Rank: Super forum user 
|
The WAH reg 4 Planning states that you must "plan for emergencies and rescue".
Where, if anywhere should the line be drawn between actually planning for rescue - i.e. working at height at low level from a stepladder, or a low level platform, say less than 1 m off the ground?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ChrisBurns wrote:The WAH reg 4 Planning states that you must "plan for emergencies and rescue".
Where, if anywhere should the line be drawn between actually planning for rescue - i.e. working at height at low level from a stepladder, or a low level platform, say less than 1 m off the ground?
If you could fall from low level and possibly trapped behind some pipes and could be knocked out or break something, you would need a RP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The rescue plan is in context of use of fall-arrest/similar systems!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks Frank I can see the need there because there would be other factors that may complicate things, but you wouldn't write a rescue plan for a worker at a lowish height if no other complex issues? Would you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Thanks Frank I can see the need there because there would be other factors that may complicate things, but you wouldn't write a rescue plan for a worker at a lowish height if no other complex issues? Would you?
Wouldn't see the need/requirement for someone working off steps changing a light bulb in the middle of the room but i'll have to double check what Jay said (regarding context of use of fall arrest)
Someone could need rescuing from an alloy tower where he wouldn't be wearing said fall arrest. Surely w@h rescue covers all eventualities or possibilities?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Jay wrote:The rescue plan is in context of use of fall-arrest/similar systems!
Thanks Jay but where does it say that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
the needs & parameters of a rescue plan are dictated by the risk of the job in hand irrespective of the height so we go back to the suitable and sufficiant risk assessment; as you can die from a fall that is on ground level e.g. you fall the length of your own body and your head hits the floor at that point - commpon sense must be used but using common sense to hide behind actions that may be needed is not what it is all about
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Assuming someone had a heart attack awhilst working on the tower and didn't respond to first aid, there would have to be an emergency procedure in place. This would detail how the I.P was to be rescued, surely?
Emergency plan? Rescue plan? Not sure but in this context there is no harness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Could we try to break this down a little?
I think we agree that the harness requirement could just be a red herring, as Frank suggests persons inside a cage may not be harnessed. However if a harness is used there is a definite need for the Plan for rescue for the person hanging in the harness.
Would a Plan be required if persons are working inside the cage of a MEWP in an area with other workers present who are trained in operating the MEWP and inside an open shop unit, level floors, no other hazards? I personally think so but is this ott?
It could be assumed that persons working on a ladder would fall to the ground, or into a pit, excavation etc. If on the ground attention can be given by first aider unless other complications arise, but if into below ground area that a Plan would be required.
Am I making sense?
Please feel free to contribute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Chris,
Wouldn't the specific risk assessment based on where the MEWP was being operated from form the basis of the rescue plan.
You mentioned operating the MEWP in an open plan shop, so the scenarios to consider as far as an emergency rescue could include:
Failure of the controls to lower platform to ground
Crushing between platform and overhead objects
Contact with overhead live cables/gas pipes/hot water pipes etc
Illness of operator or other reason why they could not operate the controls
Some of these could involve external agencies including fire service/utilities companies/specialist agencies therefore contact details etc would need to be included in the emergency rescue plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
ChrisBurns wrote:The WAH reg 4 Planning states that you must "plan for emergencies and rescue".
Where, if anywhere should the line be drawn between actually planning for rescue - i.e. working at height at low level from a stepladder, or a low level platform, say less than 1 m off the ground?
I cannot think of any senario that would require a detailed rescue plan for work less than 1m off the ground.
Just as Bob said in his reply: "Common Sense" or in other words apply the rule SFARP.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ignore the Work at Height Regs - and comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc Act....
Safe place, safe access and egress, safe systems.... Oh, sorry - that's all we're trying to do to comply with the WAH Regs... The problem is we're getting so bogged down and tied up trying to micro-interpret the Regs - we've lost sight of the objective....
Maybe I'll post something on the Govts site asking which laws should go.... Work at Height Regs definitely don't add anything that couldn't be implied and enforced from the '74 Act. So do away with 'em..
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.