I have been asked to compile a RAMS to cover the use of a goods hoist on a construction site to lower an injured person to the ground. The only information I can find just states that the hoist must be compliant. Surely in an emergency it would be safer to use the hoist rather than try and carry them down a staircase. Thoughts please......

Look at this from an insurance perspective, add to that take it to court in your head. Now if you come out with this is still a good idea then you are either not experienced enough or you are not qualified enough. I'm not meaning to sound harsh here but this to me is a red flag recipe for disaster and you need to have a proper plan to rescue people who may become ill or injured and this is not a proper plan.

Go seek the advice of an evacuation company I won't recommend one cos I'm pretty sure that is outside of what you're allowed to do here but feel free to DM me. Those things are not just for fire I have put plenty of students in them for the ambulance service. That sounds bad doesn't it.......

Originally Posted by: kmason83

Look at this from an insurance perspective, add to that take it to court in your head.

Think we have those aspects covered by 2015 legislation under The Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act (SARAH).

Is it ideal?

The answer is an emphatic NO but this IS a construction site and a similar argument could be used for evacuation by crane hoist as "available means".

Is it an option?

Given relative circumstances very much so either for descent to ground or ascent to a roof for helicopter evacuation.

In any new build or refurbishment the stairwell may not be "finished" e.g. missing hand rails meaning an evac chair itself could place those trying to use it at elevated risk. Yes there should be protections in place but there are those moments when temporary provision is removed to permit permanent installation - you can't expect medical episodes to not happen at what could be the most inconvenient times.

I never mentioned evac chair I said evac company and that they are not just for fire. Just on this a chair isn't your only option there are tons of different bits of kit and in my experience people that may need them never ever want to use any of them. 

I genuinely can't tell if you are being sarcastic with the SARAH comment because I'm pretty sure that's not a defense in court (if it is I would love to see how that plays out and it would definitely set a new precedent) against failing to properly plan an emergency escape and that's what this is - writing RAMS to use a goods hoist as evac for and injured person is planning emergency evac in a very cutting corners without doing your research kind of way. I'm not an expert in these systems but I have seen them in operation on building sites in crawl spaces in theatre gantries and fly floors.

I'm pretty sure this person isn't writing RAMs whilst someone is bleeding out it reads like planning so if something happens and it goes to court what is the first thing the prosecution will say - Was this lift designed for carrying people - no me lud case closed squeaky bum time. 

So if you are not going to think about insurance and court rooms, in the age of insurance and court rooms where you will get torn through to pieces (please g its fascinating the expert witness bit is equally as thrilling as the public bench or the jury box) if this doesn't cross your mind whilst you are being asked for a work around and planning one then when are you going to think about the consequences moral, legal, financial?  

KM - it is VERY common for risk assessments to default to the worst case consequence which is almost invariably at least one dead body per hazard/risk.

But some risks consistently produce more severe consequences and one of them is STAIRS.

Now even if the temporary handrails have not been removed for entirely justifiable reasons as set out in Roundtuit's response, imagine the headlines in the print any good story media.

Helpful workmate A is assisting injured person B down five flight of stairs using some evacuation equipment. Workperson C is climbing up the stairs carrying three lengths of wooden skirting, gets caught by the wind and the skirting swings round hits A who lets go of evacuation equipment and already injured B goes tumbling down the stairs and is killed or injured to a greater severity than before being moved.

Company Safety Manager explains that "We have 'Golden Rules' one of which is that anyone using stairs must hold on to a handrail at ALL times".

"Clearly, A could not possibly have held on to the handrail when moving the evacuation equipment and B wouldn't be able to either. Nobody consulted the Safety Department before agreeeing to the use of evacuation equipment to move a casualty".

"They could have easily moved the casualty using the hoist which was on site, with MUCH less risk."

Now in my earlier post I DID comment that what would be "reasonably practicable" would depend on the circumstances and decisions on what is or is not "reasonably practicable" should be adjudged on what the person doing the assessment should have known at the time - NOT with hindsight. It says so in the relevant case law.

No, suppose they are building a block of flats, the design may well include for the installation of one or more permanent passenger lifts and it might well be "reasonably practicable" to commission these relatively early in the construction programme (i.e. MUCH earlier than is often the case - "we didn't want to dirty the brand new lift, My Lud" - to which the retort might be "You could have provided protection to the internal surfaces of the lift").

BUT, we DON'T know the circumstances that the original poster refers to, so we cannot possibly tell what is or is not reasonably practicable without much more information.

However, we can conclude that using the goods lift is probably a much safer option than trying to maneouvre a casualty down the stairs using whatever standard evacuation equipment at a BUILDING SITE.

You might well say that person C shouldn't be carrying skirtings up the stairs but this sort of thing is just one of the many things that people do on stairs at a BUILDING SITE, however well managed, and it is just one of a 1000+ ways that might result in A and B not safely descending the stairs.

Now, if the safe working load of the goods lift is insufficient for the load of A + B plus some "plant" (within the meaning of HSWA) then it probably isn't fit for the purpose it has been installed - to lift and lower much heavier loads.

I've been pushed down stairs (as the guinea pig to let a trainer user put their training into practice) in an Evac Chair when a fire alarm has sounded.

One of the things I could be reasonably confident about would be that there would be nobody climbing UP the stairs carrying anything such as to present risk to me B or A helping me down.

Whenever deciding what is reasonably practicable you have to consider the NEW risks that whatever mitigation is being thought about will introduce into the equation.