Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Question to the Scaffolding Fraternity.
Re: Statutory Scaffold Inspections.
As stated in the Regulations the definition of a visual Inspection is comparatively straightforward.
However, Question... can anyone give me a more in depth definition as to the requirements of a more rigorous Inspection as stated in and therefore required by the Regulations.
Moreover, what elements would one incorporate within a " more rigorous " Inspection ?
Regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Are you referring to Schedule 7 (w.r.t. Reg12) of the Work at Height Regulations? This can be viewed at the opsi website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By james mc
Hi Garry
As a scaffolder for over 11 yrs My comments to You would be to contract someone in or a company. To carry out your weekly scaffolding inspections especially if your dealing with any sort of beams or great heights. the reason I say this is I attended the 2 day scaffold inspection course with C.I.T.B a few years back and the feedback from site/contract managers who attended was they new no more than when they started the course also most commented they did not like the responsibility.
hope this helps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Youel
A mechanical-fabrication engineers / structural engineers inspection is not the same as a scaffolders inspection - its much deeper and goes into many other areas
speak to one of the scaffolding organisations for more info
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Ron,
Firstly thank-you for your response to my Question,
Indeed these are the very Regulations that I refer to in my Question.
I mearly wish to seek clarification to the wording "more rigorous", the dictionary defines as "careful and complete".
Post visual Inspection dose "more rigorous" imply a physical Inspection ?.
Regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi James,
I am also a Scaffold Erector, 35 years before the mast and still surf the steel on occasion.
Thank-you for your response to my question, I concur with the content of your answer, the day and a dinner CITB Inspection courses have been aired on this forum recently.
I have raised this Question with Peer group members and various Scaffolding Organisations.
Are the Regulations implying that a more rigorous Inspection should include a physical Inspection of the Scaffold Structure, i.e. Safety Surveys, viza vi component parts conform to Statutory allotted torque values, ect...
As a brother Scaffolder I would welcome you thoughts.
Fraternal regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi Bob,
Scaffold Design Engineers are recruited from within the Engineering Professions you have mentioned in your reply.
I have collaborated with numerous Scaffold Design Engineers and continue to develop not only the software to enhance the generation of Working Drawings my associated and I are producing loss Prevention Strategies which will improve the Reliability and Integrity or Scaffolding Structures.
Recent data has revealed that on average 33% of Scaffolding component parts were found to be in breach of the Statutory Torque value requirements.
Remedial and Corrective Loss Prevention measures are afoot to address this breach.
That is why I raised the Question , is it prudent to conduct physical Inspections ?,is this the "more rigorous" Inspection the Regulations refer too?.
Regards, Garry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Merchant
People are getting confused by the applicability of WAHR(12). It covers far more than scaffolding (ladders, guard-rails, barriers, nets, all PFPE, rope access equipment, etc.) and so it cannot and intentionally does not define "inspection" in any detail - because inspection of a harness is totally different to inspection of scaffolding.
WAHR(12)3 defines what is required as the outcome of an inspection, namely that the "health and safety conditions are maintained", and WAHR(12)10 simply makes the point that achieving this will require different things to be done, according to the type of equipment being inspected. Some may need load-testing, some may need X-rays, some may need a quick sideways glance from a small child. There's no NEED to do more than a visual inspection if a visual inspection can achieve the aims of (12)3.
In terms of scaffolding, assuming it meets all the Schedule 2[a] construction and design clauses and hasn't been modified on-site, then there would be no foreseeable reason to re-do the structural calculations each week, and a visual check to confirm it's still "as plan" would be fine. If things are found to be suspect then more work is needed to achieve (12)3, but what that work may be depends on what the inspector has discovered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Garry Adams
Hi David,
I quite agree with your comments contained within your opening paragraph.
Indeed, people are confused and therefore questions are raised and clarification sought.
"more rigorous" is akin to "as far as is reasonably practicable" or how long is a piece of string.
The lack of careful and complete instructions prohibit generic conformity and opens loop holes to breaches.
However, in terms of Statutory Scaffolding Inspections.
As aforementioned the Visual Inspection is a control measure that, reviews and monitors the configuration, permutation and correlation of the component parts of the Scaffolding Structure in relation to the Engineering calculations. This Inspection reveals the overt breaches.
It is the covert breaches that are of concern,
i.e. the manual application of a Scaffold Component part to a Structure by its very nature is rather like Russian Roulette.
In the interest of Health, Safety and Quality Assurance the Integrity and Reliability of the Scaffolding Structure This hit or miss (over/under torque value) practice has to be addressed.
Scaffolding Organisations now recognise the above mentioned issues and in the interest of controlling partial and catastrophic collapses a few Prime movers within the Industry are creating and implementing control measures in an attempt to eliminate this breach of Statutory Requirements.
These control measures have been devised from in-house initiatives, unfortunately there are other Scaffolding organisations whom wish to carry on regardless...they adopt the attitude of why waste time , money and effort on Safety Surveys.."more rigorous ?" Bah humbug..
Bottom line is if there are no careful and complete instructions contained within Regulations, People will remain confused and blind to there obligations, and in turn ,as Plato so eloquently defined an accident.
Quote, That which happens blindly without intelligent design, End Quote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.