I saw one of these on a shop fitting site this morning, ladder access to roof above amenity area, well fall-protected but the ladder not tied. The device was hired from a popular, well known tool hire company and the lads on site think they are acceptable to allow ladders not to be tied at the top or footed. if you search for Anti slip ladder stopper you will see a few different types. Any thoughts appreciated.

Frankc the floor was new concrete, laid about four weeks ago. Would you allow the use of this device instead of tieing off? I did an inspection there today on behalf of the principal contractor and told the Foreman I would get back to him about whether it is acceptable or not. If it is he will gain a point on the score, but there will be another inspection by the Client's people and they may not have the same view?

I wouldn't permit them in place of tying off (preferably) or footing (if tying is not possible). There's a full-blown HSE research report on teh topic - RR205 - which identifies four modes of stability failure (base slip, top slip, flip, top contact) and these devices do nothing for three of them. At best, they might improve base slip, by an unquantifiable amount. The conclusions aren't actually concrete enough to be directly useful, but include some relevant statements: "A similar limitation is placed upon devices intended to offer enhancements to the base frictional demand. Simple physics will demonstrate that friction is a function of the properties of the two materials and is independent of area and loading. This, and previous work, has demonstrated that the material from which conventional ladder feet is made is adequate to resist slippage in normal use. The provision of larger area feet, or other such devices is either unnecessary or based or redundant levels of safety provision." The last few paragraphs of the conclusions: "Whilst much of great practical value is derived from this work, one inescapable conclusion of this work is that many of the devices currently available are designed in accordance with intuition rather than mechanics or engineering. It is simply not the case that something that looks as though it should work will, indeed, work. This extends from mechanical devices through friction enhancement and into footing itself. Some devices have the capacity to enhance stability, but this may only be in one mode and they may actively reduce stability in others. Some devices achieve nothing at all, despite appearing highly functional, and footing may be functional but only in restricted applications. "It remains the case that for an intervention or device to be considered as ‘effective’ it must ensure that the ladder achieves the minimum critical stability level in all four potential failure modes. In order for that intervention or device to be considered to ‘enhance’ safety it must increase the stability value in at least one of the modes whilst not causing the stability in the remaining modes to drop below the critical threshold. "However, a real danger remains that individuals using these techniques to apparently improve stability may behave in a manner that assumes such benefit has been gained without that benefit being present and so may place themselves in greater jeopardy. This extends from appropriate ladder placement through to the range of activities undertaken. "There remains a pressing obligation for manufacturers to quantify the performance of their products and to ensure that safety provision is raised across all possible failure modes. The models and test regimes developed in this research provide the tools to do this that were previously lacking." Admittedly, WAH regs only refer to slipping of ladders (not stability), so you could make a legalese argument that ladder stability is prescriptively specified, by I wouldn't want to try that argument in court. It does specify "an EFFECTIVE anti-slip [device]", but the report noted above (in teh 'simple physics' passage) casts some doubt on whether such a thing is actually likely to exist - the report says a more effective procedure is just to keep your ladder feet clean.

Ask them when their product was introduced to the market as well, mate as RR205 is over 10 years old. I'm sure quite a few anti slip devices have improved/been introduced during that period. Agree with achrn regarding footing if others available but still see this as a safe replacement for drilling/anchoring/tieing the ladder off.

Be interested to know what tests these had been subjected to as the last time I looked into this there was no reliable test method. Was on a seminar a few years ago where the HS Labs spoke about floor and footwear slip testing and asked them about the anti slip devises for ladders. They were of the opinion that none worked - but that could have been based on the same study achrn references.

I use one at home. There are many short-duration tasks where top-anchoring is impracticable, or where other obstructions preclude the use of a limpet.

The site I visited and saw this in use was inspected on Thursday by the Client's H&S team and the "ladder tied off and footer in place" was a written comment on the inspection form. Points not lost but I think they would have been had I not recommended to tie off?

Correct, Ray. Hence my comment in #2 Re 'Correct Environment'