Posted By Mike S Hi all, any help would be useful please with this. I have had one of my sites visited by the HSE and while on site one of the operatives was positioning another operative onto the platform using the "Man Basket" on the end of the Telehandler, now this is not common pratice normally but the platform was under a Pier going out to sea. When he quizzed the supervisor he promptly offered a risk assessment and ssow, as the supervisor was not aware of what came next from the Inspector. His words were to quote "these are only supposed to be used in emergency work only" "please refrain from using on more planned work"!! My question is chaps and chappesses - if work is planned and assessed and is decided is the most practicable way to proceed using the Man Basket as on unstable sand the Telehandler is in my experience the most suitable vehicle to use, others just weigh too much and time constraints tide times and unstable sand mean other risks could be greater with other equipment, so if by planning should this be reasonable to suggest is unreasonable to use as not in an emergency, or should we not plan access in and use more often and merely call it always an emergency? Your views please. Regards, Mike

Posted By Mike S Thanks TonyB, you are right and I fully support your response and understand you need more info, was just trying to keep as brief as poss, but doesnt always work as we can see! The HSE Inspector said apparently quite categorically that we should refrain from using unless could prove was emergency works and not planned and my issue (well there are many...but) mainly is he is wanting us to obtain an alternative type of machine, which all weigh more or have smaller tracked wheels and cannot be easily accessible on the beach, so you can see my predicament as well as being confused about the man baskets now being banned, unless he is not being very clear and is more concerned about getting out to access the platform, which I know is not ideal but is ALARP in my opinion, will this be enough if we go against his advice?? Regards, Mike

Posted By D H Hi Mike - when I said; "reach middle ground and build bridges" I did not mean physical bridges - but an agreement with the authority - cause someone will pick it the wrong way Dave

Posted By Mike S Cheers Dave, yeah haha my whitt is same so don't worry - just grateful of the help from another set of scrambled brains!! By the way, yes the baskets were within 6 month tests and visuals all up to date from weekly inspections by believe it or not Lloyds British too! Not the weeklies, they were my own checklists from my days spent in WAH focus groups with GGF in 2005. Regards, Mike

Posted By Mike S Cheers Dave for this, will have to get some beauty sleep soon as my wrinkles have taken over my bags under my eyes haha, but seriously I do appreciate this advice. I am going to try the bull[expletive deleted] approach I think and see if can "pick there brains and plead a little "ignorant" or even inexperienced (that'll hurt mind. We / they rescue by ex-naval sea rescue vehicle fully kitted out with hoists and wiches (bit like an old fire engine with roof elevating ladder), flood lights etc, just a good job they wer'nt using the roof of that to access the piers thankfully when the inspector was there I suppose haha. The lads we use are climbing pros, used to steeply chase and do work like refurbing the monuments and towers like Eifle in France. The vehicle was bought in an auction and we converted it out to be a welfare and rescue unit on the promenade incase of emergency, looks good but sounds like a harrier taking off!! cheers Dave.

Posted By Mike S Thanks for that Steve, all the checks are correct for Loler and Puwer etc, so no worries there, but you are right the basket is not integrated with dual controls, it is merely a manual attachement to the forks of the telehandler but does have its checks for SWL and weights, also access barrier and anchor points for the fixed lanyards when temporarily inside the unit, rails correct heights and plated etc. I fully take your view on the emergency work and the way possibly round this could be the unstable ground conditions, if you agree that it would stand as reasonably practicable if challenged, also I forgot to mention, that the history of using this kit has been in the company ssow and ra's for over 10 yrs with no incident, this is why I think they have preference to use this also, I know this is not enough alone but surely must count for something, especially if taking time, speed and ALARP into account we can demonstrate is sufficient enough? My point is the planned working, we have to plan even in emergency so I dont know how we could use that angle, but the ground conditions is the best possibility yet I could agree with you there on, do you think that would be the best way to pursuade the powers that be? I am of the view I think to get them back and ethier suggest they come up with an alternative than present or a more robust way of using and doing what we currently do. regards, Mike

Posted By Granville Jenkins The bottom line in this case is that 'you' are going for the easiest/cheapest option and not necessarily the 'safest' route - the end result - familiarity breeds comtempt and the situation arises one day where the job has been done that way a thousand times (which is where you were going)then some insignificant change occurs (say to ground conditions) and wham your in court!! £20,000 and out of jail 2 years later your probably still wondering why you didn't see it coming!

Posted By Mike S Thanks for your comments Granville. I am sorry you see my comments as the "easy option" however, this could not be further from the truth, if you had read some of the earlier threads I actually had taken some good advice and agreed a way forward (I didn't however need reminded of the consequences of doing if what you suggested was how I was going with this....!!)but thanks anyway. I very rarely post on this site for reasons "Granville" or similar to be honest, as I feared I would not find some very helpful responses because there is always the odd one. I must say though, I have had some very good advice in retrospect and their time spent responding to me will be accepted with warmth and gratitude and I will continue to do the best I can with what advice I can offer. I hope this response is not too damning Mod, just trying to make a point and shun some of the negativity these threads sometimes create. Regards, Mike

Posted By Mike S Thanks Jonboy, the driver is trained and all equipment conforms to Puwer and Loler, but the cage does not clamp to the forks which I have to be honest I don't know of any that do, but that's not to say they could'nt of course. The cage has a fully operable/lockable gate, but there is no gantry from the gate to the platform, which could be an issue in terms of guarded exit/access I suppose. You are right though, the careful thinking here is what I have been worried about, not wanting to push the issue of this is what has always been done till now card, but try and work out what the real issue is and it looks like after speaking with them today, it is the emergency work only issue and the exiting to the platform that they do not like. I would like to hear from anyone who knows of a suitable powered access machine that can travel on sand, lift heavy weights and get operatives to height where they can exit and access the underside of a pier, alternatives possibly that I could look at and if the inspector would accept this as a plan to purchase, maybe then we can see a way forward somehow and at least continue in the short term to satisfy the client and the inspector who yes maybe a little unsure of why and how we should proceed, but just not accept the way of working currently but seek to improve it possibly. Regards, Mike

Posted By Martyn Hendrie If access is a problem for more suitable equipment (e.g a MEWP) you could always use Roadway mats to provide a suitable base.

Posted By TonyB Hi Mike, Going back a couple or so comments. All fork mount man lifting cages must have a physical means to attach the cage/basket to the lifting equipment (either to the mast or the forks) and this means must must be included in the thorough examination. It is totally unacceptable to rely on friction/fork angle to maintain the basket on the forks. Inspectors will routinely serve enforcement notices on man lifting cages with no means (or even damaged means) of physical attachment. I know this is not the 'crux' of the thread, but it is worth comment. All the best, Tony. ps. I think you should challenge the inspector on his comments (in a careful way - of course!).

Posted By al wood would you say that you had done all that was reasonably practicable when selecting this type of equipment? what are the alternatives? are the alternatives cost effective? consider information, instruction and training etc for the different safe systems of work, plant etc. did the inspector serve a notice or offer guidance of any discription?