Posted By Ali
Try EasiDec staging systems - they can be put up in minutes and designed for access outside in variable conditions up to eaves / gutter level. Search under easi-dec i think.

Posted By Glyn Atkinson
Depending on height, access / egress and equipment availability, we make use of a cherry picker that lands the working platform well onto the roof, worker can alight, do a simple repair, get back in, then lower to ground, risk assessed per separate job, not done in conkers - bonkers fashion.

Every roof is different, some have railings around them, some have securing posts for harness fastenings. No lone working allowed, even if the cherry picker driver stays within the cage unit and does not assist the actual job.

All training done prior to working at height, permit to work in force for hot and cold working - this can be used for own employees or contractors - but it is common sense to properly assess in each situation and location - no accidents or incidents using this system.

Sometimes the work can be done if it is only a coating by staying in the cage and painting on coatings by long extensions to the brushes - just depends what the work is on the day.

Posted By Advanced Safety
P.S. In light of the Work at Height Regulations, i cant believe a ladder was suggested in this forum. Even if used for access, what will stop the persons falling from the roof?

Posted By Descarte
Strange I didnt know it was now illegal to use a ladder!?

HSE guidance states that for work of short duration (taking minutes rather than hours) it may not be reasonably practicable to install safeguards such as edge protection. The decision on the precautions to be taken will depend on an overall assessment of the risks involved which should consider: duration of the work, complexity of the work, pitch of the roof, condition of the roof, weather conditions, risk to those putting up edge protection, risk to others.It goes on to say that mobile access equipment can provide a safe working platform in some situations and where this is not practicable then travel restraint or fall arrest with an inertia reel device should be considered.

However if this is regular work or work taking a length of time greater than 30 minutes, has edge protection or other suitable safe guards in place

For such short duration work, on flat roofs, I have used a safety over watch system.

As well as the good practice in using ladders etc, the role of the safety man is to simply watch the man on the roof and to warn him, if he goes too close to the edge or starts to do something other than what the job plan agreed.

Perhaps you would like to see other info on this topic:
http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=20735

Posted By Descarte
Well since he said jobs would take 10 mins and are presumably infrequent, why not even affix a secure tie off point at top, ensure ladder is suitable footed, of a size to over lap roof by suitable amount, risk assess roof conditions, weather, slope, wind etc.. work distance from edges, ensure another person is supervising from below. Obviously if work is to be carried out near the edge or for longer periods of time then edge protection ect would be required and a more permanent route of access determined.

Posted By Nick Powell
Thanks for all your thoughts. I did try looking into Easi Dec, but the site is down at the moment and I'm waiting for some literature to come through.

We have a fleet of cabins out on site and it's typically the people on the site who would carry out the maintainence rather than a specific maintainence crew, so the kit has to be something that can be stored on site (without needing a yard of its own) and that is quick and simple to use.

I'm still not sure that I've found the right solution, because I definately don't want to have the hassle of bringing a cherry picker on site and although a ladder is certainly an option, the worker isn't protected from falls once he's up there (or from falling off a ladder, which we all know does happen occasionally) so I'll keep looking.

If you hear of anything, let me know.

Posted By ddraigice
Just to clarify some points made on this thread:

A ladder would be OK to access any area as long as it was tied.

The problem with short duration work is that it is not reasonably practicable to put up physical guards but that DOESN'T mean to say you don't need ANYTHING all. The wah regs is quite clear on this. The risk is so high that you cannot justify not using anything and put someones life on the line. If he's up there for 5 minutes or 5 hours, the risk of death is the same.

The idea that having one man watch the other is a control measure is not a good one. It does not physically prevent falls nor does it mitigate the consequences of a fall. As a former enforcer I would not have hesitated issuing a PN on this. What happens if the other man is distracted?

If maintenance is an ongoing issue then you should ensure that there is a mansafe system for attaching harnesses at the very minimum.

Posted By Pugwash
The safepost looks to be an interesting bit of kit and could be the answer to some of our problems too. Thanks to Nick for posting the info and keen to hear more if anyone has used it.

I am interested in the comments from ddraigice from the enforcement perspective. He/she suggests that a prohibition notice would be in order for a job taking a few minutes on a flat roof with nothing other than a ladder being used - even if there were an "overwatcher" making sure that the worker did not stray too close to the edge. It seems a bit draconian to me.

Let's take a case where there is a need to get on top of a site cabin for 2 mins to fix a 2-way radio aerial which has fallen down. The cabin is such that the "safepost" cannot be used and there is nowhere to fix a lanyard so a harness can be used. There is no cherry picker on site but there is a ladder which will provide an excellent means of access to the top of the cabin. What advice are you going to give to the site agent?

Posted By steve e ashton
Sorry,

Couldn't let that bit about five minutes / five hours having the same risk go unchallenged. Of course the risks are different! The exposure is sixty times greater in the hours case - which in every definition I've ever read, means the risk is sixty times greater.... (Except that most risk comes from getting up and getting down, so the two are not strictly directly proportional, but you know what I mean...).

That's why HSE guidance refers to short duration work - the difference in risk IS recognised in the Work at Height regs... and by (most) enforcers...

There is a real need to apply pragmatic, rather than dogmatic, safety solutions to real world problems. We must recommend sensible, proportionate precautions (as championed recently by the head of the HSE. A MEWP is not a real-world solution to the problem posed, and in my opinion any inspector offering a PN or prosecution on the basis that 'a MEWP is the only way to do it legally' would be hard put to sustain that enforcement in the face of an informed challenge.

Of course, if the work is regular, in the same location, of longer duration etc - then advice changes.

Steve

Posted By Dean Baker
Actually Safe post looks quite good.

You can argue about the risk as much as you like. The point is people are injured or die when they fall and the accident history shows us that it doesnt matter whether it is short duration work or not. There is a risk of falls. Full stop.

The term risk is defined as the possibility that someone will fall foul of a hazard. If your risk assessments are saying that the risk of falling is less just because they are near an open edge for a shorter time would sugest an ignorance of the law. You certainly can't quantify it as being 60 times greater.

The wah regs only allows short duration work from ladders. It does not say short duration work is OK where there is an open edge.

So I dont think ddraigice was saying a MEWP is the only way to do it but using nothing is not acceptable and I would personally issue a PN where no control measures have been used. Oh, and that would include an overwatch system. There are no arguments about this. It has been tested in the courts many times and I have successfully upheld quite a few appeals of notices and had successful prosecutions with short duration work and no control measures.

Posted By Darren J Fraser
Am I to understand that to patch repair a roof, I can no longer use a ladder unless tied at the top (how can I tie at the top without going up it first - therefore already at risk and incidentally at the height of the roof I want to repair, as footing is not an acceptable control measure - despite being so old a control measure my great grandfather used it (96 years old and still going up ladders)), I have to use a MEWP, therefore must hire one for a day and a fully qualified operator - cost??????????????, conduct a full plan of the work, including a survey of the health of the person (me) carrying out the work at height to ensure that they are suitable, carry out a risk assessment (No arguement from me on that one) ensure that all involved are aware of the hazards involved, may need to arrange with the local constabulary the temporary closure of the local road and diversions in place due to MEWP being so large that cannot access the yard (this is due to the fact that the leak was only discovered yesterday when it rained and the hire company has pre booked all the small MEWPS weeks ago. Have considered scaffolding, however due to the fact that a new shopping precict is in the process of being built all the scaffolding companies are involved in that, the nearest one is 50 miles away and worked out more expensive than the MEWP, due to short notice etc.

So a 5 minute job has now taken a full day to organise and cannot now be carried out as the I have gone home due to the fact that the natural light level has now dropped to a level that I feel is unsafe to carry on working and therefore we will have to go through the whole procedure again tomorrow - provided that the hire company has a MEWP avaliable.

I think I will stick to a ladder that is of a sound construction, inspected prior to use, footed and tied, and apply the common sense approach - if in doubt do not do it, employ a competent contractor with the relevant experience, training and equipment.

Posted By JAI
You mention using a mewp/

would you be looking to access the roof from the mewp, , therefore what procedures would you put in place to prevent a fall whilst exiting the mewp to the roof and back again?

Big issue on my site at the moment

Jai

Posted By ddraigice
Steve,

Look at the HSE PR database and do a search on case detail containing the word "fall". In the notice database search on immediate prohibition notice and notice summary and add "falls". There are over 300 cases and 4,630 notices issued on falls from height. Proportionate to the risks? People die. HSE issues notices and prosecutes.

You could defend your actions as much as you want but you could not state categorically that you followed the wah regs or HSG33. Trust me - if you're doing it that way then you could face at least a PN. HSE is unlikely to prosecute (but sometimes does - put a well known large DIY chain's name into the PR database search criteria) unless someone has an accident but they probably will issue a PN.

How could you defend it? Where in the regs does it say that it is OK to work on a roof for short duration with no controls? The regs are clear on the hierarchy to be used. It is reasonably practicable to use some kind of control measure - at least a work positioning harness or the safe post system or maybe something else. It is not reasonable to put someone at risk when that risk could result in death. Proportionality depends on how far dutyholders have fallen short of the law. The law does not say you can work at height with no control measures.

If someone fell (and someone could fall and this is the risk) then it is not a safe system of work. The LIKELIHOOD of falling (not the severity of the risk) may be 60 times greater as you mentioned earlier but the severity stays the same.

Just look at Advanced Safety's post near the top. HSE do issue notices for this because no control measure is no control. How do you ensure the employee does what he's supposed to and doesnt wander off elsewhere on the roof? It happens, I know I've investigated plenty of these.

If you like I could email you direct but please do not give people false information that at best leads them down the path of breaking criminal law and at worst is liable to lead to injury or death.

Darren - the regs are clear on the use of ladders. They must be secured. Yes, there is a risk tying it which must be taken into account. HSL did research which showed that footing ladders is inneffective. Your grandfather is lucky. However, 12 - 15 people die every year and thousands are injured which is why HSE's recent campaign deals with building maintenance and people who are most likely to use ladders. If it is only short duration then maybe you can work from a ladder but you still have to justify it's use. You could probably do it from a ladder and probably get away with it but I wouldnt like to be in your shoes if something did happen. And the defence that every single scaffolder in your area was busy is (not very good)mitigation at best and not a defence.

I suggest that if you are planning on working on a roof and need some advice then contact your local HSE Inspector.

Posted By Salus
sorry, should be SFAIP, not SFAIR

Posted By Nick Powell
I find all this very interesting. The differences of opinion in how best to approach getting up there and performing the job safely seem to come down to different peoples interpretation of the risk involved.

I agree that it takes too long to put up most bits of access kit, and understand that a footed ladder would have seemed to be the best route prior to the Work at Height regs.

However, following the introduction of the regs, we have told our guys to only use ladders for inspection purposes. The ladders are tied or footed and the operative never leaves the ladder.
I echo many of the thoughts posted in this thread, but can't get away from the fact that if I don't use suitable equipment we could be prosecuted, (or worse, someone could fall off).

I'm prepared to evaluate every option - as the regs say we have to - and so far, Safepost seems to be the best option I've found. To me, the part of the regs that say 'use the most appropriate equipment' means that we have to keep our eyes and ears open and be aware of every option so that we can consider it's suitability.
Forums like this are a great way of keeping informed, as when one of us finds something unique or new, it's very easy to share it with everyone else. That's why I told you about safepost - and not because I am on commision as one poster cynically suggested - and is why I continue to be interested in everyone else's suggestions.

Posted By Dean Baker
Pugwash.

You asked earlier whether or not you were wrong in your thinking on short duration work. Ddraigice is right and I hope the HSE information sheet has persuaded you that short duration work is not even remotely suggested in the regulations or in any guidance produced by HSE. It might annoy some people and I expect some outraged comments after this but that is the way it is. The reasons why have been stated already - accident stats show that work at height kills and seriously injures whether it is short duration or not.

As an inspector I have a built in radar when it comes to people working at height. If someone is working without any control measures at all then without question it is a PN. The risk of falls is too great - even if that fall risk is 2 metres or more away from where they are working. If they have had previous advice then I consider prosecution.

If I see someone with a harness my first question to them is "why are you using a harness and could something else be used?" If it's short duration then harnesses are acceptable. If it's not short duration and harnesses are used then its usually a PN as the wah regs hierarchy has not been followed.

This is not just some wildcat inspector doing things that others are not. That is why we get few appeals against this and very few "not guilty" pleas in court. The solicitors know the law and trust me, if there was an angle they could take re: short duration they would but they don't as the regs are very specific (actually the same thing applied under the construction HSW regs too).

It's interesting to see peoples misconceptions though and its maybe something HSE should take on board when drafting guidance.

However, it is a bit disconcerting to see fundamental gaps in peoples understanding of risk - for example, getting the severity of the risk and likelihood of the risk occurring mixed up.

One response above talks about proportionality and states that HSE's guidance shows that most falls occur from 2 metres or less. He then goes on to say that HSE's proportionate response to someone working higher than 2 metres would be lenient. HSE's response would be more likely to consider a PR as the risk of death is greater. More falls may occur from lower height but more deaths occur from above 2 metres.

Again these misconceptions may be something HSE needs to address.

Posted By Salus
Hi Pugwash, I do not think you will get much mileage out of the HSE on being descriptive about how you should or should not carry out your task scenario. They will just go down the same old route "carry out a risk assessment"

This is the difficulty in the real world, you have to respond quickly and probaly without adequate recourses. Imagine if the ariel was used to transmit emergency signals to hand held radio's on site and had to be working 24 / 7, yes we had procedures in place for just this event but somehow (persons on holiday/offsick )they have failed, these things happen we are not perfect,do you the safety guy say to senior management and employees working on site we now have no emergency cover to warn everyone because we have to have all this in place before we can fix this problem, they will think a fat lot of good H & S is when it cannot solve a small problem (in their eyes)like this.we cannot have this ariel working because we have to wait for a harness to be delivered and a person trained to use it, or edge protection set up, yet in the meantime lots of employees could be injured/trapped or killed. You have to make a rapid assessment of the risk. This is why H & S gets a bad name on site and in the real world. I know how I would get over the issue.

Just my thought folks

Posted By peter gotch
DD and Dean.

My experience in 12 years as an HSE Inspector was that most solicitors have minimal understanding of H&S law.

My subsequent experience which includes acting as an expert witness is that some TOP CORPORATE law firms have an excellent understanding of H&S law.

That there are very few NOT Guilty pleas [and appeals against notices] is often down to a reluctance to defend cases [with decisions often driven by insurers]or the assumption that the Inspector knows best.

The reality is the Inspector often does NOT know best. Last figure I saw was that for defended cases, HSE's conviction rate was less than 60%.

My last three.....

Edinburgh Sheriff Court. Not guilty.

Bradford Crown Court. Employer in liquidation. Guilty plea directed by insurers [should have defended appallingly weak prosecution]

Woking Magistrates Court. Not guilty on both prime charges. Magistrates convicted on risk assessment charge but not on the substance of the case. Awarded HSE £1000 costs instead of the £21000 they asked for which probably says it all.

In terms of appeals in general contractors have been known to fill in the form cos they think they are supposed to. When we rang them they explained that of course they had already complied with PN.

So in terms of operational appeals, had two in 12 years as an Inspector. Simultaneously in a situation where we were expecting them. Notices served to try and get two public bodies to sort out their longstanding debate as to who owned some dangerous utilities.

In terms of defended cases, a handful, mostly plea bargained on the day of the trial. In the witness box about five times in 12 years.

and, finally, can assure readers that not all Inspectors would be as ready to issue a Notice in the circumstances of the original posting. Have the proof beside me [extract from HSE databases] in relation to civil claim arising from a fatal accident.

Regards, Peter

Posted By Dean Baker
OK, there are a couple of points to reply to here:

Firstly, Peter, without getting into a debate over who has the biggest length of service, the point is not really what would inspectors do but what the law requires. These days the chances of HSE actually going to an accident is small anyway and of course, we don't prosecute in every case but ususally if the evidence is there we do and have a public duty to prosecute where justified. Of course in Scotland, the law is a little different and you need corroboration etc and it has to go to the pf but I think we're getting off the point - that is this forum should give the correct advice and the wah regs are clear on what action should be taken. My point was to show that peoples perceptions previously were wrong. We only issue PN's where there is risk and we use discretion even when we can issue PN's but lets not forget that falls kill more people than anything else. The likelihood of getting a notice for the situations people were talking about earlier is high.

Costs are another issue - I don't know how it works in Scotland but magistrates take into account the ability of the defendant to pay and a lot of other things are taken into account. If it was a weak a case as you suggested they would have acquitted. It's disingenuous to suggest that they were on the side of the defendant when they found him guilty. Just giving limited facts about cases is not helpful. All are different and even fatal accidents can be accidents and not someone fault. (Despite the idea in previous postings that we look to blame someone for eveything that is not true)

Salus, I don't know of a HSE inspector who says "do a risk assessment" where the guidance is very clear on what control measures you should use. Maybe you were talking to HSE infoline (which is only contracted to HSE) or complaints officers - and that is not to devalue in anyway those people as some are very knowledgable. That said, not all inspectors know everything so it may well have been an inspector you talked to. Oh, and on that point, you can do all the risk assessments you want to but if they dont follow the guidance then all the risk ratings and severity times likelihood scores that you produce showing that it is, in your view, low risk don't count for squat. You have to show that you are doing what the guidance says or equivalent.

Stupendous man seems to have misunderstood the term "planning". Its not meant to be a long term plan but the idea is that you just don't do the easy thing and go up there on a ladder without deciding on the best kit for the job. You must sit down and work out the best means of access taking account of the hierarchy and the duration of the job. No job is that vital that you have to send someone up there that second to sort something out... which leads me to finally,

Neil's qestion a few postings back asked how should it be done.

So OK, its an aeriel that is vital to the safety of all on site (I guess this is worse case scenario and not what Neil had in mind). You could probably go up there for short duration work and not have an accident but just consider the questions should someone have an accident:

If this kit is vital and maintenance on it is forseeable (as is it's initial fixing to the top of the roof), why was it placed in an area where falls cannot be controlled? Why wasn't this planned in advance? What other kit is available in emergencies and if it is so vital why are you relying on this one piece of kit?

Why wasnt a system like the safe post invested in, or why wasnt a MEWP ordered from the hire shop just an hour away? There can be no justification in the event of an accident that someone was put at risk when simple alternatives are cheap and effective. [For a leak on the roof the point would be that maintenance is not an unforeseen event and it should have been planned for. We're talking about serious, debilitating injuries here and possibly death and even the least debilitating injuries cause devastating effects on peoples lives, mortgages and their ability to feed their children (actually there is a big issue at the moment with cabin deliveries and untying the chains which HSE is working on with the industry but thats a whole other thread).]

You also have to consider the fact that a PR is likely should HSE turn up and investigate. Not definite, just likely. A statement from the IP saying that he was asked to work on the roof with no control measures, a statement from the site manager saying there is no policy for working at height on the cabin or that the policy says that working with no control is acceptable, a quick PACE interview and Little Martha from the job centre is your only work mate or (if the police are involved) Big Bert may be your cell mate.

What would the defence be if someone fell? If someone fell then it was not a safe system of work.

Also the civil claim will probably be a bigger issue than any fine the magistrates court will dish out, your insurance goes up and there'll be cats and dogs living together and all other awful stuff going on.

So, my last posting on this is - do it without controls if you want. Chances are, you'll get away with it - but if you are unlucky do you trust someone enough not to sue your company for every penny it has?

Posted By Dean Baker
Hmm,

Does one work as an expert for the defence, Peter?
The number of PR's are down as the number of investigations are down (as is the number of accidents).

Where there is an investigation and the evidence is there, usually we proescute. I'm not saying we usually prosecute where there is an accident. Of course, the stats are for the whole of HSE - not construction division. Yes, the chances are, as Peter has pointed out, you could get away with it even if you had an accident but there is also a chance that you'd need Peter's help in court. Accident history shows that short duration work also leads to injuries... (I'm repeating myself here and even I'm sick of it!)

Its good to see you aren't putting your neck on the line and saying that its acceptable to work with no control measures though, Peter.

I've said what should be done from a (current) enforcers point of view and if you chose to take the advice then my time hasnt been wasted. If not, good luck. As Peter has said, plenty of people do get away without having an accident.