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 : 22 May 2008 09:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RS1000

For an 'ordinary' scaffold, say 3-4 lifts, what level of qualification would be acceptable for those carrying out the checks.
I have had a basic scaffold appreciation cert in the past but have recently heard that this is nowhere near enough.
I have also been told that the inspector needs to check before accepting the handover cert.
I have always worked on the premise that the handover cert confirms it is satisfactory for 7 days, then do a tour every Monday or more if its been very windy, then sign it off in the register.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 22 May 2008 11:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
RS1000

You certainly do need to check before you accept the handover certificate, much though the scaffolders want to get away. If you do not all erection faults are your responsibility.

It is not easy to say when a scaffold is easy to inspect and what level of knowledge and competence is required. Some of the courses enable you to follow the standard designs without too much trouble but you do need access to BS EN 12811 and TG20 to be able to ensure that the scaffold offered meets the standard solutions. System scaffolds in general terms are easier than tube and fittng and tend to exhibit fewer erection faults but that is not a rule.

Scaffolding companies do tend to push the standard models of TG 20 to the limit and often beyond so have someone more experienced with you until you are really familiar.

Now we shall see the pushback from the scaffies among us.

Bob
Admin  
#3 Posted : 22 May 2008 13:04:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter
I have growing concerns and unease as to the extent that Clients and main contractors are advised to go to in developing competencies to enable them to independently assess the competence of what should be a specialist contractor.

I feel the HSE (and others) are dodging the issue here.

There are many very good scaffold contractors out there. There exists at least one industry body. Others out there are "not so good" and I'm sure those of us in the industry are well aware of the (all too) common problems.

Handover Certificates are not a mandatory requirement.

Just how far do we take this type of issue? What about the specialist suppliers of edge protection, mast climbers etc etc.? Would you expect to have the same application of diligence on these and other areas of specialist kit by the client or PC? Is it not a reasonable expectation that the specialist company should be the people with the reliable expertise? If they aren't, then how is this to be fixed?
Admin  
#4 Posted : 22 May 2008 14:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By db
Ron,

HSE only require checks of competence as per CDM appendix 4.

Scaffold checks are not a check on competence per se - however, a contractor has a duty to check whether the scaffold is suitable for his purposes in the first instance and when in use that it is not showing obvious signs that it has been modified or damaged.

It's not rocket science to check if handrails are missing, there are no obvious fall risks or that pieces of scaffold have been removed by someone. Nor is it difficult to see if the scaffold has ties as per the BS/EN.

HSE are not dodging the issue at all- the scaffold is just as likely (or maybe more so) to become unsafe after the erection. Does that reflect on the competence of the scaffolder?
Admin  
#5 Posted : 22 May 2008 15:13:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter
If only life were that simple db..........if only.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 22 May 2008 21:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
RS1000

The level of competency/capability of an Individual to Quality Assure a particular Scaffolding Structure is governed by his/her degree of Practical and Theoretical ability to recognise overt patent defects and omissions and more importantly the covert breaches of B.S.

Know your limitations and if in doubt call upon the services of a Pro.

RS1000...there are interesting comments posted on prior discussion threads in regard to Scaffold Inspections see archive...way be worth a butchers.

Garry...

Admin  
#7 Posted : 23 May 2008 12:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter
"The level of competency/capability of an Individual to Quality Assure a particular Scaffolding Structure is governed by his/her degree of Practical and Theoretical ability to recognise overt patent defects and omissions and more importantly the covert breaches of B.S.

Know your limitations and if in doubt call upon the services of a Pro."

Is that not exactly what happens when I engage a competent & professional scaffold erector?


Admin  
#8 Posted : 23 May 2008 13:25:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By db
Would you defer to a professional on matters of quality of a finished product? Why should safety be any different?

Admin  
#9 Posted : 23 May 2008 13:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By teaboy
have you thought about taking the CITB scaffold safety inspection certificate course? i did mine at the national construction college at bircham newton, good course, intensive though
Admin  
#10 Posted : 23 May 2008 13:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
Ron

you get what you pay for and if you vet your Scaffolding Service Company with the same vigor as you have demonstrated by your patronising retort to my contribution to this thread ...then yes you will source Pro Scaffs

Garry...36 years before the mast.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 23 May 2008 13:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
db
By RS1000 own admission...he has a basic Scaffolding Appreciation Certificate.

This would indicate the level of Competence/ Capability, an Appreciation Certificate falls short of the Level of competency required to conduct a Statutory Safety Survey as part of a Scaffolding Safety Management System.

Garry...
Admin  
#12 Posted : 23 May 2008 14:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
teaboy

I concur, however must be underpinned with experience.

Garry...
Admin  
#13 Posted : 23 May 2008 16:45:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
However the operative words are "in the past" the advent of BSEN12811 and TG20 have moved the goalposts appreciably. Thus the training held may well be out of date.

Bob
Admin  
#14 Posted : 23 May 2008 17:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ron Hunter
I guess I wasn't very clear. It isn't my intention to ruffle feathers or patronise.
The point I was trying to make (badly) is that there seems to me to be a general acceptance that the principal/main contractor is to assume responsibility for the "fault" of another with respect to a scaffold at handover, which I think is disproportionate when compared to other "specialist" but just as risky contracted areas in construction and elsewhere.
Admin  
#15 Posted : 23 May 2008 18:18:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By patrick carr
Hi all
RS1000, our site managers hold the same cert as you mate, and i dare say a lot of other construction companies managers do likewise, the general scaffold appreciation certificate,IMO is for the cosmetic look of a standard 3/4 storey scaffold structure, as you mention, I.E plumb stds, level ledgers, no missing h/rails, toeboards, stable ground etc etc. We once had a asst site manager, who signed-off a scaffold strike (dismantled)as all in good working order, in the scaff register book.

On the handing over of a scaffold you take it as all is well (cosmetically) until your next inspection,7 days or after certain circumstances I.E adverse weather conditions, nearby excavations etc.for example, when you take your car to a garage for 4 new tyres, if they look good you think they have been done correct, you don't take the trims off and grab the torque spanner off the mechanic and try every wheel nut.So you rely on your specialist contractor (scaffolding erectors)to do the right job, as has been stated in this thread.

On more complex designs, as stated by Garry and Bob, you would need more specialist assistance, back to the car scenario again, if you were lucky enough to be able to buy a brand new car, you would just pop in the showroom and buy it,as everything should be in perfect working order. However how many people have the knowledge to go and buy a used car and know exactly that what they are looking at is up to standard, me for one always takes along a person that knows what they are looking at.

regards
paddy
Admin  
#16 Posted : 24 May 2008 09:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RS1000
Thanks Paddy, that is really what I have been doing over the years, looking for the cosmetic. 20 years experience in the building industry has given me reasonable experience, and working with/for experienced H&S practitioners has given me more. In my opinion the scaffolders my company employ are competent to erect this 'ordinary' scaffold and give the handover cert. I consider that I am competent to carry out checks - carry out a basic RA on the use of this scaffold. The reason for the original question was that I had heard through the grapevine that for even such a basic one, a scaffold qualification should be held, and I was concerned that any inspections I signed off left me and my employers exposed...

Rob
Admin  
#17 Posted : 26 May 2008 19:41:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
Ron

Firstly, excuse my knee jerk reaction to your post...and yes I concur the onus upon the Principal contractor to marshal the actions of all and sundry maybe on the face of it harsh...however, it is becoming a norm for Principals to engage the services of a Non-Bias Statutory Scaffolding Inspector, this Non-Bias stance worked well on large Industrial Projects.

Garry...
Admin  
#18 Posted : 26 May 2008 19:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
Bob

Totally agree...The CITB Curriculum is in need of an up-date...for example the Structures taught in the Centres have hardly changed since the conception. There has been progress with the inclusion of a Scaffolding Supervisors Course. However, there is room for improvement i.e. Bolt-On Courses, Bespoke Scaffolds rigging and associated lifting Operations intro to CAD ect...

I have approached the Scottish Enterprise Trust in an attempt to access funds to Establish Training for the Decommissioning of North Sea Installations. This will incorporate Scaffolding ,Rigging and Rope Access.

Garry...

Admin  
#19 Posted : 26 May 2008 22:26:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By db
Gary,

I didn't say that what RS had was sufficient anywhere in my post.

The appreciation course is not enough.

Admin  
#20 Posted : 27 May 2008 09:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Garry

Am fully with you also, as you might expect and Ron has really touched on one of the tricky issues with scaffold. Ther eal problem is that the Principal Contractor will always be deemed to be fully cognisant, by the courts, of whether a scaffold is safe. This essentially flows from the ubiquitous nature of scaffold use. If use was rare and /or the erection methods complex the scaffold erector would carry more, if not all, responsibility for faults. At that point I might suggest scaffolders would be far more methodical and careful in the erection of the structure.

The Davyhulme prosecution shows how vulnerable the PC is. The scaffold Contract Manager ordered a change to the design with no reference to his own designer or the PC and a man fell, although it is not known whether the change caused the fall. The PC was successsfully prosecuted as well as the scaffold contractor and the Contract Manager. The PC failure stemmed from their own lack of inspection and monitoring of the erection works. Uncomfortable maybe but it emphasises that there are few trades that can be left to self supervise. If the risks are significant then they must be effectively managed.

A long way from RS1000's original point in some ways but perhaps highlights the need to ensure competent persons inspect the work both during erection and at handover. The more complex the structure the tighter the definition of competence benchmarks must be.

Bob
Admin  
#21 Posted : 27 May 2008 09:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams
Bob

Perhaps the content of this thread has deviated from the original point, however, the expansion of the discussion is generic to the desired outcome, i.e. Inspections and the level of competency/capability required.

I agree with your comments regarding Benchmarking...the correlation , configuration and permutation of the more intricate and esoteric Scaffolding Structures can be challenging both for the Scaffold Design Engineer and the Scaffold Erector.

Garry...

Admin  
#22 Posted : 27 May 2008 11:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By RS1000
Gents, I fully accept that the more esoteric or complex scaffolds would need a far more expert person to inspect and sign off. However my original query remains unanswered. Is my Certificate of Scaffold Safety Appreciation sufficient for what I call basic scaffolds, or do I need to upgrade with some speed...

Rob
Admin  
#23 Posted : 27 May 2008 11:43:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Rob

Even 2 or 3 lift scaffolds may be complex in some situations and the size does not necessarily define the level of competence to inspect. I have not been with you when you inspect and can make no comment on your own competence. That is ultimately down to your employer and it is not possible to know from a distance. The qualification was a good start but as I have said it does have limitations particularly if done some years ago.

Bob
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.