ICOP, MEWPs and work at height.

[Tom D]

After looking at the 'justifiable' thread I think it's worth discussing the use of MEWPs in tree work. I think the ICOP is based on data from outside the arboricultural sector. With only a tiny amount of aerial tree work taking place from a MEWP the statistics for MEWP related accidents can't be compared with those for tree work from a rope and harness.

Only if we knew the number of accidents per tree worked on could we really make an objective decision on the safest option. Just using statistics gathered from the use of MEWPs in other industries isn't acceptable as there are a few significant factors which make their use in tree work significantly more dangerous.

 

For example using MEWPs to change street light bulbs is very different to using one on a sectional dismantle. Street lights usually grow out of level firm surfaces, trees do not. This has issues for the stability of the platform. Secondly when cutting off limbs or sectioning timber there is a risk of the piece striking, or worse, snagging the basket. Again seldom an issue in construction.

 

Let's hear your thoughts on this. I don't mean let's slag off MEWPs. I mean let's consider all options, good and bad.

[Mesterh]

Interesting thread.

 

You could argue that if you use the right mewp and work it properly then there should be no reason for the mewp to fail, therefore it is the safest way to work.

I have known a couple of mewp fatalities but they have been down to poor maintenance.

 

I have always prefered working from a rope and harness and hope it will be a practice that we will see in the future but, I think there is a good chance that one day it will be considered 'bad' practice.

[JLA Arborists]

I believe most if not all accidents are caused by not being trained or competent, doing something to contradict training or generally being a prat.

If used by trained staff and set up correctly accidents should be minimal

 

I've seen MEWPs set up in the wrong place, lumps dropped on the body and legs. MEWPs used to 'crane' stuff away from the tree etc.

[Gray git]

Like jla said it's down to training and experience, just look at how long it takes to become ticketed and deemed combatant to climb and dismantle a tree not to mention the progression of difficulty level you'll be asked to undertake by an employer...

Mewp-ipaf- 1day if your lucky 2 and crack on, normally with a git of a tree. Working efficiency with 1 takes time like climbing you have to learn good work position and a sequence of doing things which is often different to when climbing.

I tend to find the people who hate mewps either don't use them often so find it harder to change working methods or have been presented with the wrong machine and thus had a difficult time with it.

Yes I agree they are not the right thing in every situation be it location or even cost but definitely not the wrong thing to use in every situation.

[roseyweb]

Can I throw in something else qualification wise?

 

I had a client perusing me to do work for them, one who I imagine many people here also work for, They insisted that I had chainsaw in a mewp quals, I don't. Arb Assoc publications make no note of this and on some trainers websites they state that CS39 covers it

[scotspine1]

After looking at the 'justifiable' thread I think it's worth discussing the use of MEWPs in tree work. I think the ICOP is based on data from outside the arboricultural sector. With only a tiny amount of aerial tree work taking place from a MEWP the statistics for MEWP related accidents can't be compared with those for tree work from a rope and harness.

Only if we knew the number of accidents per tree worked on could we really make an objective decision on the safest option. Just using statistics gathered from the use of MEWPs in other industries isn't acceptable as there are a few significant factors which make their use in tree work significantly more dangerous.

 

For example using MEWPs to change street light bulbs is very different to using one on a sectional dismantle. Street lights usually grow out of level firm surfaces, trees do not. This has issues for the stability of the platform. Secondly when cutting off limbs or sectioning timber there is a risk of the piece striking, or worse, snagging the basket. Again seldom an issue in construction.

 

Let's hear your thoughts on this. I don't mean let's slag off MEWPs. I mean let's consider all options, good and bad.

 

If I opt to use a MEWP it's very rarely to do with safety. It's more to do with 'is there good access for MEWP?' then comparing the time spent on job and wear and tear on the climber if you chose to use rope and harness. There are some situations where a MEWP is preferable to climbing.

 

Couple of years ago I was involved in a job that required a crane and a MEWP otherwise it would've meant setting up a complex rigging system between adjacent trees which would've taken about 10 times longer using rope and harness methods. Safety wasn't an issue. The job would've been just as safe climbing.

 

There are obviously other situations like dead or dangerous trees where the safety factor does come in to play when considering using a MEWP.

 

 

 

.

Edited March 29, 2016 by scotspine1

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

After looking at the 'justifiable' thread I think it's worth discussing the use of MEWPs in tree work. I think the ICOP is based on data from outside the arboricultural sector. With only a tiny amount of aerial tree work taking place from a MEWP the statistics for MEWP related accidents can't be compared with those for tree work from a rope and harness.

Only if we knew the number of accidents per tree worked on could we really make an objective decision on the safest option. Just using statistics gathered from the use of MEWPs in other industries isn't acceptable as there are a few significant factors which make their use in tree work significantly more dangerous.

 

For example using MEWPs to change street light bulbs is very different to using one on a sectional dismantle. Street lights usually grow out of level firm surfaces, trees do not. This has issues for the stability of the platform. Secondly when cutting off limbs or sectioning timber there is a risk of the piece striking, or worse, snagging the basket. Again seldom an issue in construction.

 

Let's hear your thoughts on this. I don't mean let's slag off MEWPs. I mean let's consider all options, good and bad.

 

Tom, thank you, for both raising the issue (forgive the pun ) AND considering MEWPs...which is what the ICOP requires you to do.

 

When I worked for the local authority, albeit many years ago, they had an 18m street-lighting wagon which was used many times for dismantling big dead elms, and some privately owned ones that were very dead and "self-dismantling" ) that endangered the highway.

 

This was a ideal application for MEWP use.

 

Paul

 

PS I did climb too, frequently and often in combination, plus the other time it felt good (being in the MEWP bucket) was during very heavy rainfall to ensure I had good footing when using the saw.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Can I throw in something else qualification wise?

 

I had a client perusing me to do work for them, one who I imagine many people here also work for, They insisted that I had chainsaw in a mewp quals, I don't. Arb Assoc publications make no note of this and on some trainers websites they state that CS39 covers it

 

I hope you looked your best here when he, or she, was perusing you (sorry, couldn't resist! )

 

We don't make mention of any specification qualifications / certifications etc in part because they often change. However, the CS39 v CS47 issue has been clarified previously by the HSE in response to an enquiry I made (trouble is I can't find the email )

 

Basically if you have CS39 you don't generally need CS47, as was, to operate the chainsaw from a bucket...UNLESS a particular commercial client insists on it and, frustratingly, it may be the better option just to do the assessment anyway.

[Tom D]

I believe most if not all accidents are caused by not being trained or competent, doing something to contradict training or generally being a prat.

If used by trained staff and set up correctly accidents should be minimal

 

I've seen MEWPs set up in the wrong place, lumps dropped on the body and legs. MEWPs used to 'crane' stuff away from the tree etc.

 

Quite right, but the same applies to rope and harness work too, how many falls have there been where the climber was doing everything by the book? tied in twice, LOLER'd kit, two handed saw use etc? Hardly any al all. The problem is that all accidents end up in the HSE stats, even if it was a complete cowboy climbing on a ratty 10 year old rope not following any of the guidelines. So the ICOP has been developed erroneously by comparing apples with oranges.

 

I have used mewps a few times, on the right job they are fantastic and can save loads of time. My issue with the ICOP is that I don't believe that their use should be the default position as is currently the case. Use of a rope in preference to a mewp now has to be justified in the RA. I suspect that if all the tree work in the UK last year that was done with a rope and harness had been done with a mewp there would have been more not fewer accidents. The statistics used to prepare the ICOP are taken from all mewp use and compared with all tree work, I think that using a mewp to paint the side of a building or change a light bulb is no where near as dangerous as using it to reduce a large tree. Yet including the stats from 'safe' mewp jobs and comparing them with those from rope and harness tree work has led to a false positive result in favour of the mewp as the safer option.

 

Unless we have solid stats for the number of days worked or trees climbed across the industry and compare the accident data factoring in the much lower rate of mewp use in arboriculture we will always end up in this position. Like I said at the top the thread, I'm not against mewps at all, but I think that our current ICOP is actually recommending the (slightly) less safe option.

[scotspine1]

Quite right, but the same applies to rope and harness work too, how many falls have there been where the climber was doing everything by the book? tied in twice, LOLER'd kit, two handed saw use etc? Hardly any al all. The problem is that all accidents end up in the HSE stats, even if it was a complete cowboy climbing on a ratty 10 year old rope not following any of the guidelines. So the ICOP has been developed erroneously by comparing apples with oranges.

 

I have used mewps a few times, on the right job they are fantastic and can save loads of time. My issue with the ICOP is that I don't believe that their use should be the default position as is currently the case. Use of a rope in preference to a mewp now has to be justified in the RA. I suspect that if all the tree work in the UK last year that was done with a rope and harness had been done with a mewp there would have been more not fewer accidents. The statistics used to prepare the ICOP are taken from all mewp use and compared with all tree work, I think that using a mewp to paint the side of a building or change a light bulb is no where near as dangerous as using it to reduce a large tree. Yet including the stats from 'safe' mewp jobs and comparing them with those from rope and harness tree work has led to a false positive result in favour of the mewp as the safer option.

 

Unless we have solid stats for the number of days worked or trees climbed across the industry and compare the accident data factoring in the much lower rate of mewp use in arboriculture we will always end up in this position. Like I said at the top the thread, I'm not against mewps at all, but I think that our current ICOP is actually recommending the (slightly) less safe option.

 

Tom,

 

Like most of us here you're a climber, but not only that you have good climbers on your staff so when you approach a tree or trees to quote for work it's very rare the first thought that comes into your mind is MEWP.

 

I'd use a MEWP a lot more if more clients were happy to pay for the hire but until everyone is using a MEWP the guys climbing will nearly always be significantly cheaper. The reasons I'd use a MEWP have almost nothing to do with safety.

 

I really enjoy MEWP work especially on removals but very rarely use them these days due to competition for jobs. The ICOP risk assessment approach is pretty much irrelevant as well because nearly all of the jobs I look at fall well within what is reasonable to do from rope and harness and I would happily argue that point with anyone in a court of law or anyone from the HSE, AA or any self proclaimed voice of the industry or self proclaimed leader in health and safety.

Edited March 29, 2016 by scotspine1