Method Statement
- Thread starter Mr C
- Start date
jeff.watts
Well-known member
:bigsmile:Hiya m8. Try google. Sh1t loads about it. Hope u find what ur looking for
Just write "Erected to manufacturers recommendation's for a proprietary system scaffold" you don't need to give the client a detailed method statement, you're the scaffolding erector, they have employed you to know this kind of thing.
Its not a dig at you , but these contractors p*ss me off wanting to know a step by step guide to scaffolding, you have the training they don't, you don't need to be too precise .
Its not a dig at you , but these contractors p*ss me off wanting to know a step by step guide to scaffolding, you have the training they don't, you don't need to be too precise .
scaffy 1980
Well-known member
Mr c.
what are you erecting in haki ?. Staircase, loading bays, birdcage....?????
As i've got the complete file of all haki erection meathods from haki itself.
what are you erecting in haki ?. Staircase, loading bays, birdcage....?????
As i've got the complete file of all haki erection meathods from haki itself.
S
southernpoofter
Guest
[quote Dangeruss]Its not a dig at you , but these contractors p*ss me off wanting to know a step by step guide to scaffolding, you have the training they don't, you don't need to be too precise .[/quote]
Not wanting to jump to their defence but the thing is most have there smsts now as well as their 2/3day inspection ticket& like to think theyre scaffs as well -in saying that its their responsibility to know if we're using an unsafe method or doing something that 10 years ago would be excepted but now frowned on as being dangeruss.
their responsibility is not only to themselves & us but to everyone else on site & if anything was to go seriously wrong them as well as us would be looking at a custodial sentance as well as a mega fine.
your method statement & erecting to it must be as detailed as possible, & everyone should work to it, to the letter. Its this type of thing that is the difference between a proffesional and a cowboy....i know its a pain in the rear & tbh i hate preparing it all but murphys law sez the 1st time you dont may be the time it all goes pete tong. & you need to cover yourself as much as possible incl a paperwork trail.
so heres a question in your method statement it sez erecting to sg4:10 but your mate takes a dive from the lift cos it was hot & he wasnt wearing his harness that youd issued him & had inspected ....whos guilty -him for not adhering to the MS or you for not making sure he does.?
Not wanting to jump to their defence but the thing is most have there smsts now as well as their 2/3day inspection ticket& like to think theyre scaffs as well -in saying that its their responsibility to know if we're using an unsafe method or doing something that 10 years ago would be excepted but now frowned on as being dangeruss.
their responsibility is not only to themselves & us but to everyone else on site & if anything was to go seriously wrong them as well as us would be looking at a custodial sentance as well as a mega fine.
your method statement & erecting to it must be as detailed as possible, & everyone should work to it, to the letter. Its this type of thing that is the difference between a proffesional and a cowboy....i know its a pain in the rear & tbh i hate preparing it all but murphys law sez the 1st time you dont may be the time it all goes pete tong. & you need to cover yourself as much as possible incl a paperwork trail.
so heres a question in your method statement it sez erecting to sg4:10 but your mate takes a dive from the lift cos it was hot & he wasnt wearing his harness that youd issued him & had inspected ....whos guilty -him for not adhering to the MS or you for not making sure he does.?
Last edited:
Rigger
Moderator
My take is that an employer should be able to produce a bespoke Method Statement for every job he erects, taking into account all the variables. One of the most important being the materials/systems to be used.
Where he obtains his information,from the client, on the forum,manufactures information or indeed Google, is up to him.The M.S. is not to impress the client but to give your scaffolders a safe system of work on site,informing them of all known hazards
Southern...
As to the guy who declines to wear his safety harness,or indeed any other disregard of safety procedure's
Section 2 (1) of the health and safety at work act. states..........
" Every employer must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health safety and welfare at work of all his employee's"
Where he obtains his information,from the client, on the forum,manufactures information or indeed Google, is up to him.The M.S. is not to impress the client but to give your scaffolders a safe system of work on site,informing them of all known hazards
Southern...
As to the guy who declines to wear his safety harness,or indeed any other disregard of safety procedure's
Section 2 (1) of the health and safety at work act. states..........
" Every employer must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health safety and welfare at work of all his employee's"
S
southernpoofter
Guest
Lol -not the olde "as is reasonably practical"
If you can prove with a paperwork trail that you have done everything tbats reasonably practical
- training & issue of correct ppe
-upkeep of inspection records of ppe
-records & signature of operative of toolbox talks reguarding company RAMs(incl SG4:10)
-correct qualification of operative for task.
Then that in court is reasonably practicle - just saying "oh he's a qualified scaff & theres a harness in the back of the company van if he wants it, & he shoulda erected it using the manufactures recommendation,is not !
If you can prove with a paperwork trail that you have done everything tbats reasonably practical
- training & issue of correct ppe
-upkeep of inspection records of ppe
-records & signature of operative of toolbox talks reguarding company RAMs(incl SG4:10)
-correct qualification of operative for task.
Then that in court is reasonably practicle - just saying "oh he's a qualified scaff & theres a harness in the back of the company van if he wants it, & he shoulda erected it using the manufactures recommendation,is not !
Rigger
Moderator
SP "Lol -not the olde "as is reasonably practical""
Afraid so my old mate,
That is the wording of the actual law "so far as reasonably practicable" and yes you do have to show your hierarchy of control for the elimination or control of hazards for your workers.
Afraid so my old mate,
That is the wording of the actual law "so far as reasonably practicable" and yes you do have to show your hierarchy of control for the elimination or control of hazards for your workers.