Trad Deck Banned ?

joebag

joebag

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Messages
1,721
Reaction score
0
Location
Northwest England
With barratt and redrow banning this system on a few of there sites, do you think this dangerous system thats being used for loading block to build partie walls should be banned completely in preference of a good kn rated bird cage, zip ties and cloth straps are used in tying this together.......

And before you start threatening action trad I can put the sites , site agents and qs that banned it !!!!

This is a real safety issue not the sh1te nasc puts out there :mad:
 
We have used Generations version a few times but although it was rated at 2KN we have only used it in timber frame new builds for protection. All regulations do always say, refer to manufacturers guidance which can quite often fly in the face of official guidance, nylon ties being another example.

I wouldn't fancy fully loading the plastic stuff Joe, and thankfully never been asked to.
 
I've only come across it once and that was on a mccarthy and stone job in malvern. It looked dodgy as hell whoever put it up was either in a rush or had never used it before, they never tied the decks and they propped boards against it acting as braces. Can see why its been banned, a bit of drainpipe and a bread tray....
 
I think if it's used for protection like we did, it is ok. One problem we found when doing timber frame, try not to rip all the racking the joiners have inside or the kit will belly faster than a middle aged guy with an office job. I suppose it's akin to the brickies ripping out our brace but they could have braced the kit below the deck height to give us a clear run, they did it the next time when they came back and saw their kit bulging.

If you ever get offered a house in Lochgilphead town centre, give me a call first, as their is at least a couple without a cavity.;)
 
joebag said:
With barratt and redrow banning this system on a few of there sites, do you think this dangerous system thats being used for loading block to build partie walls should be banned completely in preference of a good kn rated bird cage, zip ties and cloth straps are used in tying this together.......

And before you start threatening action trad I can put the sites , site agents and qs that banned it !!!!

This is a real safety issue not the sh1te nasc puts out there :mad:
Click to expand...

Not used it but as always I have a thought process......
Is it the system that is unsafe or the way in which it is used by the third party?

You should not slate the system if it works for the intended prupose.
regards
Alan
 
The system was originally designed as a .75kn rated crash deck alan, its basically moulded plastic platforms with a plastic leg which four platforms intercede on one leg in each corner, no bracing whatsoever its lateral movement only stopped by it hitting the wall, as it is a set size in order for adjustment they overlap the platforms and use either cloth straps or zip ties to link it together,,,,,,

They increased the size of the legs and upped the kn rating to 1.5, you now have brickies loading it up, joiners and every other trade loading the fuk out of it and its not fit for purpose, how can we be held to such rigorous standards yet this terrible piece of crap be marketed as a working platform.......because its a main player in nasc , personally I think it will one day cause a death, when you see it you will know what I mean!

The lads putting this up arent carded, trained or even wear harnesses, they work on the second floor of new builds over open stairwells etc with no handrail/fall protection in place, it should be banned !
 
Again Joe I don't use the product but.......
We used to create birdcages in the same way, no bracing required because it butted the walls or was tied to columns, the same would apply to this product. If the deck is designed to 1.5kN then that's what it is, however if the end user chooses to overload it or the client fails to control its use I fail to see how the product or it's provider are responsible irrespective of who they are or what their affiliations may be.
 
I understand where you are coming from Allen but in all respect to other trades who are not in the erecting of load bearing equipment all they see is a space and will fill it personally there are quite a few systems out there that may be tested for general purpose and are not fit for purpose I feel the trade as become an open fast buck market for pathetic designs flooded into the market and when these systems do fail should not the designer or the sponsored body in question face the consequences
 
I have done that myself many times alan however if I was to hit the wall with my boards and not tube, tie those boards to other boards with cloth straps or zip ties ,with a three inch in height of the platform trip hazard ,then say thats ok as it hits the wall and the zip ties are the bracing I think you would have an issue, maybe we could revisit this one day if you get to see it.....I think then you would see the point im making but until then an informed decision could not be made by yourself , I totally understand that and thanks for taking time to respond ;)
 
Guy's I'm not defending the system it may be good it may not as I say not over familiar with it, however, the system design is not responsible for its misuse. There may be many better systems available again not the point.
Consider: if a drunk has a drink and gets Ito his car do you blame the drink, do you blame the car or it's designer? I would look to blame the guy driving.

That said in answer to SCC if the system being used correctly fails then I wold look to the product design an manufacture to be justified.

In this instant though that would not appear to be the issue.
 
Do you not think alan that if the design of the system is flawed from the start then by default it can never be fit for purpose or in fact used correctly :unsure:
 
Thanks for your time alan, always greatly appreciated even if you dont give me the bullets for my smoking gun ;)
 
Always welcome Joe. Not here to preach, defend or indeed provide the bullets for your gun, just hoping to inspire a thought process
Regards
Alan
 
[FONT=&quot]I think I must agree with Alan that if the product is installed correctly, by trained operatives, and used for its intended purpose, it will perform as tested.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Having said that I have pulled a few of these structures as unsafe, mainly for trip hazard’s & lack of lateral bracing, overloading has not been too much of a problem, think most of the lads are afraid to load them.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I find that in practice it is erected by untrained staff, usually general site labours, forklift drivers ect, that would not know what a “Lateral brace” was if it hit them on the head. Or by other trades that H&S is not a top priority.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]To this old cynic it is all about cost. The principle contractors are very strong on demanding that the individual undergo rigorous training both in their chosen career and in H&S. At little or no cost to the PC. But will introduce “new” equipment that in some cases have not been site tested in the practical use of the equipment. Why not use scaffolders the most trained /competent trade in the construction industry, as regards the practical management of hazards in a construction environment and many other places of work. Could it be the cost? Or mayhap the scaffolders would spot the short comings of the equipment and refuse to ignore their training and knowledge.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The introduction of new equipment and methods of working is to be applauded, but not to the detriment of tried and tested methods solely for cost and speed of erection reasons [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Extract From (Trad) Erection Guide[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “In the event of you not having some of the smaller panels available it may be necessary to overlap with a 1m x 1m panel to either extend the decking into the wall or cover a gap.”

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]We have been told and told again not to overlap boards, ect, on any account. Slips trips and falls “on the level” account for 28% of all accidents within construction. How can a manufacture in its “Erection Guide” instruct installers to “build in” a well known hazard without falling foul of the HSE?


[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Extract From (Trad) Erection Guide[/FONT][FONT=&quot] “Continue this process until the room is fully decked out and laterally supported by all four walls.”

[/FONT] My take on this, if the structure is not “butted” on all four sides it does not follow the manufactures instructions for installation, and thus the system should not be used and another solution to the problem must be sought
 
Last edited:
You see rigger with a few more footprints in the sand thats the kind of comment which i hope to be able to put together, may change things info like that up here, hopefully many other of the original contributers will add their wise words.......I think my biggest point I try to make is hypocrisy. ....I wouldnt be arsed about half of what goes on if WE werent held to such high demands.....this is how we all should attack the onslaught of ridiculous h snd s ......info on here in black and white !:idea:
 
With this trad decking, deos it need to be given a hand over cert to say its been erected safely and is fit for use. Or what about an inspection tag?
 
Meant to correct that before mate, got told by lads putting it up it was 1.5 kn, amazing how cloth straps take that isnt it :blink:
 
dont know this stuff but have a mental image and by the looks of it joe you have a point and rigger seems to have given you a rocket launcher not bullets.
i personally think that with the amount of redtape and so called training that we scaffs have to undertake to let this type of "system" to be erected by any tom **** or harry should be seriuosly looked into but as the manufacturers or distributers are NASC what chanc eof that;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom