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
Use of MEWPs- Limiting access to immediate area
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Previous Topic Next Topic
pl53  
#1 Posted : 29 January 2014 07:43:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53
Just a quick question. I work with an engineering manager who insists that working with MEWPs can only be done if the immediate area around the MEWP is barriered off to a minimum of 1.5 times the possible fall radius of the MEWP ie if the height is 6m the exclusion zone should be 9m. I can find no reference to this requirement in any IPAF guidance nor any legal basis for it. Has anybody come across this requirement before because to me it seems to be quite arbitrary and unnecessary for a MEWP operating on firm, level ground.
Back to top
Frank Hallett  
#2 Posted : 29 January 2014 11:30:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Frank Hallett
Good morning PL53 From the info provided, it would appear that your Engineering manager has done a RA and identified that he wants that dimension for his exclusion zone. Whether it's actually practicable is a different question that will depend on so many other, unidentified to us, criteria. Anyway, what's the problem with an exclusion zone of 1.5 x the height of the MEWP? Frank Hallett
Back to top
hilary  
#3 Posted : 29 January 2014 11:43:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
hilary
I wouldn't have an issue with this - items dropped from MEWPs could bounce and transport themselves quite a distance. He has obviously taken this in account and is acting safely. Don't knock it if you have someone who DOES take it seriously.
Back to top
pl53  
#4 Posted : 29 January 2014 12:41:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pl53
I'm not knocking him for anything, least of all taking H&S seriously. However we are working in the real world, something that a lot of people tend to forget. Following a bit of research the 1.5 "rule" seems to be based on IPAF guidance and relates to the risk of overturning, not falling objects. n my view that risk is minimal on firm level ground in an internal area. a smaller cordon seems to me to be much more practical. That said could anyone confirm that this is IPAF based.
Back to top
RayRapp  
#5 Posted : 29 January 2014 13:15:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp
As a rule it is either down to the MEWP operator or banksman to decide the exclusion zone radius, which may be dependant on the available working area. In a railway environment the banksman is replaced by a Machine Controller, again the size of the exclusion will be solely down to him.
Back to top
Joebaxil  
#6 Posted : 29 January 2014 14:23:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Joebaxil
We often have up to 5 or more MEWPs working in proximity . welders , steel erectors , cladders all needing to work to program ( real world ). My view is the need for very strong cooperation , coordination & competent personnel. Yes collapsed radiuses would be at the forefront when overheads or railway lines are a possible hazard certainly. In fact in a lot of ways working in these environments are a lot simpler to manage and control.
Back to top
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.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2025, Yet Another Forum.NET