Hello I would appreciate some opinions on this one. A client requires us to access and survey a roof plant room prior to refurbishment. The building is 5.7 m high with no guard rails/edge protection installed. The plantroom is the centre of the roof so my first through was to use internal access to minimise work at height and the need for MEWP's to get access etc. However I am told there is no internal access to it and no one has been up there for years. we have guys trained in MEWP's, however if we got a MEWP on site, our surveyor (not the MEWP operator) would need to unclip his work restraint once the basket is in position in the centre of the roof, get out of the basket, enter the roof plantroom and then get back into the basket and then descending. I remember some time ago I went on an IPAF course for working in basket and seem to remember that un-clipping at height was a no-no. Is this right? In this situation he would unclipping in a position posing minimal risk of falls but even so im not comfortable with it. any thoughts or opinions appreciated, cheers

In my opinion if a cherry picker and it can "land" just above the roof away from the edge then no problem. However if a scissor lift why not have two and use them for edge protection and walk away from the edge to the plant room. Check out the loading of the roof structure first though.

Nick Very good example of a common occurrence. I would tend to agree with Firesafety on this ie it is going to be classed as a one off non routine activity so reasonably practicable should be easier to consider. However I have had the same instance whereby I accepted the RAMS for the basket to be landed inside 2m from the leading edge but with edge protection in place , this was rather more easy than your circumstance because the railings were being constructed prior no worries.ie landing within a safe working area. As said a very good example , do you get a scaffold gang in to provide the safe working area ( at cost ) HAKI tower access for the scaffs to consider as well ?? I know what 95 answers out of 100 would be that's for sure. But as Firesafety inferred if you were to hire in 2 scissor lifts and use them as edge protection even better but again at cost ?? just the RA needs to clarify how to transfer from the 2 levels ? but there are still the leading edges We have had so much heated debates over this with PDs and construction managers who don't understand the hierarchy , avoid > use work equipment > personal ,,,,,. A classic example of " somewhere in the middle of right & wrong" Any HSE inspectors here willing to clarify maybe for us mere mortals ? I use the scenario to our subbies that - if you were blindfolded could you fall of a leading edge or would you let a 3 year old walk around in the same way ? I am on the understanding that you do not work at leading edges in the simplest of terms and that's final the question then is this correct or not ? Should be some good responses to this one. Good luck

Hi Nick, We use this method to access our roof (even though the building is only 10 years old there is no roof access yet we have condenser unit's for the Air Con on the roof!!). The only other option is to erect scaffolding up the side, but this can be expensive for a 10-15min job.

This is really simple, the work at height regulations hierarchy of control, avoid is first, having a scaffold built for the inspection of a plant room when alternative sytems can be used is not avoiding work at height. The scaffolders would be working for you, and last time I checked the scaffold doesn't erect itself, so guess what? They are working at height. I find may persons in control of premises forget that associated trades required to assist with the job, are actually part of the job, and therefore the risk assessment needs to bear this in mind. So for the inspection job, the cherry picker is the correct use of equipment when following the hierarchy of control. It minimises the amount of working at height required. However what I am not saying is the HSE would approve this method, has to be backed upmbynthe facts, cost vs risk and reasonably practicable.

I picked up a leaflet on a recent IPAF course - Technical Guidance Note E2/08/10 on: Exiting the Platform at Height It points you to the guidance on the risk assessment required is given in the British standard BS 8460:2005 Safe Use of MEWPs – Code of Practice.

Here is another question related to the same issue. I would be grateful of fellow professionals opinion. A customer has used a boom type MEWP to access a slightly sloping roof and which has some fragile roofing. In order to prevent falls the cage is placed away from the edges and the fragile roofs at distance at a sufficient distance to prevent falls when wearing a fall restraint lanyard clipped to the cage. As the lanyard is fixed to the cage the operative s able to move around the roof area but cannot approach either the edge of the fragile roof covering. Question would you consider this to be compliant with the requirement to prevent falls or do you think that full edge protection and safety nets provided below the fragile roofs should be adopted.

In my opinion, it's having suitable and sufficient equipment. Scaffold access, as stated introduces new, possibly more risks from the assembling. Scissor lift with the cage extended still leaves the problem/uncertainty of accessing a roof where the person is uncertain of it's integrity. Cherry Pickers have been mentioned but it's the correct type of CP you require. Straight boom types would not be suitable for gaining access to the plant room door but one with a back boom would suffice, especially if it has a 'Swan Neck' basket. Ask a company like Facelift (who i have no affiliation with) for advice on the right type of equipment. I'm certain they will have one that will take you directly to the plant room door (and supply the operator if required.)