Rank: Super forum user 
|
Tony, I'm with FrankC here, you seem to have changed the thread considerably in context!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just for clarification, i am not being personal, Tony. I wouldn't want anyone to be charged with a breach of the regs if it was avoidable.
(Apologies for not proof reading my last post)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony, personal NO.
The opening thread read:
'The 1.8 m rule was introduced so that all partners know that anybody working above that height must take all necessary measures to stop a fall, (edge protection harness etc) including tethering tools. Anything under 1.8 is subject to a Risk Assessment and allows a fair degree of common sense, i.e the guy stood on the back of a trailer for two minutes to tie straps doesnt have to go and purchase air bags.'
Your last thread refers to 1.8m from an 8m high a roof edge?
Unless I'm missing something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
For those who have difficulty following threads.
I described what the 1.8m rule was. Later on I was asked to explain how it came about. I described the incident that lead to a review of our INTERNAL WAH Rules.
Could not be any simpler.
Where you may be confused is that the incident was investigated and the general feeling was that the regs were complied with, but that, because general 1.8m (average size of human) rule was used as a defence, that it made perfect sense to use that measurement as a guide. So for those who think 1.85 or 1.75 are greatly different you probably havent worked in a robust safety culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Tony,
For clarification, is it 1.8m horizontal or 1.8m vertical (or all three?) - I'm still confused!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ah well I am not confused - The 1.8m figure was after investigation and discussion then used as a vertical distance for sound arguments. I think some people need to look at the WAH regs again to see this actually still complies.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
I worked for a short period for a contractor providing FM services to an international Oil Company.
That company had a world wide 1.8 WAH rule that was vigorously applied and policed, contractors were removed from site if breached. It was if a remember correctly no work over 1.8 metres without fall protection of some sort and no working within 1.8 metres of an edge if the drop was over 1.8 metres without fall protection.
This was a world wide rule so for them made sense as the UK was only a small part of the global operation and they wanted consistency. They were incredibly risk averse, even the chefs wore anti cut gloves in the kitchens.
I had to balance the clients rules, there were many more, with complying with UK regulation. I would ensure RA were completed for all WAH tasks not just 1.8 metres, but this was difficult at times especially if the controls included added cost. I also didn't fancy explaining to a court why I thought 1.7m was not hazardous and didn't need a RA.
One of the greatest issues that I debated with them on many occasions was the confusion for our subcontractors as we had to drum in the clients rules (1.8m) during the client mandated induction, along with the fact that 1.8 metres is not in UK regulation, and all WAH has some risk and needs adequately controlled. The local client management usually agreed with me regarding the 1.8m rule but couldn't excerpt any influence Globally. Personally I don't like a fixed height WAH rule however well intentioned, I will stick to RA identifying the controls for the task/activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.