Impact wrench banning by the NASC?

Remember then " cotton" fittings , seen a double break in half being thrown of the lorry , they where like to half's of a double with a tack weld to hold them together
Never had any problems as yet with the "presco" doubles , but a massive supplier was selling kite marked drop forged doubles that a lot of the nut threads where stripping themselves after a few uses
I have always loved the Boulton " sticky Wille " doubles when there tight they stay tight .
 
i remember the cotton fittings and yes had one snap in half - usually distributed by HC Hills in london (long gone) Lil coupler

Cottons also used to stretch as well i recall and the singles didnt hold a 5ft to good
 
I dont mind a Boulton, but I think a lot scaffs dont like them. stickies is defo the right name for them.
 
Ive only ever seen one presco that had failed, but it was one that was part of the rack on the back of an 18 tonner. Had been there for a good couple of years and probably loaded to to the max all the time.
 
NASC Comment

NASC comment published on their website for anyone who hasn't seen it -



Impact Wrenches

The NASC has been asked to comment on the use of impact wrenches during the erection/dismantling of scaffold.

The NASC would advise members as follows:

The recommended force needed to tighten a fitting is 50 N/mtr as stated in EN 74. Some wrenches have a minimum setting that is greater than this recommended figure. Therefore there is a risk that a fitting could be over tightened causing damage to the fitting if the wrench is used to its extreme.

Members should note that the use of impact wrenches should be the same as other items of plant and this should entail a period of training, familiarisation and monitoring, to ensure that the wrench is being used in the correct manner at all times.

It should also be noted that during the latter stages of battery life the wrenches may in some cases give insufficient force to adequately tighten fittings.

The NASC recognises that these wrenches do offer certain benefits, including speed and reduction of potential RSI problems but would advise members and users of such equipment that there is a potential for concern over the use and operation and as such each member should adequately access the risk for their own particular situation and ensure that they put in place protocols to cover and ensure safe use.

a.Assessment
b.Training
c.Familiarisation
d.Monitoring

The NASC will keep this matter open and issue more information as it becomes available.



NASC News
 
Nice one Mark, seems like a risk assessment and tool box talks should be sufficient, Paddy will be pleased.

---------- Post added at 11:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ----------

I wonder who I can get to do the training?
 
Yes, interesting thread Mark. Maximum exposure to noise levels without protection will be factored in. Also other trades and distance come into the equation. Appropriate ear protection will be required. 92 db = half an hour per day unprotected. As reported by Flinty his iw runs at 94db. Site managers will have a field day with this.
 
Both the safety doc and the health doc out of those S.T.A.R.S files state correctly that the scaffolder cannot know if he's got the correct torque and the IW will make sure that it is correct , have we suddenly reached the stage in the history of scaffolding that we cannot be trusted anymore to do our job ?

The safety doc suggests its morally acceptable to thrust the burden of reponsibility onto the operative to achieve the correct torque QUOTE "GIVEN THAT THE CONVENTIONAL SCAFFOLDING SPANNER USED IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE"
The "Health doc states that we play , QUOTE "RUSSIAN ROULETTE" and rely on "GUESSWORK" AND THE SUPER IW will end this scenario
The FISCAL doc then says , QUOTE " The organisations which use the conventional unregulated manually operated scaffolding spanner will have to conform or lose business"
I couldnt bring myself to read the rest of these documents , These documents could not be any more biased towards IW if they tried , almost as if they were written by the person with a majority shareholding in the company who makes them , i couldnt even read any more of the thread so i apologize if stating things others have pointed out already


Although theres been very good and valid reasons for IW in this thread , these documents are well , i dont want to say what i think they are , where did they come from ?
i just joined the S.C.C.R , WHAT IS THEIR STANCE ON THIS MATTER ?
and it seems to me this will mostly affect england and not so much scotland and where does this come into the equation when the push is for systems to rule anyway ?
 
Last edited:
stleger said:
Both the safety doc and the health doc out of those S.T.A.R.S files state correctly that the scaffolder cannot know if he's got the correct torque and the IW will make sure that it is correct , have we suddenly reached the stage in the history of scaffolding that we cannot be trusted anymore to do our job ?

The safety doc suggests its morally acceptable to thrust the burden of reponsibility onto the operative to achieve the correct torque QUOTE "GIVEN THAT THE CONVENTIONAL SCAFFOLDING SPANNER USED IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE"
The "Health doc states that we play , QUOTE "RUSSIAN ROULETTE" and rely on "GUESSWORK" AND THE SUPER IW will end this scenario
The FISCAL doc then says , QUOTE " The organisations which use the conventional unregulated manually operated scaffolding spanner will have to conform or lose business"
I couldnt bring myself to read the rest of these documents , These documents could not be any more biased towards IW if they tried , almost as if they were written by the person with a majority shareholding in the company who makes them , i couldnt even read any more of the thread so i apologize if stating things others have pointed out already


Although theres been very good and valid reasons for IW in this thread , these documents are well , i dont want to say what i think they are , where did they come from ?
i just joined the S.C.C.R , WHAT IS THEIR STANCE ON THIS MATTER ?
and it seems to me this will mostly affect england and not so much scotland and where does this come into the equation when the push is for systems to rule anyway ?
Click to expand...


Wow someone has clearly upset you!! LOL
The escalation of system hardly reduces the uncertainty relating to the security of a joint fixing.
There could not be a more random method of securing a fixing than an unmeasured clump with anything from a roofing hammer to the blunt end of a swing over. Where will it end?
 
Where do you stand on it Alan. Do you think we should not be trusted with an IW until they can workout how to regulate the torque and bring out another training scheme?
 
aom said:
Where do you stand on it Alan. Do you think we should not be trusted with an IW until they can workout how to regulate the torque and bring out another training scheme?
Click to expand...

I’m a bit of a dinosaur AOM.
There is not enough evidence in either direction to form an accurate opinion.
The dangers I perceive relate to the unknown damage and thus dangers of over tightening of fittings.
There are a few examples of “T” bolts shearing at the tee end and also examples of thread stripping.
Both could be a cause of over torqueing or defective bolts. I have looked at “T” bolt shear issue and feel the failure could be due to a manufacturing defect such as allowing the bolt to cool to rapidly thus making it brittle. However assuming this is the issue it may not have been a problem if IW’s are not used.
I have also put some fittings to the test in my yard with various torque settings at 50Nm intervals up to and including 200Nm. I have left these in place for the past two months in temperatures of up to 49degs and have used the age old scientific testing technique of clumping them with a 2ft butt every week to see if they pop. That said no movement at all to be seen.
I feel if there is any uncertainty at all the NASC as the “recognized body” should commission definitive testing and announce the results rather than sitting and waiting for the industry to advise them of their thoughts.

Regulating the machines should cause no real problem I feel the issue will be in regulating the guy holding the machine. These IW’s will require regular testing if they are to be used on site and many contractors will need them tested before allowing them onto their sites. I hear Pandoras box being cracked open.
 
Sadly I agree, it seems we have become experts at turning a fairly simple process into a complicated series of manoeuvres where we will require an engineering degree to compete now. Most of the sites I work on will not have a clue about torque values but that doesn't mean I can do what I like, I fear the use of these machines could now just become too complicated despite my belief that most fittings will have been over torqued at some point in their life with a swing over.

I may have to invest in a real torque wrench and do some in-house testing and develop a training scheme myself.
 
im always angry Alan , but i try to channel it in the right direction and for a purpose , lol

for it to be said that we use "guesswork" and play "russian roulette" is a bit insulting

i have not used a spanner for a years , i'll stick to my ratchet , i dont wanna go , down up , back ,down up back,down ,up back with a spanner when i can use the ratchet to go back and forward taking away the possibility off ******* up my wrist in the long term
if ever there was a need for a small battery powered lightweight ratchet to be invented , then it is now , give these IW some competition , ive been talking about inventing it for years and going on dragons den , i wish someone would do it for me

all the quals , and safety passports and **** we need , but we rely on guesswork , its almost funny , almost
 
stleger said:
i just joined the S.C.C.R , WHAT IS THEIR STANCE ON THIS MATTER ?
Click to expand...

The SCCR is making attempts to resolve the 3 issues we see with the IW (Torque, vibration and noise) by field testing and talking directly with manufacturer rather than releasing a statement which doesn't really help the situation.
 
I thought the field tests came to an end Flinty? It's been a while since I spoke to Gary but the last time I did it was obvious he didn't get a lot of support from the manufacturers.
 
Swifty is dealing with it now, I've provided feedback and information where I can to try help this. I'm using one of the newer models which has 3 torque settings, which was mentioned in an email to the SCCR.

Would be good to get your feedback on it AOM, if you're up for it just PM Swifty your experiences and if you know the data for you IW. Which one do you use?
 
Flinty said:
The SCCR is making attempts to resolve the 3 issues we see with the IW (Torque, vibration and noise) by field testing and talking directly with manufacturer rather than releasing a statement which doesn't really help the situation.
Click to expand...

Talking to a manafacturer is pretty pointless as they surely spend a huge sum of money already, contantly trying to engineer down the noise and vibration levels of their products.

As for 'field testing' for use by scaffolders, this has already been carried out for the last 3 years.
 
I can never remember the numbers or models but we use the Makita that RV brought to the forum and my wee mate uses the older hilti with only 2 settings. I would be more than happy to give anyone feedback on our experience as I am a fan and think it's a storm in a tea cup, the only problem is it's all just opinion and very unscientific. I will invest in a torque wrench though and maybe get back to you.
 
not being funny boys but the usa are streets ahead in this,give me a couple of days and will have you loads of info,they have used these with torque settings as in all the southern states hurricane codes mean everything is bolted down and together,knowledge is power ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom