MEWP or Climbing?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

It is a common mis-conception that MEWPS are above work positioning within the WAHR hierarchy.

 

MEWPS are equal with WP in the hierarchy.

 

MEWPS are to be chosen in preference only as a collective measure - i.e. if several people have to collectively work at height.

 

But that did not help all of those that lost their lives 'collectively' when working from a MEWP on the Severn Bridge.

 

If a MEWP is risk assessed as more appropriate than WP, then use it. If it isn't, don't.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Paulo, whilst I wholly agree with your latter statement highlighting the importance of risk assessment to determine a safe system of work, and hence often the MEWP poses a higher level of risk and isn't employed, nonetheless in terms of compliance with the W@H hierarchy MEWPs should be considered ahead of WP (and indeed avoidance of W@H as the very first step.)

 

You quite rightly state the reason being 'collective protective measures' but this doesn't relate to accommodating numerous people working at height at the same time, it highlights the fact that whomever steps into the bucket is automatically protected from a fall from height without having to do anything because of the 'in-situ' guard-rails. Unlike when tree climbing where we employ individual protective measures, which present a deemed higher level of risk. We may, and in fact often do, challenge this concept as we are 'tree climbers', not tree 'MEWPers', but the fact remain when planning and organising work at height if you are climbing you should be able to explain your justification. My experience is people often access by WP by default and justify purely based on cost saving...not always a convincing justification.

 

Hopefully the forthcoming 'Industry Code of Practice' (ICOP) document for working at height in arboriculture will serve to address this far better than I have.

 

Re-the Severn Bridge incident I cannot comment as I'm not aware of it but it is clearly a tragic one, sadly.

 

Regards..

Paul

[testcricket01]

If you hate mewps so much and think that they are so dangerous why on earth would you want to buy one ??

You made the case both for and against mewps maybe you've just been using the wrong machines (wobbly ones) you can use them for far more than just hedges.

Keep on climbing while your young and fit.

 

Ive been in some very stable mewps im still very uncomfortable/scared in them. I would only want to own one because they come in handy and id trust my equipment more as i no what its done and no its been looked after right. Maybe with time id get comfortable with it also.

[Marc]

Why not Dean? If you have invested good money in purchasing a mewp then it is in your own interest to utilise it as much as possible.

I agree that ignorance is bliss having owned and operated our own mewp for 17 years you realise what an asset they can be and the monthly payments on a good mewp can be considerably less than the monthly salary of a good climber with out the holidays!

The opinions of some people that they are dangerous and that they don't trust them is surprising as they are quite willing to trust their man made ropes harnesses etc or are they just unsure of something they have never tried,a good mewp operator takes time to train just like a climber and an odd days mewp usage here and there is not going to keep you proficient just like a climber.

I also think that if people used a good quality stable mewp with plenty of capacity both in height and outreach they would change their opinions.

 

I think you've answered your own question there. The opinion they are dangerous and most do not trust them is because we never spend enough time in them to become proficient, and find the technique we are most proficient at the safest and most trust worthy i,e climbing.

 

I think Paulo sums it up nicely, although we should always consider a MEWP to work at height, its not meant that it should be the only consideration.

 

We own a mewp and I've used a variety from the standard 15m upto 45m, I am not proficient in there use therefore I feel you could argue the risks are higher for me to use a mewp over climbing as there is greater scope for me to get in trouble.

 

I am not afraid to spec one or insist though if I feel it is the sefest approach.

[Philip Anderson]

Ive been in some very stable mewps im still very uncomfortable/scared in them. I would only want to own one because they come in handy and id trust my equipment more as i no what its done and no its been looked after right. Maybe with time id get comfortable with it also.

 

Fair enough I agree if you own the machine and operate it you know its history and maintenance record ,but machines vary greatly with their controls and feel some manufacturers are silky smooth and make the operator feel very comfortable others are not so good I've been in a 90 metre bronto and 101 metre Ruthmann which were steady as rocks to 14 metre which would scare you silly so I know what you mean.

[Paolo Bavaresco]

Hi Paul

 

In my opinion, that is an incorrect interpretation - MEWPS do not protect anyone from a fall from height.

 

sincerely

P.

[raker]

I prefer to climb, but thats a bit of enjoyment added.I`d use a mewp if the ground was stable and access was good, simply because its quicker.

My bro is a turfer, but he showed me a job they did trimming some trees along a road using a mewp.No tickets,no ppe, ryobi saws. got a cheap rate on the mewp through a mate. Doddle.No skills and they did the job.H&S aside,i was taken aback tbh.I`d probably have climbed the trees, but would have no doubt been undercut by someone using a mewp because its quicker, and on the face of it, with probably less skill.

Its made me think a bit, and i`d use one now, without doubt.

[Arbocop]

work smart not hard!!

 

spot on Its quicker with a picker.......... except when it isnt lol

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Paul

 

In my opinion, that is an incorrect interpretation - MEWPS do not protect anyone from a fall from height.

 

sincerely

P.

 

Hi Paulo,

 

In principle, because of the 'in-situ' guard-rails requiring no intervention or action from the operator, it is deemed that MEWPs do protect for falls from height for anyone and everyone who step into them (hence the 'collective protective measures' phrase.)

 

"Yes," in practice, MEWPs fail and people get harmed, sadly, but in terms of the 'access hierarchy' which must be applied when planning and organising work at height (because regulation / 'law' says so.) Whilst I don't have any figures to hand, and I doubt HSE could supply any, it would be interesting to compare how many actual 'falls from height' occur from MEWPs in treework as opposed to WP...my guess would be fewer. However, I accept that 'proportionally', i.e. considering the nos. trees climbed as opposed to MEWP'd, it is probably not so clear.

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I fully understand as a climber myself, albeit a long time ago, why arborists feel safer with WP BUT as I am now, principally, a H&S manager my role is to ensure people working in our industry understand the implications of regulations and meet their duties as employers.

 

Interestingly, whilst I am aware of several accidents / incidents involving significant injuries, and sometimes fatalities, I cannot recall one which resulted from the operator actually falling out of the MEWP bucket, it is usually to do with other factors resulting in the MEWP failing / toppling / crushes etc. (academic to some extent as the outcome is the important bit but it does highlight the point...perhaps.)

 

Sorry, I'm droning on , fundamentally we need to understand the implications of W@H BUT follow a robust risk assessment process and that will dictate the most appropriate, and yes 'cost effective', safe system of work.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Best..

Paul

[Paolo Bavaresco]

Hello Paul

Thanks for the clarification, and I’ll add mine:

 

1. My concerns with this issue are contemporary with your position;

 

2. As soon as fall protection is used, a MEWP ceases to be a collective, passive protection measure;

 

3. As HSE MIS614 points out, MEWPS for arboriculture require fall prevention measures. In this respect they are little different from work positioning in actual use;

 

4. As HSE RR961 points out, there are many additional risks to using MEWPS – this isn’t about ‘falling’ per se;

 

5. There are other issues affecting the hierarchy concept.

 

Regarding a statistical approach to risk assessment, the HSE are intent not to allow Arboriculture access to specific information to facilitate it. Such a debate becomes meaningless, and control measures therefore unmeasurable with any confidence. Besides, driving in the fast lane while only looking in the rearview mirror is not a wise approach to risk assessment.

 

My final point on this topic, is that – considering all of the above and more - the WAHR05 do not state or imply that MEWPS for arboriculture are the default preferred method. The risk assessment will determine the most suitable approach. That will be company, site and task specific, not a centralised edict, and nothing to do with emotions and ‘feeling safe’.

[TREE-SURGEON-ESSEX]

Mewps are handy but in reality they can only be used in very limited situations.

 

Climbing is still the number 1 method for tree work.

 

Id rather dangle off a tree, than stand on the end of a metal pole. I trust natures engineering more than man when it comes to tree access.