access is very infrequent.

Posted By CFT
Kitty

Some thoughts on your post.

What is to stop the MEWP from being operated at ground level whilst the roof operative may be attached to the basket??!

Is access limited from outside only?

Is this level firm ground you are to be placing the MEWP on?

What will be the longevity of the works; minutes, hours, days, weeks? Your answer makes a difference into what protection is offered.

Assuming it will be a reasonable duration can you not hire counter balance barriers which will eliminate any possibility of going over the edge?

What emergency rescue system will you have in place?

What type of lanyard are you intending to issue for the method in which you have described?

And finally, if the works are of short'ish' duration, might it be possible to conduct the works whilst staying firmly within the confines of a basket? Perhaps a lorry mount may offer additional flexibility; I don't know what height you are intending to be working at?

Sorry for all the questions, it is the most efficient way of establishing an alternative safer method to undertake the works; personally from the limited information I would not take your preferred method as an option, as I feel certain I could not control measure 'out' residual hazards to an acceptable level; maybe however the site is completely different to how my imagination is creating it.

CFT

Posted By Gff
Climbing out of a mewp is a no no..

In your opinion, but you will spark a debate with that statement

Posted By Gff
It is not a fact it is an opinion

Posted By Gff
OK quick answer I Never said it can or can't be done

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc614.pdf

the link suggests that it is not normally allowed, which in itself suggests that there are instances when it is allowed. And it also suggests that you check with the manufacturer regarding using the mewp as an anchor point

FYI I have been operating MEWPS for 12 years and I am IPAF trained and.................. I have stepped off a MEWP.

You are perfectly entitle to your opinion but it is not fact, where is it written that you must not do this

I am not arguing if it right or wrong it's not ideal however it can be done safely in my opinion, does that make me a bad person

Posted By CFT
Kitty

Can you come back please with some further information so that we might have a better understanding of the works? I think it would seem clear now that there is likely to be an alternative method that may be much safer for your operatives.

CFT

Posted By CFT
Kitty

Are you the designer perchance? You mention CDM, I wonder why you are making reference to CDM for future maintenance issues unless you have design responsibilities.If this is the case why not just design out the hazard and have a barrier unless you have planning restrictions in which case a fall restraint system would surely suffice for infrequent work if a barrier can't be included.

CFT

Posted By CFT
That it would Kitty, that it would indeed, but for many reasons, least of all on-going safety implications, it wil never happen.

CFT

Posted By Gff
Which part of the CDM ACOP mentions Cherry pickers or any MEWPS?

HSE inspectors are not always right

Posted By AlB
Firstly, the HSE are not averse to getting oout of a MEWP at height, provided it is for the right reasons. The HSE will tolerate exit at height under suitable assessment of risk and a safe working method for certain activities such as steel erecting and tree work.

They do not, however, look too kindly at using it where there really should be other safeguards in place first. There is an obvious issue with design of the roof - access will be required and therefore suitable means of access should have been designed. I cringe whenever I hear a designer mention the use of MEWP to gain access to roof, as it usually shows a lack of understanding as to the maintenance and repair work of the buildins.

Of course, I am generealising here, and this building may be quite old, and as such would not have considered this in the design.

Can you not arrange for an access scaffold (a system scaffold may well be sufficient here).

If you are uncertain, then call your local enforcing inspector and ask their opinion - in my experience, the HSE Inspectors are excellent and very approachable and they are quite often happy to help.

Posted By db
We've got to be careful not to lose sight of the original post which is more than just the use of the MEWP.

Some work platforms may have anchorage points (usually not boom type) but check with the manufacturers handbook as to its use - I havent seen any but that doesnt mean to say there are none.

Generally though, this would be only suitable for very short duration works irrespective of whether the activity is carried out every day or every ten years. I would suggest that it is reasonably practicable to use some kind of temporary edge protection as demarcation, especially where the work is some distance away from the edge. This is of course near the top of the hierarchy and should be considered first.

You were lucky the HSE inspector didn't issue a notice - it probably wasn't a construction inspector or if it was you got him on a good day!

Posted By ddraigice
GFF - although there are no regulations prohibiting it there are regulations which say that if there's a better way of doing it then you should.

I was going to comment on your last post where you said:
"Which part of the CDM ACOP mentions Cherry pickers or any MEWPS?

HSE inspectors are not always right"

Neither are people who post on this forum. It's the WAH regs that deal with falls, not CDM. The BS holds no weight in court either.

And as for it "obviously safe" if you read the post you are referring to it says the inspector "strongly advised them". A PN can be issued and I have done so in the past for such things. It's in the inspectors opinion- there's a reason its at the bottom of the hierarchy and thats because people don't use them.

Back to the thread:
Don't forget you need a rescue plan for emergencies when fall arrest is used. The use of the MEWP has to be carefully planned by a competent person as well.

Posted By ddraigice
None taken. Mine wasnt meant to show I'm cleverer either!

You are right in a way - if it's used properly it is not neccessarily PN territory but it can be issued - even if it is used correctly it is not the best method and a notice COULD be issued. I think that's what db's point was too.

Posted By Bruce Wayne
Whilst I am aware WAH apply to the works, I understood the HSE inspector to be referring to CDM for the roof design with respect to long term maintenance.
If it foreseeable that persons should access the roof regularly (annual???) for maintenance, a fixed system should be considered as a collective control measure even as a retro fit to an older structure.
I may not be fully understanding CDM, but shouldn't buildings be safe in design for construction, MAINTENANCE, use and ultimate demolition. CDM now covers ALL construction works which would include maintenance contractors??
Since the visit from the inspector, we received a follow up letter from him advising us against using a cherry picker for roof access.

Regards
Bruce