MEWP RA get out clause

[Mesterh]

With reading through the new AFAG 401 that has been posted I got to thinking about the section that says

"this leaflet is applicable where a risk assessment has determined that climbing is the appropriate access method to undertake the work"

 

Which yes we are supposed to do.

 

Just wondering what you are using to exempt using a MEWP and therefore climbing the tree.

Since about 50% of the time I could use a MEWP rather than climb but I dont because like many others it would push the cost of the job right up and also I think that they are a lot slower in most case's.

 

So if filling out a RA what would be a reasonable excuse(because thats what it is) to not use one?

[shabz1978]

surely the cost of MEWP hire is reason enough?? or, you could not have any trained operatives?

[Mesterh]

surely the cost of MEWP hire is reason enough?? or, you could not have any trained operatives?

 

Cost is not a good enough reason iirc, and unfortunately I am trained in using one which even if I wasnt probably still isnt a good enough reason.

 

Cheers for the ideas though

[Dean Lofthouse]

Cant postion the mewp in a way that will ensure it will not be struck by falling or rigged timber ?

 

Also if it close to a highway there is a risk of legs being struck

[David Humphries]

Restricted access and underground services, can and do play a big part in the decision to not opt for a MEWP.

 

 

The big one for me though, particularly with regards to Veteran Trees, is .....................root plate compaction.

 

 

 

 

FTR, from my perspective the above is not seen as a "get out clause"

 

I hail from the school of thought that arming oneself with all the tools to tackle each and every situation is where we should be aiming.

 

Two Mules for Sister Sara oiow's Horses for courses

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Monkey-D

[Mesterh]

Cant postion the mewp in a way that will ensure it will not be struck by falling or rigged timber ?

 

Also if it close to a highway there is a risk of legs being struck

 

Ahh right I see the line of thinking cheers

 

 

Restricted access and underground services, can and do play a big part in the decision to not opt for a MEWP.

 

 

The big one for me though, particularly with regards to Veteran Trees, is .....................root plate compaction.

 

 

 

 

FTR, from my perspective the above is not seen as a "get out clause"

 

I hail from the school of thought that arming oneself with all the tools to tackle each and every situation is where we should be aiming.

 

Two Mules for Sister Sara oiow's Horses for courses

 

I fully understand your thinking about right tool for the job.

I have used a MEWP on quite a few occasions where we felt it was too unsafe to use any other method or not possible by any other cost effective method.

 

MEWP's are brilliant on the right job just like a crane is, its just that we could use a MEWP on loads of jobs but it wouldnt be cost effective although easier or possibly safer depending on your perspective.

 

Any other ideas?

[Dean Lofthouse]

 

 

FTR, from my perspective the above is not seen as a "get out clause"

 

 

 

 

.

 

What your team need is something in the risk assessment to get you out of the basket to give someone else a go

[David Humphries]

What your team need is something in the risk assessment to get you out of the basket to give someone else a go

 

 

 

Haven't actually been t'up in our Nelly for a good couple o months dont you know.

 

But until me knee strengthens up, she'll always have a special little place in me 'eart

 

 

 

 

.

[nepia]

With reading through the new AFAG 401 that has been posted I got to thinking about the section that says

"this leaflet is applicable where a risk assessment has determined that climbing is the appropriate access method to undertake the work"

 

If push came to shove - and let's face it we're talking about courts and the like - the word 'appropriate' is your getout. That one, beautifully vague word could fund lawyers' lunches for months, both yours and anyone else's. The obfuscation (oh, look it up!) would almost guarantee 'no further action in this case' as opposing sides could spend as long as they liked arguing the toss over what was or was not 'appropriate', thus providing no proof that what you did was not 'appropriate'.

Flippant? A bit, yes - but ask a lawyer.

[gibbon]

Dunno about you guys, but my working at height assesment starts with, "can suitable work postioning be acheived?". If the tree structure is deemed safe to climb, is safe work positioning is acheivable and the operative is suitability trained then (imo) no mewp is needed.

 

I would only consider using one if the answer to any of the above is no.