Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Matthews
SCENARIO: Maintenance personnel working at height for example dismantling racking. A personnel basket is employed for the task, being secured too and raised on a FLT.
QUESTION: Am I right or wrong in thinking that the individual whom is working from the personnel basket should be wearing some form of fall restraint to prevent him from climbing out/up or over reaching, thus effectively minimising the possibility of falling out?
Your comments are greatly appreciated. I through risk assessment have said that I believe this to be neccessary, which has not gone down well with the maintenance personnel, and would like to know if I am being over the top or not.
Thank you in anticipation
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By George Wedgwood
That is correct Chris and observation of 'good' companies whose employees are in working platforms that can be raised (MEWPS)or 'man cages' properly secured to a suitable forklift driven by an operator who has had specific training in the safe use of such an attachment, demonstrates that harnesses are worn by all persons in the 'basket' and the harnesses are attached to secure fixing points. These fixing points should be clearly labelled, part of an inspection regime and designed to take an asessed load - so they are not just a hastily fixed bracket! The object is, as you state, to ensure that if an employee gets carried away by his work and over-reaches or tries to step up on one of the rails to increase acess height, he remains secure and cannot fall out - or at least cannot fall to the ground. clearly fall arrest harnesses are not good for this job (can fall out before the right height is reached to prevent hitting the ground) and fixed lanyard harnesses should be used to limit movement - i.e prevent a person actually moving over the fence. Unfortunately, such a device will also prevent a person jumping clear if the platform or basket overturns and that is where the perception comes from, that makes many ignore the wearing of a harness. If the work is planned that badly or if the lifting device is unstable that means the task cannot be done safely anyway and the question of overturn should not arise if competently used in accordance with instructions (users should be at least certificated by the manufacturer or supplier before use). Insist on the use of harnesses!
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Fisher
Chris
I go along with George and would add a couple of explanations to the reasons, as these could be used in a toolbox talk.
Firstly a crucial part of the planning is to keep vehicles, which could hit the machine, away by use of barriers (this could be cones and tape. This is the prime reason for weraring the harness to prevent the person being thrown out.
Secondly, in the last year, there was a warning about using shock absorbing lanyards as the "shock" following a fall could 'pull' the machine over - the point George makes.
I would also draw your attention to this Press Release http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2005/e05131.htm which is important for users of this type of equipment.
Regards
Bill
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By AlB
The above comments are correct. Good practice is to wear a harness. We will not allow any work to take place in any elevated work platform without a harness.
The security of the MEWP should have been assessed before anyone thinks of getting into it, and suitable precautions taken to prevent any vehicle collisions.
Insist on harnesses.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Walker
Would not argue with the above.
However, I don't like harnesses, remember as PPE they are only to control
residual risk.
Wherever I go, I see workers at height wearing harnesses and they give a
false sense of security to both the user and observing safety people.
He has got his harness on so thats alright then, we need not bother checking "real" controls.
Are the harnesses attached to something (usually not)?
Is the ground closer that the restraint (Lanyard + "rip" length plus 6 foot
bloke is a 4 metre drop)?
Restrained falls can cause very severe injury, you will smash against the side
of the building or scaffold and of course the safety helmet
(not being a climbers helmet) has falled off and head injury is almost inevitable.
How quickly is that injured dangling man going to get rescued (is this in your
risk assessment)- you have 15 mins max.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Matthews
Many thanks for your responses, I now feel justified in my initial assessment.
As a point of interest, I did during my RA state that the area of work must be cordoned off thereby eleviating the possibility of other plant or personnel coming into contact whilst this work was conducted, and men working overhead signage was displayed also.
I had not actually considered the harness/fixing as an arrest after the event, but a prevention of the event, however, if by some strange misfortune the operator did fall I believe that simply lowering the basket slowly would bring him down to safety, how do you guard against events if the entire unit tipped over? I can only assume that the likelihood of a fall outweighs significanlty (in this particular case) the possibility of the truck tipping... I may be wrong!!!!!
Thanks again
Chris
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I am going to disagree with some of the logic here. The HSE have always insisted on harnesses with cherry-picker type MEWPS because of the nature of the boom and the potential to catapault a person out of the basket within close margins to normal operation. The use of the flying carpet type, ie straight up and down with only traverse available, was left open as it was not perceived of as substantially more risky than a scaffold. We do not habitually place everyone on a scaffold in a restraint harness to stop them climbing onto the handrails. Also the restraint on movement can dramatically increase the non use and so bring ALL necessary uses of harnesses into disrepute.
If you have operatives climbing on handrails you have a definite training and supervision problem. Harnesses merely hide the risks that are bubbling under the surface.
I am also concerned that might be seen as a safeguard if a vehicle runs into the platform while in use. If this happens the HSE will be looking at your whole transport v work segregation not the non-use of harnesses. We need to be clear that harnesses are used because there is a residual risk with cherry-picker booms that is not met with other types of equipment. It is this we are taking precautions against. Unless of course we wish to use harnesses also on Tower scaffolds etc just to stop misuse of handrails.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Dunckley
When using a man riding basket fixed to a forklift the controls must be in the
basket not with the driver of the machine.
Various HSE guidance about this subject.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
I agree with you Brian - I still do not understand the desire to make do with a piece of equipment that was not fundamentally designed to be operated as a person hoist, especially when the purpose made kit is relatively cheap to hire.
Which is a prompt to ask if the FLT and cage are tested and certified within the previous six months.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ken Taylor
Presumably you are using a 'cage' designed for use with an FLT and not just a DIY job. There is no strict legal requirement to use a harness - unless your risk assessment has determined so. The pros and cons have been discussed above and it may be good practice in your circumstances.
|
|
|
|
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.