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
tabs  
#1 Posted : 03 November 2011 15:31:25(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
tabs

Hi all, I don't often ask stuff, but I am stuck on this with no time to do the trawling: is there a prohibition that anyone can quote for fall-arrest systems being at the ankle? Someone is using the "must be above the head" argument, and I am unfamiliar with the ins and outs. Can anyone be definitive for me please? Thanks Tabs
Perry20688  
#2 Posted : 03 November 2011 15:52:40(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Perry20688

Hello, The simple answer to your question is no. You can attach at feet level and I am assuming that you are talking about an EN355 energy absorbing fall arrest lanyard and EN361 full body harness. The result of an ankle or foot level attachment point is that you will fall a greater distance. This is sometimes called Fall Factor. The distance will approximately be 2 x the lanyard length plus the user's height. The result is a greater risk of injury, although the EN355 (energy absorbing lanyard) will limit the arrest force on the body to 6kN. You are just going to experience a greater acceleration and the risk of hitting something on the way down. Fall factors are a subject in themselves and the advice given is that you should attach at head or chest level to limit a fall and hence reduce the risk of injury. Hope that helps. Best Regards Malcolm Perry
tabs  
#3 Posted : 03 November 2011 16:05:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
tabs

Looking good Malcolm, that is the situation and the system has been kept within inspection, it's just that one vendor pointed to it and said "illegal" ... I will now look to ask him to prove his statement with a little more confidence. Whilst I agree higher anchorage is much better, the architecture doesn't allow for it. Thanks.
RayRapp  
#4 Posted : 03 November 2011 16:09:09(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

tabs I was not sure what your question was, however Perry has given a good explanation of the fall arrest methodology and hopefully that has provided the answer. The highest point practical should be used for anchorage point and thus restricting the distance a person can fall and also the stress on both the person and the anchorage point if that fall should materialise. Basically there are two systems, fall restraint and fall arrest. The former restricts the user from reaching the hazard (normally via a lanyard) whereas the latter restricts the fall, either by lanyard or inertia reel. In the WAH hierarchy fall restraint should be used over fall arrest for obvious reasons. Ray
tabs  
#5 Posted : 03 November 2011 16:14:32(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
tabs

In a nutshell Ray it was "Has someone snuck in a law I missed?".
RayRapp  
#6 Posted : 03 November 2011 16:33:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

I know where you are comimg from - if I had a pound for every time someone advised me of the law (and got it wrong) I could have retired by now!
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.