Hello all,

I am looking at our rescue procedures from a MEWP basket stuck at height should all other options fail (operating from ground, remote logging to computer, manual emergency descent, etc...)
Self-rescue systems involve descending from basket using ropes.
My question: how do you assess the suitability & strength of the harness clipping points in the basket should this situation occur? In other words how do I know my op can safely "abseil" from that point down to the ground?

Thank you
Bernie

I have looked at a lot of options. We are working on emergency descent procedures per machine.
Some of our MEWP operators are also IRATA level2 so yes they are trained.
The ones that are not trained will be depending on the rescue system adopted.

MEWP to MEWP evacuation is also an option I am looking at. However availability of the machine is an issue. When we are talking about 50m to 70m working height you can probably appreciate that this type of machines are rare on the ground & booked up well in advance.
Training in this situation is also a must. Crane & Access magazine March 2013 has an article re rescue from height.
Article can be viewed online:
http://www.vertikal.net/...013/ca_2013_2_p46-50.pdf

http://learninglegacy.lo...-and-safety-mewp-h-s.pdf

The above is also of interest

If you have a hydraiulic leak the boom descends just like the emergency descent - you are probably creating an unneccessary system unless of course your kit is poorly maintained. I have not yet found emergency descent to fail when proiperly used by trained persons. Rope descent is much more likely to fail.

Whatever equipment you write into your procedure has to be immediately available, if you state a second MEWP then you need a second MEWP.

Bob is talking sense.

Bern

Fresh off the presses new video tool box talk on rescue plans for MEWPs

http://www.accessindustryforum.org.uk/vtt.htm

It’s a little dry but note the comments re rope access rescue.

Phil

I still do not see the situation described as needing a last resort plan with rope descent. The use of ropes still remains high risk except where it is fully planned and undertaken by competent operatives. Why is there such a need for this system except to satisfy some demanding client representative who thinks there must be such a need. Think of the commitment to inspection, testing training/exercise of such an action. Let alone finding kit with fixing points and suitable cage for such use.

I'd be happy to wait for my chums in mountain rescue or the fire service

The situations you indicate are precisely why and/or where the use of abseil is not appropriate. The reliance has to be on properly designed kit that is maintained and used competently. If the dead mans control is not depressed then control can be taken by the ground or the Emergency Descent system used.

Why oh why is this operation being made super complex? If the kit is so unreliable to be of concern for failure then it should NOT be used for work. Abseil desccent can only be accomplished by active operatives not injured or suspended persons. Remember they were using the kit up to that point totally satisfactorily so why should the Emergency Descent fail? Ground control and emergency descent are two separate systems.

Like I said in my first post, the 10th one down,
Keep it simple with the ground lowering device on the MEWP.

However if 2nd MEWP isn't available like the original
Posters situation, what are you going to do?

If the MEWP overturns, and rests on the structure etc, even wearing a harness in restraint mode, you are coming out of the basket and getting hung in a harness.

Phil

Just curious about this scenario. Would you be hung in a harness or dangling from a restraint lanyard? What would be the implications be on your body re shock load?
Would you be hanging in the horizontal position with a lot of back pressure?
Is this scenario reasonably forseeable?

If you preview the last message you posted, it shows it without paragraphs. Either just post it up or PM it to me and i'll post it.

Having speed-read the above posts no-one seems to have mentioned the scenario of a mechanical problem with a MEWP preventing the use of its emergency decent feature.

The IPAF Guidance on Rescue Plan considers the situation where lowering the basket is not an option. It suggests "Further guidance can be found in BS8460, section 6.6."

Once you leave the basket I imagine the Operatives become an under slung load and this would mean the MEWP would not be working within the normal duties. Would this then warrant a lift plan in place? I don’t know how you could calculate the impact of an under slung load on a MEWP basket.

Also the norm would be to use a fall arrest harness with a MEWP (time limited) would the operator then need a work position harness to abseil from the basket?

As part of the operation depending on length of time cost etc, you could have an engineer on standby in the event of mechanical failure?

On balance the abseiling from the basket to me seems a higher risk than lowering from the bottom OR MEWP to MEWP and just seems a very extreme rescue plan, but without full understand of the operation it’s difficult to give a full conclusion.

Why would a MEWP overturn? Overloading? Poor ground conditions? High winds? In which case why were suitable controls and checks not in place prior to use? In the event of a mechanical breakdown, lowering the basket under gravity would be the normal method of recovery. As stated above, this will normally happen over time due to load in the basket.

As an IRATA level 3 technician, I was once involved in getting two people from a MEWP which had mechanically failed and the engineer was over an hour away. The basket was descending under the load. However, it was positioned under a canopy, so no access from above, and descending towards a glass wall & roof. The load of the people in the basket was actually making the situation worse.We achieved the recovery via a ground based lowering system.
If, by the process of risk assessment you deduce that a rope based system is required, ensure that the operatives are suitably trained and given time to practice regularly. (Yes, it does add to the cost)
The load on any anchor due to a controlled abseil should not be more than 110% of the bodyweight of the abseiler. (10% due to dynamic movement,abseiling should be undertaken in a controlled manner, i.e. not bouncing on the rope) This should be well within the machines factor of safety. The load of the person should be roughly constant from when they're in the basket until they come off the rope on landing.
If the manufacturer cannot guarantee the normal anchors for this, then don't use them. (I personally would be looking for a steel anchor sling round the neck if the boom behind the basket but that is my opinion, not advice.)
If you do use a ground controlled lower, be aware that the load of the person being recovered at the basket will be doubled due to the pulley effect.
It is normal for non-rope access rescue systems to use a single rope. This is acceptable due to the fact that the kits are only for emergency use and inspected every 6 months minumum. (Make sure the bags are tamper proof.) Giving non-rope access trained personnel a double rope system may enhance the risk of tangles. One justification for the allowance for single rope systems under the work at height regs.
In reply to RobH regarding harness types, some rope rescue systems use a 'nappy' style seat, which would overcome the issue.