Posted By patrick carr hi adam scaffolders are not exempt from the wahr 2005, it is normal policy for scaffolders to wear safety harnesses at all times, however in your post you stated "many were not harnessed". so some were wearing harnesses,at what height were the scaffolders, not wearing harnesses ? and were they inside a boarded handrailed scaffold ? i look forward to your reply. best regards paddy

Posted By Dave Merchant The 'clearance' concept is sensible, but usually people implementing the policy fail to understand what it actually means. If you're using a fall arrest lanyard, it's possible for you to need several metres of clearance below you in order for the fall to be arrested without the person impacting the ground. It's actually up to 6m, not 4m, but the point still stands. Using a lanyard with 2m of slack when you're 1m above the floor is utterly useless. HOWEVER The procedures you're referring to don't say "below 4m you don't need anything" - they say "below 4m you need SOMETHING ELSE". It may be another harness-based solution such as a retractor block, or it may be rails, netting or airbags. It has to be something as the WAHR have no concept of a minimum height for fall protection.

Posted By patrick carr Hi all Jason, you say 'Their method statements tell you harness must be worn and fixed, but do require 4m clearence', (fixed)? Hi Dave, with all due respect,6m clearence:- SG4:05 Question paper "A"- Q) 11. At what height should scaffolders clip on? A) When there is a anchor point at 4m or more above the scaffold base/ground. Dave, 'using a lanyard with 2m of slack....' Q) 6. What is recommended in SG4:05 as the maximun length of fall arrest lanyard that should be used by scaffolders? A) 1.75mm scenario A you have secured a year contract,to erect scaffolding for the renewal of hipped roofs,(no peaks).The roof tiling contractor,requires a 1.8m scaffold with a foot tie, as all the properties are bungalows, would you require your scaffolders to wear full body harness on-site? scenario B You have secured a contract to scaffold a cathedral, to base out the job,will take 2 weeks,do you require your scaffolders to wear harnesses? Every lift is 2m you board out the 1st lift from the ground, secure your ladder, then progressively install handrails,traversing to the maximun length of material used to install the next section of guardrail,would you make them wear their harness? or would we be placing air-bags all round the cathedral? Q) 4. In accordance with SG4,how do you reduce the risk of a fall whilst traversing? A) Install a single guardrail. Wearing of a full body harness whilst erecting scaffolding for long periods,is a most uncomfortable experience,however we wear them when we have to,after all it's a regulation,however zero tolerance of caught without wearing them, as in the scenarios i have mentioned, is what gives people like myself and Health & Safety professionals a bad reputation of a blinkered approach to the situation.Right off for a pint. best regards paddy ps forgot to take my harness off for the pub.

Posted By Dave Merchant *sigh* First point - SG4 is not a law, or even an approximation to one. It's guidance, and in places very poorly-worded guidance. The WAHR is the law. It says you must prevent "any fall liable to cause injury". Falling from 2m onto a concrete surface, an adult human will typically experience a deceleration force of 48G. From 4m that rises to about 95G. Traumatic brain injury is almost certain in an event exceeding 40G. One-third of all fatal falls in the UK workplace is from below 2m. Nowhere, at any point now or in the past, has the HSE or UK law ever said a 4m fall "is OK". Second point - Fall arrest lanyards can be up to 2m in length end-to-end before deployment. A 1.75m lanyard is more common as it matches user height, but during a fall the slack take-up on harness webbing adds an extra 25cm onto the total distance of travel, so you still have a 2m effective length. Third point - it's perfectly possible for a person using a 1.75m lanyard to connect it to a point at foot level (not sensible, but perfectly possible, especially during construction of scaffolding where higher anchors are not available). They will therefore free-fall 1.75m before the lanyard receives tension, plus a further 0.25m in harness take-up. The energy absorber in a 1.75m lanyard has a total deployment length of 1.75m, giving a total distance from the anchor point to the casualty's ribcage of 3.75m - onto which you must add the length of their body, so their feet arrive at 5.5m without any safety factors. In guidance for fall arrest there should be at least 0.5m of free clearance below that point to allow for movement in the anchor point, so anyone who thinks 4m is still safe may want to think again, or jump off and see what happens. I hear the NHS has good food these days, assuming you are still able to swallow.

Posted By patrick carr Morning all Dave, i've just read my product information booklet from Ridgegear, who supply our fall arrest equipment, EN 361, EN 355 page 13, During use, bullet point 9 :- Clearence below the operator should be a minimun of 5.75m for a 2m absorbing lanyard,this is the potential extension plus operator body length. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, for bringing this to my attention, i will bring this up at our next H&S meeting (2 weeks time). best regards, paddy

Posted By Garry Adams Just show that your never to old to learn. I for one appreciate the information both Technical and advisory which have been posted by fellow Forum Members...and in particular...I refer to Paddy, Dave and Bob.it can be like a mine Field ...trying to negotiate through the various directives required to stay in compliance. H&S really is a life long learning curve. Take your eye of the ball for a moment and its went through your legs, lol. Best regards to all, Garry...

Posted By Garry Adams EEmmm Im confused.com Firstly, with regard to the content of the WAHR and their place within the hierarchy of requirements. I acknowledge that the WAHR are the prime requirements for working at height, however, they do not give specific practical instructions on how a particular discipline should take appropriate steps as how to comply. Control measures to prevent falls from height developed from the content of the WAHR at the core, guidance notes are then applied to put flesh on the bones ...so to speak...I accept that NASC guidance notes are a valuable addendum to the WAHR, given that these Guidance notes have been SANGTIONED by the HSE...Until the wording of the H.A.S.A.W.A and enabled Regulations give clear and concise instructions, (as is reasonably practicable) will be interpreted as a liaise fare and open to different interpretations. Perhaps a more Autocratic stance by Government would yield a more responsive result to compliance A response from a member of the HSE or indeed a member of the NASC H&S or Technical Committees may clarify matters. Any takers Gentlemen ?. Garry...

Posted By Dav Gary The discrepancy i had with the two differing pieces of advice has been raised to the HSE through the MCG and the feedback i have is that the HSE may be reviewing their support of SG4:05 in light of the discrepancy. Wouldnt hold your breath on any decision in the near future though.

Posted By Garry Adams Dav I concur, constant vigilance and monitoring is required...Guidance notes are in constant flux given the new technologies available as an aide to compliance to the Core requirements stated in the H.A.S.A.W.A....addendum's and re-writes are common place. however, given that the HSE and NASC collaborate to develop Loss Prevention Strategies, one would have thought that the HSE would have picked up on the discrepancies during the initial draughting of the latest version/series of guidance...then again no one is infallible. You were quite right to raise concerns. Regards, Garry...

Posted By Garry Adams Paddy Just the info Iv been looking for ...you beat me to the punch M8...thanks Fraternal regards, Garry...

Posted By patrick carr Hi Dave, thanks for that, the 'Barracuda'seems like a good bit of kit. regards paddy

Posted By raymondoscaff hi all, another good consructive debate by all participants, As a SG4.05 instructor I find this of most interest, it is clear that you all identify with the guidance in this training as flawed. You would be correct to interpret this ,this way. SG4.05 training is a minimum st'd, but does allow a degree of being "reasonably practicable", however this as said in this thread could leave some being exposed to falling whilst traversing + liable to prosecution from HSE. NASC must ammend this potential failure of a otherwise well intended ACOP for scaffolders working @ Height

Posted By Kirsty Davies2 Thanks guys Welldone for your quick and prompt response. Have a good weekend.

Posted By patrick carr Hi Garyjr Great post,sorry to learn of your fall. Nick you might want to also look at http://www.iosh.co.uk/in...iew&forum=1&thread=40049 for some additional cross reference material, regarding SG4:05 Appendix A Regards Paddy

Posted By Hossam Hi with respect to all contributors.. from Adam's post..I understand that his main inquiry is about scaffolders & harnesses in general not only the minimum clearance for harness use!!.. from experience.. the dilemma of scaffolders & harnesses usually comes from the absence of having an above head anchorage point..for that I totally recommend Dave's piece of advice "it's perfectly possible for a person using a 1.75m lanyard to connect it to a point at foot level (not sensible, but perfectly possible, especially during construction of scaffolding where higher anchors are not available) Hossam

Posted By patrick carr Hi All Garry some interesting observations there regarding 'Abseiling Techniques'(Food for Thought). This thread originated on 24.04.2008 by Adam P, it ran till 6.05.2008. The thread was reopened by Raymondoscaff on 10.11.2008. As the majority of us know,NASC in the meantime had produced SG4:05 Appendix A 'Interim Guidance on Collective Fall Prevention systems in scaffolding' A further development within this time span, was the HSE Guidance on Scaffolding structures that need to be Designed. Will the 'Designers' of these Bespoke Scaffold structures, also be responsible for RA,SSOW or method statements, regarding the application of 'Advanced Guardrails' alternate means of collective fall protection, powered access etc ? Paddy

Posted By garyjr Paddy, you asked a very good question i.e. will the designers be responsible for Risk Assessments, Method Statements and Safe Systems of Work for bespoke structures? As far as I am aware the answer to that question is yes. CDM Regs Part 3 18 (2) under Additional Duties of Designers - 'The designers shall take all reasonable steps to provide with his design sufficient information about aspects of the design of the structure or its construction or maintenance as will adequately assist the CDM co-ordinator to comply with his duties under these regs, including his duties in relation to the health and safety file'. I am by no means an expert on all the CDM regulations but I think there are additional requirements contained within the CDM Regs which impose a duty on the main client to ensure these things are in place. New Guidance will cover all basic scaffolding configurations including wall scaffolds fully boarded and top lift only, towers and birdcages but designers should be supplying method statements and Risk Assessments for bespoke structures. My own prediction for how things will develop going by the requirements of the WAHR's is this: Avoiding working at height is often not possible but where you have to build a scaffold, designers or their support personnel should be looking at ways of 'preventing' the risk of fall in the first instance by looking at 'collective equipement/ advanced guardrails, however if they feel this bespoke structure cannot be built using advanced guardrails, then they must look further down in the heirarchy of measures. The next stage down Reg 7 (a) would be using P.P.E in a way which prevents the risk of fall but these types of harnesses are not recommended for scaffolders because they restrict movement, however as long as there is no danger of falling objects or anyone working above the scaffolder while wearing these body restraints (which I think answers Garry Adams question) then they can still be considered. The next stage down would be Reg 6 (5)(a)(i) minimise the distance using 'collective equipment' i.e. safety nets and that sort of thing at foot height, tied to the scaffold. This however is not always very practical and again a rescue plan is required but it does offer collective protection. The next stage down would go back to Reg 7 (a) Current Industry Practice SG4:05 Minimise the distance using P.P.E. In other words the types of harnesses currently being used, which do still allow a fall to occur but eventually they deploy. The 2nd last option is Reg 6 (5)(a)(ii)to minimise the consequences using 'collective equipment' air bags or some kind of crash mat, which will very seldom be an option unless there is no activity down below (I think this option is really only for people jumping out of burning buildings). The final option is Reg 6(5)(b) minimise the consequences through training and instruction, which when you look carefully at the 3T Method for building aluminium towers, you will find interesting. I am not going to name any companies or products but there is an organisation called SA-FE (Safe Access - Fall Elimination)which gives great advice on the collective protection options available and Clive knows more about safe working at height than anyone else I know. The people on this forum looking at harness and body restraint options for scaffolders are looking at the wrong options. They only protect the individual, they don't collectively protect. Therefore they require a great deal of observation and safety monitoring, in comparison to advanced guardrails which are both higher up in the heirarchy of measures and can clearly be seen from ground level. Sorry my post was so long but this is a very complex subject and until the new guidance on collective options goes to print, it will remain complicated.