Rank: Forum user 
|
Well the no has finally arrived & we are trying to clear all the yard areas as best we can - heavy pedestrian & vehicle use inc FLT
I have priced up a snow plough as a FLT accessory but I know that our fabrication shop could make up a more than suitable equivelent. Obvious problem is that this would not be certified as a suitable piece of work equipment for use with a FLT under PUWER.
Would a risk assessment covering the task be sufficient or would we need to go the whole way & get it certified even though its for private use
Any advice would be appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You may well be on thin ice there (excuse the pun).
Most manufacturers clearly state that unapproved parts, fittings, attachments, alterations etc should not be used. So from a risk assessment point of view, the manufacturer is telling you that fitting an un approved attachment is hazardous.
From a PUWER point of view reg 10 says that work equipment must be designed and constructed in line with essential requirements (conformity) the only way you could confirm that would probably be to have the FLT manufacturer tell you its ok....thats very unlikely. This is just one example if you go through every reg you will find more problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apart from Neil's valid points - long term you may end up with bigger issues - equipment no designed or used correctly can and will damage tarmac surfaces - over the cold snap they turn into bigger pot holes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This is surely acceptable in principle - there are any number of coachbuillders and specialists out there who adapt standar vehicles and chassis for specialist purposes - and that included the people who supply snow ploughs, gritter bodies and fire appliances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Reg 4 of PUWER requires that the initial integrity of any kit is adequate for it's intended use and goes on to require consideration of the purpose for which it is intended and where it will be used.
Para 92 of the ACOP (L22) is quite specific about the fact that most dutyholders will be capable of making the required assessment.
As to reg 10 requirements you would need to ask yourself which, if any, of the schedule 1 instruments apply to your makeshift snowplough.
So, in short, if your fabrication unit can provide assurance of initial integrity and you or others are competent to carry out a full assessment of the other two key duties then get on with it. You will then have complied in my opinion.
Even if you purchase a snow plough, and thus rely upon the assurance provided by the seller as to integrity, you would still have to do the PUWER asessment for place and use. Remember that unless you can establish from the manufacturer/supplier that they covered the use of snow plough attachments on the FLT that will be a key factor for any assessment.
P48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
neilrimmer, I suspect that the reason FLT mfrs say unapproved parts should not be used is more to do with their potential and perceived liabilities than safety per se, plus they will want to sell their own attachments.
If the FLT is an indoor/occasional outdoor model with small slick tyres, how will it be able to cope with the ice and snow? If it is more like a tractor and designed for rough, muddy, slippery terrain then a thorough risk assessment may well conclude that a DIY attachment can be safe, provided etc etc. Is there anybody sufficiently competent to lead such a risk assessment process?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
stuff4blokes,
Whilst I am sure that there a liability and sales considerations in the manufacturers requirements, ultimately they are telling you that the fitting of unapproved pieces of equipment should not occur, I dont see how, in the event of something going wrong, you could argue that your personal risk assessment supercedes that? they made it and they have told you, how can you demonstrate that you have taken this instruction into account and then disregarded it in a perfectly legal and compliant manner.
In the Op's situation maybe a step back needs to be taken, if the existing kit is not suitable nor is an official attachment to said kit then maybe the provision of a new piece of equipment that does meet the requirements of the task should be considered?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Whatever you decide on the snow plough, it might be worth considering a few other things.
Apart from the type of FLT (smooth tyre types are not great with heavy snow fall) have you worked out where to push the snow collected? And have you a plan of what to clear and in what order?
We don't have a big yard, but we stick with clearing set footpaths around the site and clear vehicle routes only, and then only as much as is needed.
By doing this it is easier to keep things moving and having a plan means all involved in snow and ice clearing know where the effort is to be directed first - useful if some of those meant to clear the snow can't get in because of it.
Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Unfortunately or otherwise, this is not "private use".
It is being used in the "workplace" even if designed/fabricated in-house.
With the amount of snowfall we have had, you probably need both the snowplough and the bucket attachements
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.