Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
I have been informed by a site H&S Person that our employees should be wearing safety harness when on a tower scaffold!
New one on me!
No suitable anchorage points and will fall with the scaffolsd if it collapse!
Any comments or any ideas where this came from as I think this is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
Are you just being polite when referring to the H&S "Person"?
I know not of this should or must!
Could be a member of the conker society.
Edge protection, correctly placed and positioned rails, stabilised and rigid with correct access. Of course, erected by competent persons and the ground area marked out excluding passers by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve B
Assuming the scaffold is erected properly and tagged and provides all the necessary edge protection i.e. top rail 950mm toe boards and no gap exceeding 470mm (as per WAHR 2005 collective measures over personal measures) I see no reason for a harness to be worn. however having said that I do not know the nature of the work being carried out on these towers. In some cases a Risk Assessment may point at a risk of leaning over the barriers to carry out work (in this case it would not be an harness that was required it would be a different work platform that was required)
Limited information Dave but as a rule of thumb my opinion is NO.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Darren (Daz) Fraser
Hi Dave
I would ask to see the risk assessment that has identified this as a control measure, and the hazard / risk it is trying to minimise.
Provided the scaffold is erected correctly with toe boards, internal ladders, cross bracing and outriggers fitted with locking wheels there should not be any need for a safety harness.
Typical control measures
all wheels must be locked whilst work is in progress, and all persons must vacate the tower prior to it being moved
working platform must be boarded, fitted with guardrails and toe boards and not overloaded
persons working from the tower must not over-reach or use ladders from the working platform
towers must be tied to a rigid structure if exposed to windy weather or for certain work (e.g. jet blasting)
tower must be inspected on a regular basis and a report made
But above all else it must be selected, erected and dismantled by competent and trained persons who have an understanding of maximum height to base ratios not being exceeded.
Sorry if I am stating what you already know
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
This is not a wind up I am CMIOSH and this 'pukka' H&S person, won't name or client, has requested that our guys wear a harness when in a mobile tower scaffold!
But will not take no for an answer even after reasond and polite discussion!
We will wear them and then ask the client where we can anchor them on the tower scaffold and wont she look daft in front of her boss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Dave
You just know you are going to get the loop scenario; round the beam and clip back to the lanyard""""
Ask them, him/her if they require a restraint or arrest lanyard and see which comes up.
All completely unnecessary as you have protection in place.
Thinking about it do they require a 'twin tail system' when climbing up the access ladder as well??!!
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
With the greatest of respect Dave what has CMIOSH got to do with it.
The pukka person obviously has a different perception of hazard / risk coupled up with a misguided interpretation of ACOPs and a lack of experience. I can see your point though when your guys are getting tangled up in harnesses deperately fighting for a locating point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
Dave, when it was erected, were the said harnesses etc used then? Was the pukka person present? What about dismantling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlB
I wonder what her argument was for requiring harness. Based on the information given I can not see why a harness is needed. Obviously a fall arrest harness can be hazardous - if anyone falls over (with suitable edge protection and the tower constructed correctly and the right equipment for the job this should be very unlikely indeed), they will most probably pull the tower over with them, causing the tower to come crashing down on top of them and others, and, if the tower can cater two or more people, can lead to serious injury of further people on the tower. If anything, a restraint harness would be best, but again, where would you anchor it. And why??
I know that there is a possibility of someone leaning over the tower to carry out the work, but then that is a management issue - selecting the right access equipment for the job.
Over the top requirement in my opinion (based on the face of the problem of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
People this is working off a two lift minimax with stabilisers to remove AIB pannelling in a government run kitchen.
The guys who are trained put it up and get on it remove the AIB and then get back down!
This is not a fixed scaffold erected by a scaffolding company
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
PS the argument is that in her opininon if you are working at height "You need to wear a harness!!!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By CFT
Strange argument Dave as the person is clearly not following a hierarchical system of procedure & subsequent protection.
CFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Woodage
Dave,
NO NO and Thrice NO. In normal operation there would be no need and under no circumstances should a harness be attached to a tower, in the event of an incident the force created by the falling operative could potentially overturn the tower therefore placing others on or around the tower at high risk.
PASMA training manuals clearly state that harnesses should not be attached to towers for the exact reasons listed above.
The only scenario I have ever used harnesses in conjunction with a tower was a scenario where handrails could not be assembled due to the need for operatives to work in a ceiling void, therefore inertia reels were rigged to the structure in the void and then harnesses worn to prevent any fall distance.
Does sound a bit of a conkers bonkers moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Hickey
Dave
Are you sure they meant Mobile tower scaffold they maybe getting mixed up with Mobile elevated work platform(MEWP)i.e. cherry-picker
Steve H
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bennie
Hi Dave - unless the person involved has witnessed the tower being moved previously with people still on it?
If no other reason - I suggest you take the person for coffee - use your skills to advise and mentor - they may be new in job. Hired on peanuts etc etc.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bruce Sutherland
Hi Dave
Interesting thought ... use your charm and take them out for coffee............? Is that the strippers school of charm Dave?
go for route one.......your are talking out of your ..... or perhaps route two with your commercial hat on excellent can I have a variation order to allow me deal with your request
I am concerned if we do not put a stop to this type of completely stupid approach to health and safety then we are not acting as professionals. Obviously people can make a mistake but I thought that the idea of competence meant that you were supposed to know you were on thin ice and take advice - not adopt dictatorial approaches.
Cheers
Bruce
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Agustin Nathanias P Deiparine
hello Dave,
Im a safety officer here in Qatar, non IOSH member and just reading of the expert advise but it seem that the answer was not correctly answered bcoz the premise was not properly described also. however, in my personal experience, any HSE officer hired and paid by the company is a competent one. I think there are hazards Mr. dave failed to recognized thats why the need for harness was required. Assuming that all scaffolding requirements are met, the worker might be working on the sides or leaning the top rail or same situation that risk his life. going back to the risk assessment would be the best solution to determine what went wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Pope
I have had the same suggestion about the need for a harness made by a supervisor for a national contractor working for London Underground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bennie
""go for route one.......your are talking out of your ..... or perhaps route two with your commercial hat on excellent can I have a variation order to allow me deal with your request
I am concerned if we do not put a stop to this type of completely stupid approach to health and safety then we are not acting as professionals. Obviously people can make a mistake but I thought that the idea of competence meant that you were supposed to know you were on thin ice and take advice - not adopt dictatorial approaches""
Well Bruce - we will not adopt "dictorial approaches" Look at your comments before that one. They seem rather dictorial to me as well as pig headed and not at all constructive.
It is not as if the person was being lapse about improving safety - over the top maybe but they had prevention of injury in mind. Maybe your attitude is what gives safety people a bad name - or were you just having a pop at me!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
People.
This is a small, lightweight, movable, mini tower scaffold, its is supplied by us, erected by our guys (trained) working about 5 feet off the ground, in doors, on a flat stable surface.
It takes 10 minutes to erect and dismantle.
Wear a harness? OK we will but give me more money for the work as I am going to throw it away after use as asbestos contaminated, no where to anchor it and as it is a BIG NO NO to attach to the scaffold, Why??
Also going to wear a clown suit as well, as apparently if you are acting as a clown, then under The Clown, Jellies & Balloon (Safety of Wobbly Foods)(England and Wales) Regulations 2007 as Reg 3 States "If any safety person who is avin a laugh inside the course of their employment" then you must wear the uniform and a flashing bow tie.
Reg 3 (2) also says that if you have no H&S competence at all then an "ancillary red nose must also be prominently displayed at all times whilst in the act of being thick"
Because the Safety person at this place is an idiot, and does not have a scooby doo and, as I know Bruce personally, he will also know how much I want to follow his advice, I can't as this would involve a big bat and some jail time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlB
why a harness when 5ft off the ground?????
If it's a fall arrest harness you'd hit the ground before it fully deployed. If a restraint harness, then what the heck are the edge protection used for? If they have to lean over the edge protection, then I'd question the use of the tower in the first place.
Dave, based on the information you've given I agree that this professional has gone OTT. Arm round the shoulder and a quiet word I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By alan brotherton
Despite the fact that the scenario seems ridiculous unless risk assessment has shown a risk of actually falling out over the guardrails,the following is worth bearing in mind.
For optimum effect in limiting potential fall distance before arrest, the lanyard would need to be attached obove the operative. Assuming the highest point on the scaffold was the top guard rail this would not be possible plus the fact that to fall, one would need to actually climb over the rail, at which point the attachment point would be below the operative.
The only possible valid case for protection as I can see (depending on circumstances)is during erection of the tower.
It would also be wise to verify with the scaffold manufacturer or supplier if the scaffold was designed to be used as an anchoring structure for fall prevention purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Dave
Just wondered how your "pet" H&S expert is getting on with the debate?
I think it is about time the "use a harness for all work at height" brigade learned how to make comptent risk assessments. Certainly I would be looking carefully at the competence assessment of any company who was employing such a person. If it is your own company or a client the problem is a bit awkward though:-)
As a profession we need to take a firm stand and ask ALL persons requiring a harness use as a matter of routine to provide a risk assessment for the additional hazards they are providing in a non complex environment at height. We keep hitting the same problem of "people might stand on the handrails or lean out".
Competent contractors provide competent people and competent supervision - If they are not trusted to act competently then the client has clearly breached his duty to appoint competent contractors. The recent HSE/CITB work sector guidance is specific in stating that we can justifiably expect appointed parties to a contract to behave in a competent manner. This means actually allowing them to make and operate what they believe is a safe system of work.
If we take this further and imagine an accident scenario where the harness is found to be the significant factor - Who will take the responsibility? Clearly it is the employer who puts the person to work. But maybe the HSE would also look at the organisation/person insisting on its use.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve B
Dave,
just a thought, but why don't you ask this H&S person to respond to this thread and make her reasons clear. it may help us understand or not, her reasons for making this stance.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
Dave, I'm fully conversant with The Clown, Jellies & Balloon (Safety of Wobbly Foods)(England and Wales) Regulations 2007 as Reg 3.
Unfortunately I loaned my uniform to a mate a few years ago. Now I'm told that the said uniform is being worn up and down the UK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.