If you take the key from the ignition what powers the FLT to raise / lower the cage?

So during raising / lowering the various controls are back in to play exactly the opposite of the intention

The manufacturer or supplier of your FLT should be able to supply you a device that locks off the side and tilt controls. It is what we do here. It still requires the operator to engage the lock mechanism when using a NIWP.

Let's take this back to basics. Why are using a man-lifting cage in the first place? These systems are inherently difficult to manage. You mention that the cage is examined under LOLER, but what about the FLTs? The LOLER requirements for their lifting mechanism on all the FLTs that could be used with the cage will need to be 6 monthly. not 12 monthly as they could now be used to lift people, not just loads. What training has been given to the FLT drivers on how to use the cage safety, as this is not covered in standard FLT driver training? What training is given to the operator in the cage? What about the provision of restriants to the workers in the cage? etc., etc.,etc.

The bottom line is man-lifting cages for FLTs are never a good solution. If you can use a man-lifting cage, you can use a scissors lift or the cherry-picker. Either of these must be a better option.

Rather than spending so much time working out how to make the man-lifting cage work, I'd go back to the risk assessment and seriously review the SFRP decision that found a man-lifting cage was a suitable system to use to get to height in the first place.

And yes, I hate the idea of man-lifting cages! They should be banned as their availability leads to non-competent people undertaking high risk work unaware of true risks involved. I wish all users of man-lifting cages were as well-informed as the originator of this post (sorry I can't see the original post as I type this). This person is unfortunately the exception, rather than the rule.

Rant over (it is Friday).

Tony.

Originally Posted by: antbruce001

Rather than spending so much time working out how to make the man-lifting cage work, I'd go back to the risk assessment and seriously review the SFRP decision that found a man-lifting cage was a suitable system to use to get to height in the first place.

So thanks to revised sentencing guidelines the cost of hiring in a scissor lift becomes null & void.

There is however the balance (for the most obvious use) on being able to change a blown lightbulb or leaving the area in the dark for however long it takes to place the order to have the equipment delivered to site, and subsequently removed!

This type of activity could of course be conducted from podium steps providing the set suitable for the required height(s) can be readily positioned in the required area.

Then there are those jobs where a scissor lift cannot access the area under the task and a cherry picker is too big to enter the area.

When you look to workplaces with varying working heights this requires significant capital investment not only in the equipment but suitable storage and inspection.

Tony

I think that albeit without going into the detail of their risk assessment, Drew has set out the key elements of why this cage is being used and WHY it is NOT reasonably practicable to use something inherently safer which would either need to be bought outright and stored/maintained ete etc OR hired in as required.

.....and if we were going into the detail leaving the workplace in darkness whilst the MEWP is hired to change the light bulb forms part of the downsides in the assessment of whether that MEWP hire is reasonably practicable.

We can't spend our whole lives thinking "If there is an accident, there is likely to be a prosecution" as nothing would get done!

Sometimes HSE is its own worst enemy. It publishes guidance using words that are not in the law as in this case "impractical", says we have to be "proportionate" (fair enough as that word IS a paraphrase of whichevder case law on "reaonable practicability" you wish to follow) in what we do, but then repeatedly fails to explain what it thinks WOULD have been reasonably practicable when taking cases to Court, perhaps having become over complacent as a result of Section 40 of HSWA (for the less legal eaglish that's the Section which puts the onus on the defence to show that further measures were NOT reasonably practicable).

....and for MY Friday rant, it has been particularly galling when HSE has published Press Releases after prosecutions which have stated things which are at odds with the facts as presented in Court.