Approved Contractor - review

[jaime bray]

did you adjust the generic to suit though, i understood it that as you tick the box in refernce to any given generic you should operate and conform to that particular measure, i sometimes wince when ire-read the generic to any given cbox, are you saying that by ammending the additional comments sect that you acknowledge non-compliance with generic and give reason why on each particular case,

 

dont get me wrong im all for every company to be made to comply with risk assessment then they wouldnt be able to operate so cheaply, but thats what i say when i refer to cost benefit analysis of operating that way,

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

did you adjust the generic to suit though, i understood it that as you tick the box in refernce to any given generic you should operate and conform to that particular measure, i sometimes wince when ire-read the generic to any given cbox, are you saying that by ammending the additional comments sect that you acknowledge non-compliance with generic and give reason why on each particular case,

 

dont get me wrong im all for every company to be made to comply with risk assessment then they wouldnt be able to operate so cheaply, but thats what i say when i refer to cost benefit analysis of operating that way,

 

 

NO wonder people hate H&S:001_huh:

[jaime bray]

just read your post, im not a rapido typer

[jaime bray]

H&S is good if used logically, it focuses the company and adds professionalism and i guess incorporates pride, but the danger the industry has and this really is where the aa come in is in the implementation of requirements,

 

i climbed on friday and ensured that at every point during the climb i was roped in to 2 systems, this means climbing with effectively three systems, it was a ball-ache but i wanted to see how do-able it was, i use supp points but 2 systems actually distracted from the danger of the thing revving away in front of my face, not implementable in my opinion to be cost effectively accepted by companies,

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Jaime, your alright kiddo, so dont take offence, but really you seem to have gotten all your wires crossed and are over complicating this whole proscess.

 

you have the Generic method statement as given in the HS package right? so along with that and your folder containing your COSHH sheets etc AFAGs blah blah, you have the standard formatted SSRA form with all the tick boxes, tick those relevant to your task for the day hour whatever but in the aditional comments box note all the unusual site specifice risks as i coined before, loose slabs etc, then you have compiled a legitimate SSRA, make the crew read it, talk em through it, point the risks out get the usual UGH? comments make em sign it to acknowledge the briefing and bobs your uncle.

 

wheres Paul tonight!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

H&S is good if used logically, it focuses the company and adds professionalism and i guess incorporates pride, but the danger the industry has and this really is where the aa come in is in the implementation of requirements,

 

i climbed on friday and ensured that at every point during the climb i was roped in to 2 systems, this means climbing with effectively three systems, it was a ball-ache but i wanted to see how do-able it was, i use supp points but 2 systems actually distracted from the danger of the thing revving away in front of my face, not implementable in my opinion to be cost effectively accepted by companies,

 

Where does it say you need three systems to maintain two attachments at all times!

 

think you will find your main anchor plus work positioning lanyard is all that is required, take one of to move it whilst the other remains attached, that way your strapped in at all times, thats all that is reqiured?

[jaime bray]

to be fair it was related to a particular task that was not a regular occurence, cant remember what it was but i remember thinking as i ticked the boxes and then just double checked the generic for what was required to reduce the risk, thinking ooh thats not up to scratch and winced as i signed it off, will have to have butchers at it tomorrow

[jaime bray]

wah regs, think comes from schedules of systems 4 or 5, continually connected to back up line or something interpretted as two systems at all times, i.e needing three lines/systems, in comps you get marked down heavily if you are roped in at any time by 1 system

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

wah regs, think comes from schedules of systems 4 or 5, continually connected to back up line or something interpretted as two systems at all times, i.e needing three lines/systems, in comps you get marked down heavily if you are roped in at any time by 1 system

 

If that is WAH regs, Im checking it out tommorow, that will be my early retirement nell!

[jaime bray]

loler inspector was grilling us about it at treelife, however if site specific ra highlights increased risk as result of continual anchoring in 2 systems then its permissable,

its a right nitemare to climb,and my additional comments box will be getting filled every time the harness goes on, wink wink