I wrote one (though I no longer have a copy) that just went logically through the thought process. First identify the work (with sketch if useful). Then a series of one-line questions going down the hierarchy - can the objective be achieved without work at height, and so on down to fall arrest.

Hi Martin1,

I can't actually give you the form I use but will describe how it goes. Page 1 is general questions (of course first one says does the work have to be.... :o) and then is the roof or work area fragile, any unprotected edges, surface deterioration by weather, is fall-restraint advised, toeboards, hard hat, etc

Then there's an equipment choice question which directs you to the relevant section on other pages. The choice is ladder, platform, scaffold, mobile tower, MEWP, harnesses, etc etc

For each kit there's a set of questions and comment section.

Each section starts with 'Have employees had Work At Height training? Competent in use of the equipment? Has ground been inspected? Then about 10 questions for the particular WAH equipment and job, e.g. over head obstructions? Platform size, tower height, scaffold inspection, barriers, pedestrian risks, etc etc.

If you haven't had formal training yourself you can work out the appropriate questions for each method from the relevent HSE INDG and HSG publications (all free).

At the end ... phew... of the form there's a Further Precautions section and comments, again it's all questions, like Has severe weather forecast been..., is there adequate space to remove waste...., operators trained in use of PPE..., competent supervision...., is there suitable means of communication...., is there a rescue procedure....

It's all in a tabled 3-page word document with yes/no/na and comments, and names of responsible person to implement each control etc.

JohnW

I am totally with Ron here, there is far too much emphasis on Hazard Risk assessment abroad rather than dealing with the task itself. Height is but one of the hazards to be encountered. We are in real risk of being so reductionist in our thinking that we will end up with umpteen hazard assessments to carry out a single task. The danger of gaps in control then increase dramatically with the number of assessments.

Bob

John

To be fair you sound as though you have a very thorough guide to dealing with WAH risks but the problem is that the need is to assess tasks for hazards and thence assess the risks and control them. Your guide helps with this BUT it cannot replace a task assessment. I feel Martin is also falling into the reductionist trap and we need to be very aware of this. It all goes back to the Diploma and other syllabuses where systems thinking is dealt with. We need to get the holistic view right - reductionism led us, and still leads us into a plethora of specific legislation and gaps are still found in the controls. This produces more legislation.

As an aside I belive the HSE 5 steps is NOT adequate in many aspects especially as it actually contains more than 5 stepes if you examine it carefully. It probably has done more harm than good to the whole assessment process.

Curmugeonly as ever :-)

Bob