Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Bruce Sutherland  
#1 Posted : 08 May 2013 15:25:26(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bruce Sutherland

Does anyone have any practical experience on something that works...... HSE seem to have forgotten about S6 and sorting the issue out before supply - ie dear designer how do you get there safely. My observations are Cranes are not big square boxes like refuse freighters so running line from the roof doesn't work as they get tangled when the fitters go under and round the boom. Clipping to the crane has all the practicalities of a chocolate teaspoon - and whilst apparently a very large crane company suggests that is what they do - the word on the street is that it may not be adhered to that strictly in practice. But may work for some jobs MEWPs works for some parts Ladders work for some jobs A platform walkway like a sheeting gantry would need to be very clever as 25 tonne cranes are different sizes 250 tonnes - so it would need to have hydraulic ins and outs as well as up and downs - not reasonably practicable I think Towers would work for some jobs - but a MEWP is probably better as it goes up and down without effort on the part of the user. There is a latchway type system that looks OK for bulk tankers - I have seen an australian version... put a track on the top and then camms on the track operated from a lift up handle and it seems that there may be some mileage in it but has anyone used it in anger and achieved acceptable compliance? I appreciate that there may be considerable user resistance to overcome but just wondered what obvious solution I had missed this time .... I look forward to your thoughts Kind regards Bruce
JJ Prendergast  
#2 Posted : 08 May 2013 15:52:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JJ Prendergast

I'm not quite sure by the ramblings that all of the examles you give would come under s6. S6 is effectively mainly to do with design of products - not the use of products on site. Section 6 of the HSW Act applies to articles and substances for use at work where other MORE specific product safety law does not apply So for pressure vessels - PED applies DSEAR - ATEX directive and DSEAR guidance Machinery - Supply of machinery Regulations etc
JJ Prendergast  
#3 Posted : 08 May 2013 15:54:34(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JJ Prendergast

alexmccreadie13  
#4 Posted : 08 May 2013 16:21:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
alexmccreadie13

Bruce why dont you call in a company who specialise in Tower Crane Inspections there are good ones out there. I am sure they would have the solutions and probably carry out the inspections for you. If you are out there I can give you contact details if you PM me. Regards Alex
Bruce Sutherland  
#5 Posted : 08 May 2013 16:24:17(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bruce Sutherland

I politely suggest that next time before you post critically you do your research. A basic understanding of HSW is normally expected from a H and S practitioner - I quote from the link In particular, section 6 applies to: intermediate suppliers of machinery and other products for use at work Section 6(1) of the HSW Act places a general health and safety obligation on anyone in the supply chain, so far as reasonably practicable, for when articles for use at work are being used, set, cleaned or maintained. Having taken enforcement using s6 in relation to machinery then whilst there may be an interface with the Supply Regulations and the CE technical file the primary duty would in my opinion be under HSW. Regards Bruce
Bruce Sutherland  
#6 Posted : 08 May 2013 16:41:45(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Bruce Sutherland

Hi Alex Thanks very much for that - the works is servicing mobile cranes - ie workshop service and with a fleet of cranes they are all slightly different in where exact things are and even bed heights and cab positions seem to vary. They are having real difficulties and yes some of it is fitter resistance but we do then have the reasonably practicable line and what the rest of the industry is doing. Having seen some horrendous crush points created in order to prevent someone falling off the bed of a lorry I do wonder if we are always as clever as we think Kind regards Bruce
JJ Prendergast  
#7 Posted : 08 May 2013 16:52:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JJ Prendergast

Would have thought any safety incidents to do with the servicing of cranes would INITIALLY fall under s2 HASAWA. If there really was a design/product safety issue then the relevant specific EU directive (Machinery / PED etc and subsequent UK legislation) would then come into play, then maybe s6 if no specific product safety laws apply. Assuming of course if the HSE could be bothered to go this far.
alexmccreadie13  
#8 Posted : 08 May 2013 17:16:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
alexmccreadie13

Bruce thanks for the reply I misread the question and my brain was on gantry cranes. We adopt a work platform and fall restraint systems as opposed to fall arrest. I wont tell you the sizes we have as it will give the company away but 250tonne is only small fry(Joke) I know it is a problem the only other way is to send them back to the manufacturer as we do on our newer cranes. Try and sneak a visit into Liebherr factory and maybe some ideas will come to light. I think that you will find no help in any other way. Regards Alex
Users browsing this topic
Guest
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.