Posted By Gerry Marchant We have been asked to inspect and then repair a roof line within a valley gutter. The Clerk of Works has stated that he can see no reason why a cherry picker cannot be used to access the vally gutter, the operative to climb out of the basket and access the valley to initially inspect the area, and then effect a repair at a later stage using the same method for access. The operator is IPAF trained therefore using his training knowledge has said he will not climb out of the basket due to the risk...and I support him with this, however there is nothing in legislation to say he cannot climb out of the basket and the CoW has done some some digging and confirms this (so have I) even down to the BS...anyone out there got soemthing different they can give me to say to the CoW it will not happen. We have discussed the hierachy of control and scaffold, mobile towers etc is cost prohibitive at this stage for the client/ Gerry

Posted By Robert K Lewis Garry Obviously a poorly thought out design from the start!!. I admit that in exisiting pre CDM 94 buildings one might have been forced to this type of situation but, and it is a big but, it should have been designed out and the fault lies with the designers. If one is to use a MEWP far better to use a flying carpet, ie scissor, lift as these do have specific access gate points and slide out platforms for this type of access. Proper design would have envisaged such use prior to construction. What we have here is rather like stating that abseilers will be used for window cleaning without considering fully the options available. They were simply chosen because it was the easy solution. The design team, I am afraid to say, failed to spot this one during the period when costs would not have been an issue ie before construction started. Bob

Posted By Ron Hunter And as a postscript Gerry, there's no way using a MEWP in the circumstances you describe could be justified by risk assessment.

Posted By Dave Merchant John - the difficulty comes in the 'fall arrest equipment' parts of your proposal. If the person needs to be attached after they exit the basket, then they need to be attached *as* they exit - and that *can* by impossible without risking being torn in two by a moving MEWP. There are situations where it's possible (for example when climbing into a tree, you can attach to pre-slung PFPE above you while still in the basket and don't strictly need to be clipped to the MEWP). The big no-no is being connected to both - so in the example in my previous post I moved the basket away from the edge so there was no need for a harness once out of the MEWP. You'd wear a restraint lanyard while the MEWP moved you to the landing place, but then could disconnect completely as you climbed out (just as if it was back at ground level). The same works in a scissor - if there's no need to attach to the lift then it doesn't matter if, on exit, you attach to something on the roof. If however you have to attach to the lift, then you can't simultaneously attach to the roof. (there are of course workarounds involving securing MEWP baskets to the structure, but that's a whole different can of worms)

Posted By John A Wright Thanks Dave, I wasn't envisaging an employee simultaneously attached to both the MEWP AND the roof, apart from the problem you mention I would think the trip risk would be unacceptable :o) Properly supervised with communication I was thinking the employee could safely exit the MEWP and walk onto the roof, then attach himself to an anchor point if the risk assessment required. John W

Posted By Ron Hunter Respectfully, if BS 8460:2005 "Safe use of MEWPs - Code of Practice" Annex B can't be followed, then you can't use a MEWP. Those involved in MEWP operations should have that CoP to hand.

Posted By Ron Hunter It isn't an ACoP, it's a Code of Practice = guidance. It is also the accepted standard & guidance within the UK for MEWP work which the HSE may refer to in any proceedings in determining what is and what is not "suitable and sufficient" and "reasonably practicable". Prepare a Risk Assessment without reference to that relevant Standard at your peril.

Posted By Kenneth Patrick Surely if you can "climb" into it safely then you can also "climb" out of it safely. But why can't you walk in and out of them?

Posted By Dave Merchant CFT - it's not impossible to devise a way to keep the basket steady, but in general if you're using a boom-style MEWP then when you step out (with the boom elevated) the basket moves a fair way. You don't see the same at ground level as the booms are stopped to their rest points, but given that most Y-pattern lanyards are extremely easy to damage by loading them in a wishbone fashion, it remains a problem unless you lash the basket to the building. That's doable of course, but most MEWP manufacturers will forbid it because the hydraulics can't cope with pulling instead of pushing (if someone knocks a control or tries to activate the emergency descent, amusing things can happen). There's a secondary issue where the EN standard for MEWPs requires the basket is lowerable in any emergency event, and lashing it off obviously stops that, but given enough people it's workable with care. *Personally* I'd say once the basket has been parked in position and the controls turned off, there'd be no real reason to keep the restraint lanyard connected to the basket (it's only there to stop you being thrown out, and if nothing's moving you won't be). Once disconnected you're free to connect to something on the structure provided you don't need to climb out first to reach it (that's the system used to climb into trees). The problem with that is of course BS/IPAF guidance is really picky about never taking your restraint line off, so you annoy them for a few seconds. It's worth remembering that the guidance is based on typical scenarios in typical workplaces, and there'll always be a case when the guidance doesn't work - it doesn't mean you can't engineer a safe solution though!

Posted By CFT Dave Impossible for me to disagree with the scenario you have just used, and with the equipment you have cited it would be wrong to suggest otherwise. I suppose given the artistic licence and visual perception of an imaginary event that a written response allows, I had a scissor lift in mind on a nice flat surface extending upwards within a few mm of the roof edge, (thus eliminating likelihood of fall)clip on in the basket...actually forget it, it does not work due to the absolute outside possibility of an arrest whilst clipped in at near full extension, there is a possibility of topple. I'm going to have to have a re-think for a bit;-) I think I am still erring on an over reach access method; amazing sometimes how you go full circle! CFT

Posted By CFT Yes generally unless they are clearly marked for fall arrest purposes. The usual method for a MEWP would be as you surmise fall restraint. CFT

Posted By patrick carr Hi all Very interesting subject and some very interesting and informative responses. You mention the Clerk of works as saying due to the cost,Scaffolding or Mobile towers are not a option. In my experience the cost of delivery and hire of a MEWP, in this case on 2 seperate occasions as a minimum, could well be more costly than the hire of a mobile tower. I realise i do not know what height your project is or any obstructions surrounding the work area, but in my opinion get the Scaffs in. regards Paddy (scaff) iamnotbiased.com

Posted By Ron Hunter John, I think you know the answer to your last question.You are not bound to use BS 8460:2005,I'm only suggesting you would be wise to do so. It tells you how to comply with what the law requires. The HSE commend it.It is authoritative. Few (if any) of us will better it. There are a fair few responses and suggestions on this thread which fall short of what the law (particularly WAHR) requires. Some suggestions are downright dangerous.

Posted By Gerry Marchant All Thank you for your responses to this....i'didn't think it would open up such a debate! However to update on this scenario i find out htis morning,,to be precise at 11:30 that the Clerk of Works *ordered* the guys to do the work in the way i decribed above....when i finally come down off the ceiling and spoke to the operative concerned he was very concerned in the fact that he was told to do the work or clear off the site therefore lose us a considerable amount of money...this is a local well established Colleges in the City of Spires...clue their to where we are!! however when i pointed out that nothing would replace the cost of his life if he were to fall he saw sense... The basket i beleive was placed adjacent to the roof structure, not on it and he exited from the basket through the lift up access bar, he did state the basket rose some 300mm when he did get out. I'm now waiting for the Clerk of Works to contact me about this and to discuss the issue of consulting me first...and on another note the CoW did not do a risk assessment! Gerry

Posted By Garry Adams Gerry Your post has certainly raised a few eyebrows among my peer group members (Scaffolding Industry). Although the initial inspection has been conducted safely my concern would be the recommendations of remedial works to be undertaken (If Any). The mode of access may have been adequate for the task's purpose i.e. inspection/pre-task analysis, however, if the inspection has revealed that remedial works are required, then surely the Clerk of Works would not expect a cherry picker to transport the men, materials and tool required to under take the repair. All too often ,so called cost effective alternative modes of access are a false economy and can prove counter productive on occasion. Get the Scaffs on the job, eh Paddy m8. Garry...