Posted By Dave Wynn Have you seen the cover of Junes edition showing the head of Bovis Construction. He is supposedly inspecting an erectors equipment (ohh matron) Did you notice how new and shiny his hi-vis coat and shiny new helmet, never been worn before especially on a on site. Not a good example eh! Perhaps he would have done better to have borrowed one which was a little battered to imply he might occasionally do site visits etc.

Posted By peter gotch Dave, Whilst sympathising with your sentiments, I think the reality is that Bovis Lendlease issued some new Hi-vis specifically for the photo opportunity. Hence how their project safety manager also looks on p36 of THSP. I have never managed to convince our Directors at eg ceremonies to open motorways etc that they would look more the part in their old kit. Branch new Hi-vis suddenly paid for by marketing budget! My own practice is to deliberately scuff up every new helmet and Hi-vis garment that I get, to avoid those out there treating me as if I have never seen a construction site! What actually concerned me more about the picture on the front with its caption "Gearing up for work at height changes" is the implication that PPE should not be considered as the last line of defence. This is turn then exacerbated by some perhaps poorly researched journalism eg "A clever design feature is pre-drilled holes in the steel structure for man locks". The HSE guidance on such a design feature dates back to 1987! Hardly state of the art. Several years ago I resisted an HSE Inspector trying to get our steelwork designers to add extra holes for man locks, as for most structures there should be no reason for erectors to work from open steelwork. In such circumstances, designing in additional fixing points merely sends the wrong psychological message to the erectors. The article does not indicate why erection could not be wholly done from eg cherry pickers, ie tends to concentrate on the lowest line of defence rather than following the hierarchy required by Reg 6 of CHSW Regs. If IOSH's own organ places its emphasis on the use of PPE to prevent falls from heights, what message does this send to the big bad world out there? Peter

Posted By peter gotch Jim HSE's report on their designer initiative comments that it may not be wholly valid from a statistical point of view, but in reality it does not stand up to any statistical scrutiny whatsoever (but has been quoted verbatim in both Construction and H&S press as if it were the result of properly planned research) Amongst other "conclusions" was that only 8% of interviewees "admitted" to having any CDM training. However, in the absence of any analysis by project size etc, practice profile, let alone the role of the interviewee (who might be eg Project Director with no [or limited] CDM training, but overseeing a team of suitably trained staff)this conclusion [and thence, others] is potentially seriously flawed!!) HSE also seem to have fallen into the common historic trap of thinking that CDM training means giving designers the tools to do effective risk assessment. Their own research and that of others have found a problem in this!! May be 8% of front line design staff in SMALL practices have had CDM training. The proportion of our staff who have had this and risk assessment training is several times higher which I would expect to also be the case for other MAJOR design practices. Of course our training emphasises that PPE is the last line of defence. We are treating HSE's report with a very large pinch of salt! One of the problems is that very few front line HSE Inspectors will have the skills necessary to effectively investigate compliance by a designer without the benefit of hindsight, ie easy to criticise AFTER the accident Hence the emphasis on easy issues like fragile rooflights. Regards, Peter

Posted By Robert K Lewis Ken Have to agree with you about the Plannning Depts of some LAs. We had a cradle on a retractable boom rejected because it could be seen from the football ground. It was to be fitted onto the central core roof of a 19 storey block in a city centre as part of a refurbishment. The Planners wanted an externally mounted track around the outside of the building as more aesthetically pleasing. The fact that we would need to form a doorway thru the parapet wall and could not access all parts, because of radio telephone equipment, to support the wall was not relevant. We ended up with abseling as the only available option. There is now a BS on the abseiling technique but it needs regularly shaped buildings and flat roofs to be effective. I have actually found the abseil operatives to be far more aware of their safety than cradle operatives. Bob