Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Eddie Campbell
I used to think that Fred Dibnah was a tad on the rough side at times with some of his work. Especially in the modern age that we live in.
His methods of chimney demolition certainly amazed me when I first saw them on the television. I thought that with his passing some of the old ways would have gone with him. Bless his cotton socks and wellies.
Then an old colleague sent me these photos that I have posted here.....
http://freespace.virgin....Stuff/Demolition%20Work/
I really would like to see their method statements and risk assessments. Perhaps we could adopt some of the methodologies for other similar contracts?
Does anybody recognise this job?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alan Nicholls
Hi Eddie
I must say I think Fred Dibnah's way was better.
I think this way is a tad DANGEROUS. Does the driver have a parachute I wonder, or maybe he is one of those Extreme sports fanatics.
If it ain't got wings you wont get me that far off the ground.
Keep them coming
Regards Alan N
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter MacDonald
Is it that dangerous? The usual way of felling is explosive demolition that essentially accurately displaces a section of brick instataneously (rather than over time by burning suporting timber the way Fred did). However the chimney needs somewhere to land and in this case there may not be enough room. The other traditional method is the steeplejack floating scaffold but this has quite onereous access by way of external or internal open chimney ladders to the working area and the complexity of moving the scaffold down as the chimney height decreases. You,re then stuck with many men working at height manually breaking the wall with hand tools or air powered demi-picks. HAV, and Manual Handling regs requirments make this almost impossible to do now given trigger times. And the fact you're men are working at a leading edge for long periods.
If you consider that the pictures do not show a cheap method, given the size of crane being used and the bespoke construction of the tripod it suggests some element of thought and engineering input. The excavator may have been modified too for rigging.
It may not look safe (and it didn't to me at first) but it may be a tried and tested method. Just because we've never seen something before doesn't make it dangerous or unsafe even if it looks that way. No-one is having to climb the chimney, no-one is exposed to a fall. Principle support is the tripod on a thick brickwork wall, secondary fall protection from the crane etc. Compared to the alternatives it might just be the best way.
I would love to see the MS, RA and the engineering justification for the solution though.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave McIness
I have to agree with Peter on this one. A little bit of lateral thinking has certainly been applied here, though I hope the machine operator does not drink too much coffee!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Are you sure this isn't more an example of photoshop than demolition? Photo 2 certainly looks fake to me, though the others look OK,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Mac
Intersting indeed, but I have to wonder at the mentality of those working in the vicinity close to the base.
The welfare facilities could be questionable for the operator!!
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter MacDonald
Went back to look at the photos. Well worth clicking on the parent directory and having a look at the PPE section, which is funny if it wasn't so sad. The transport accident one looks fake though.... I just cant get the pictures from the top of the bridge and the carnage underneath to tie up, particularly if you try and work out the direction of travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Eddie Campbell
The links to the chimney demolition were posted to get some discussions going on the subject of demolition safety. To the best of my knowledge they are genuine.
Yesterday I spoke with a representative of the company that manufactures some of the equipment being used in the photos. He tells me that his company were familiar with the operation and that it had taken place in Spain. I tried Googling for some further information but no luck so far. Perhaps some of our Spanish friends can shed some light on the subject.
The other photos Peter has referred to were linked to in my posts on this site on the last two Fridays. Similarly they were posted to generate discussion on the respective subjects on the forum.
The PPE photo has been in circulation in the Oil and Gas industry for several weeks and is probably familiar to some folks. It was certainly not intended to be humorous in any way. It just illustrates what goes on in some of the ship repair facilities in other parts of the world. To the best of my knowledge and that of the colleague who sent it to me it is a genuine photograph.
The transportation photos came from a colleague in the States. He tells me that it is not an uncommon occurrence on their highways over there due to differing standards in different states. Sometimes it is due to a lack of planning and care.
Neither he nor I can absolutely guarantee that the photos are genuine but he tells me that he, like I, accepted them on face value. They were used in a presentation on heavy equipment transportation safety and certainly got some responses from the attendees.
I have used some free space that came with my ISP some years ago and has never been used for anything. It is only 10 megabytes in size so it has pretty restricted uses.
I had hoped to use this space to generate discussion on some out of the ordinary safety related issues on a Friday when everybody is fed up with the paper cuts and office temperature problems.
Eddie
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.