Rank: Forum user
|
Hi
We have a workforce of 300 + with most being transient/ maintenance business. We have upwards of 250 ladders of various types & I'm looking for some ideas on how to manage ladder inspections better.
Any ideas?
Patrick
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Patrick
I can suggest two ideas. First, an inventory with all ladders and other equipment which includes the date of purchase, service, inspections, etc. A more practical solution is to also tag the ladders with either the date of the last inspection or colour code the tag i.e. orange tag (Oct - March 2016).
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Patrick I've sent you a PM with details of our system that might be of interest. Feel free to drop me al ine if you've any questions.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Patrick wrote:Hi
We have a workforce of 300 + with most being transient/ maintenance business. We have upwards of 250 ladders of various types & I'm looking for some ideas on how to manage ladder inspections better.
Any ideas?
Patrick
Tagging the ladders is a good way to issue them all with an ID, and then a designated person can carry out weekly written inspections.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Lawlee45239
Weekly written inspections for 250 ladders? Really? That's 50 a day!
Ladder inspection frequencies depend upon how much use they are subjected to, where they are used, how they are transported, where they are stored or after an incident.
Weekly inspections are OTT my friend.
Assess the potential for damage before deciding upon frequency.
I have put a ladder inspection regime in to place for my employer (large Local Authority) and use the following guide to inspection frequency:
Daily to once a week use = quarterly inspection
Weekly to once a month use = six monthly inspection
Monthly or less use = annual inspection
I am a Ladder Association Ladder Inspector card holder.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Enable the 300+ workforce with the competency and resources to conduct said inspections and monitor and audit that process?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
The leaflet says inspections SHOULD be recorded, not MUST be.
Better to empower users and be able to demonstrate that is effective.
Parachutists pack their own kit . .
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Pre user checks from the user, it's not hard to do.
Then a formal check recorded with the timescale you agree on dependent on use of the ladders.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Oh-oh. Since when did should = must?
Maybe this is why H&S can get in a pickle. I realise this is off the subject but I think it is important.
Lets use the Highway Code (an ACOP) to clarify - overtaking is a good example.
Rule 163 . . ."You should
* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
* use your mirrors, signal when it is safe to do so, take a quick sideways glance if necessary . . . . ."
etc etc go read for more.
Rule 165:
"You MUST NOT overtake
* if you would have to cross or straddle double white lines with a solid line nearest to you
* if you would have to enter an area designed to divide traffic, if it is surrounded by a solid white line"
. . . .and 3 others.
MUST (or MUST NOT) rules are backed up by specific legislation which is footnoted whenever these terms are used.
SHOULD / OUGHT NOT, DO, DO NOT etc. may be good sense but not specifically regulated. Just a code.
In the printed version, these specific MUST / MUST NOT terms are not only in u/c BOLD but also in red too, to distinguish. Not quite so clear online, although the references appear to click on to the regulations.
So there is a distinction between MUST and SHOULD. The guidance leaflet referred to is - guidance.
Sorry folks - back to ladder checks . . . on which I have little to say.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
aud wrote:Oh-oh. Since when did should = must?
Maybe this is why H&S can get in a pickle. I realise this is off the subject but I think it is important.
Lets use the Highway Code (an ACOP) to clarify - overtaking is a good example.
Rule 163 . . ."You should
* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake
How does that affect the laws on tailgating? Is it...
a) We SHOULDN'T do it?
b) We MUST NOT do it?
or
c) Both?
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Frank.
Totally baffling comment.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
What if we go for you SHALL NOT is that the same as must
But still transient workers are there then they are not unlike peripatetic which I think is meant
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
aud wrote:Frank.
Totally baffling comment.
I'll try again. You said "You should
* not get too close to the vehicle you intend to overtake"
Tailgating is getting too close to the vehicle in front.
Therefore, is it 'You SHOULD not do it' or 'You MUST not do it'
In your opinion, obviously.
|
|
|
|
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.