Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Chris
This has been the expectation since at least the late 1980s. Not necessarily tasked with standing there all the time. Might have other duties in the vicinity but with the ability to operate emergency controls which are routinely fitted at ground level to enable the platform to be lowered in any emergency scenario.
P
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Peter, I fully understand that, it could be a joiner for example, even a worker that is not trained as a MEWP operator but has been instructed in the ground controls.
What about other MEWP operators who are up in the air but not far away from other MEWPs, chances are only one operator will have a problem at any one time.
I can see some contractors not wishing to employ an extra person just to remain on the ground.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I can see some scenarios where having a spare individual in the vicinty of the works could be a problem. On our site there are plenty of supervisory staff at hand, but not necessarilly MEWP trained. Most of the MEWP work is carried out by contractors, whom it must be said, are more interested in the cost of the work than they are safety matters. One only has to check their method statements to learn that!
One of the difficulties with h&s guidance, whether HSE or other bodies, is that the material is written in the comfort of an office and usually 'gold-plated'. In the real world the pressure of getting the 'job done' with all the restraints of time, money and effort often does not afford all the nicety associated with guidance.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Like so much other construction related guidance the HSE has a hand in, it seems to be written in the context of a "construction site", that typical fenced-off, busy, multi-activity scenario which is only really relevant to new builds. The context doesn't really recognise maintenance & other client overlap scenarios.
In fairness to the document and authors though, note that the safety person is only stipulated where a "trapping" risk is identified, and the comprehensive guidance given to reduce that risk (and indeed the overall tone & quality of the guidance therein) is surely commendable.
A key point, repeatedly emphasised in the guide is the competence of the operator, and this is still a big issue for many companies out there.
|
|
|
|
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.