New Member
- Thread starter simian
- Start date
Podger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks for the reply, No way do I consider my self a H&S expert but I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that during the risk assessment/method statement process it is not aceptable to replace one potential hazard with another.
I believe and again please correct me if I am wrong that the problem with the tunneling method SG4:05 was the unsecured traverse . This potential hazard has now been replaced by the risk of falling from the scaff step and the potential for repetitive strain injury to the muscular skeletal system arising from long term use of the scaff step. IMO the unsecured traverse could have been replaced by simply using an inertia reel or is this to simple approach to the problem ?
simian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 634
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks for the reply, No way do I consider my self a H&S expert but I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that during the risk assessment/method statement process it is not aceptable to replace one potential hazard with another.
I believe and again please correct me if I am wrong that the problem with the tunneling method SG4:05 was the unsecured traverse . This potential hazard has now been replaced by the risk of falling from the scaff step and the potential for repetitive strain injury to the muscular skeletal system arising from long term use of the scaff step. IMO the unsecured traverse could have been replaced by simply using an inertia reel or is this to simple approach to the problem ?
Podger,
The issue of the repeated use of a step was not seen as a significant health issue by NASC SG4 Working Party, the HSE or myself as the author, until raised by at the HSE meeting with SCCR. The law requires collective protection (guardrails) over personal (harnesses), so the benefits of using such collective measure as the scaffolders step, in terms of risk, would outweigh the disadvantages in my mind.
With regard to inertia lines, they are personal fall protection and would have to be considered after collective protection methods. The employer would have to justify this through risk assessment. There are also inherent issues with most inertia lines in that they are principally designed as a vertical fall arrest system, with a minimum range for traversing from the vertical (usually 30-40 degrees, depending upon the manufacturer). Generally they are not intended to be used beyond this angle due to the swing fall risk (pendulum effect) nor are they to be used inverted in a fall factor 2 senario (clipped on below your feet). I do accept that some manufacturers have produced models that can be used in these circumstances (check out Miller's fall protection range for example).
However, you will be still faced with the problem of statisfying the HSE or clients that personal fall protection over collective is acceptable.
I hope that helps?
Regards,
Simon
HatterScaff
Well-known member
X
XxIANxX
Guest
Issues I have seen with the scaff step is that
1 A third of all reported falls from height incidents involve ladders and step ladders on average this accounts for 14 deaths and 1200 major injuries.
2 The additional strain put on scaffolders knees (Paddy Carr is no spring chicken)
3 Only carry light materials and tools (up to 10 kg) is what the hse says when using step ladders ,lets face it thats what the scaff step is.
Podger
"Thanks for the reply, No way do I consider my self a H&S expert but I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that during the risk assessment/method statement process it is not aceptable to replace one potential hazard with another."
The above is true podger
1 A third of all reported falls from height incidents involve ladders and step ladders on average this accounts for 14 deaths and 1200 major injuries.
2 The additional strain put on scaffolders knees (Paddy Carr is no spring chicken)
3 Only carry light materials and tools (up to 10 kg) is what the hse says when using step ladders ,lets face it thats what the scaff step is.
Podger
"Thanks for the reply, No way do I consider my self a H&S expert but I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that during the risk assessment/method statement process it is not aceptable to replace one potential hazard with another."
The above is true podger
Last edited:
rumple
Well-known member
I'm sure the Nasc will measure this in the accident stats every year now it's the method of choice
---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------
Most of the companies I know have opted for the step
---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------
Most of the companies I know have opted for the step
Simian. Thanks for your reply/answer. I have found that overhead running costs generally have come down in the last few years if you discount diesel, which fluctuates, wages remaining steady, Insurance costs have come down yearly and material purchase costs have dropped, all of which allows us to pass this on to our customers and be competetive. We could debate this subject forever and not concur, but personally I still feel the H/S industry with the associated costs involved should come down in line with the rest of the industry providers,
JS Safety Associates
Member
Hi All
JS Safety Associates have joined the scaffold forum, I have over 30 years of scaffold experience as safety director and a scaffold freelance H&S advisor.
Contact details Steve Simons 07792271308
JS Safety Associates have joined the scaffold forum, I have over 30 years of scaffold experience as safety director and a scaffold freelance H&S advisor.
Contact details Steve Simons 07792271308
celticbhoy
Moderator
welcome js,look forward to your input.
simian
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 634
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Steve, not spoke for a while how's business.
Podger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 513
- Reaction score
- 0
Issues I have seen with the scaff step is that
1 A third of all reported falls from height incidents involve ladders and step ladders on average this accounts for 14 deaths and 1200 major injuries.
2 The additional strain put on scaffolders knees (Paddy Carr is no spring chicken)
3 Only carry light materials and tools (up to 10 kg) is what the hse says when using step ladders ,lets face it thats what the scaff step is.
Podger
"Thanks for the reply, No way do I consider my self a H&S expert but I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that during the risk assessment/method statement process it is not aceptable to replace one potential hazard with another."
The above is true podger
Taking onboard the afore mentioned issues with the scaff step would it be fair to say the hazards associated with the unsecured traverse, which we are led to believe is the reason for the revision of the SG4 , has been replaced with the potential for injury resulting from slips and trips and long term use of the scaff step ?
Under the RIDDOR regs what if any data is available in relation to incidents arising from the unsecured traverse ? Were the NASC SG4 Working Party in possession of any data prior to the latest SG4 review ?
I like many scaffolders do understand the legal implications of the WAHR 2005 and the need for a hierarchy of controls ie: collective fall prevention over personal fall restraint .However the potential of injury from scaff step use is IMO significant and find it alarming that it was not considered an issue by the SG4 Working Party until resent representations by the SCCR.
X
XxIANxX
Guest
.
I also find it alarming it wasn't taken into consideration by the authors Podger maybe they could explain why ??????
I would say that the consequences of the issues with an unsecured traverse far outweigh the consequences of the issues associated with the isues of using a scaff step - providing the scaff step is used correctly.
The thrust of any set of health and safety regulations is the reduction of risk to manageable levels rather than the elimination of all risk.
Scaffolding is, and will remain a high risk occupation, however the guidance offers ways to reduce the risk - eliminating all risk would be impossible in the context of the industry and the requirements of the work.
Otto
The thrust of any set of health and safety regulations is the reduction of risk to manageable levels rather than the elimination of all risk.
Scaffolding is, and will remain a high risk occupation, however the guidance offers ways to reduce the risk - eliminating all risk would be impossible in the context of the industry and the requirements of the work.
Otto
celticbhoy
Moderator
ill come back in twenty years otto and tell you affects of the scaffstep on scaffolders then should i mate??i really dont have to as going up and down a ladder all day(allbeit a step)cant be very good for our joints,so to say its the lesser of two evils dose poor me no good in twenty years,we need a positive ivestigation into the effects of using this new piece of equipment alongside the streniouse tasks we undertake allday everyday.
AOM its down to risk assessment however Simon and I have discussed this and we picked up a good practice idea from the forum, up to 2 feet use up to a 21, up to 4 feet, 16 and any higher 13 or below.
Its down to risk assessment really, we all know a scaffolder who can put in a 21 on a 6' hemp, however a written protocol in your method statement communicated to your men would suffice.
Hi Simian, thanks for the reply although my concerns are more to do with body position when hemping regardless of height, I think every scaffolder uses his own formula in that regard. I just find it hard to imagine squeezing in a standard with a hand rail in place and not feel as if you are going to drop it. Point taken though and we shall endeavour to figure it out.
Its down to risk assessment really, we all know a scaffolder who can put in a 21 on a 6' hemp, however a written protocol in your method statement communicated to your men would suffice.
Hi Simian, thanks for the reply although my concerns are more to do with body position when hemping regardless of height, I think every scaffolder uses his own formula in that regard. I just find it hard to imagine squeezing in a standard with a hand rail in place and not feel as if you are going to drop it. Point taken though and we shall endeavour to figure it out.
It's not a natural stance on a scaff step I wear size 9 boots which overhang the platform, you have to have your feet close together when for perfect balance you should have your feet apart, when did you last see a boxer with his feet together? Imagine 12 rounds with your feet together, you would blow over.
We all know they are s**t and the man on the tools has not been thought about whatsoever and very badly let down by the people that should be working for us.
We all know they are s**t and the man on the tools has not been thought about whatsoever and very badly let down by the people that should be working for us.
S
steve gregory
Guest
there is other methods than the step up..
X
XxIANxX
Guest
.
Thats the problem, half the people writing this stuff have never turned a spanner in their life. They just don't have a clue
Not if you work for the same firm as me
S
steve gregory
Guest
how are they supposed to know if they arent being relayed the full information. As said the launch of SG4-10 was 2 weeks ago yet the Nasc members are still waiting for the info.. £1700 a year for registration to yet be let down yet again.
They'll delay as long as possible so a few hundred grand can be put in the bank...