ICOP, MEWPs and work at height.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

The ICOP is not a document to deter or prevent tree work from rope and harness at all, it is simply a framework to ensure a consistent approach to the planning and organisation aspect that is derived from the W@H Regs.

 

Additionally, within the Management Regs, it sets out a hierarchy for risk prevention and 'collective protective measures' (meaning passive controls - MEWP bucket) always takes priority over 'personal protective measures' (meaning active controls - rope and harness.)

 

REMEMBER also this is purely considering the risks associated with "falls from height" which, as many have pointed out, is just one of a range of hazards that may be present...albeit a significant one AND one that has its own, specific H&S Regs (W@H Regs.)

 

Know its a negative view, and highly unlikely to occur (I sincerely hope), but a HSE Inspector will always ask the question about why a MEWP wasn't used and in particular IF access / space was favourable.

 

In order to get the document accepted by HSE, and to comply with legislation, it has to be set out the way it is, i.e. the risk hierarchy of GROUND - MEWP - CLIMB - REVIEW, and hence so long as your risk assessment process takes account of this, and, ideally, your justification is documented, you can happily climb away.

 

Perhaps its something of a mind-set change it terms of trying not to automatically default to HOW will I climb the tree but to DO I NEED TO climb the tree and, if so, why...and then HOW.

 

I'm waffling, time to go.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Peter]

I think the collective protection measures being prioritised over individual measures is where we've taken a wrong turn on this issue.

 

What Tom and I would both like to know is whether there is any actual accident or near miss data to support it?

 

To my mind the goal of risk assessment is to prevent injury and death. So are there less injuries and deaths in tree work using mewps properly compared to rope and harness properly?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I think the collective protection measures being prioritised over individual measures is where we've taken a wrong turn on this issue.

 

What Tom and I would both like to know is whether there is any actual accident or near miss data to support it?

 

To my mind the goal of risk assessment is to prevent injury and death. So are there less injuries and deaths in tree work using mewps properly compared to rope and harness properly?

 

Hi Peter,

 

We are largely working with 'principles', taken directly from H&S legislation, and probably "facts n figures" from other industry sectors and not arb (because we don't have these available.)

 

However, as I mentioned previously, and albeit anecdotally, I heard of several instances last year were climbers fell from trees and only one involving a MEWP...but proportionally they may be similar figures OR in favour of tree climbing. Its all somewhat speculative.

 

However, as I said before, there is no intention to deter tree climbing at all but to encourage better decision making in terms of the planning and organisation of tree-work at height...as per the ICOP, W@H Regs and Management Regs.

 

The fact remains that, in the event of an accident or incident, questions will be asked IF a MEWP could access the site and there was adequate space available (potentially your insurance company may also have an interest here if you're not complying with documented industry guidance.)

 

Whilst this is doubtless a very debatable, and even controversial issue, the required action is simply to consider GROUND - MEWP - CLIMB - REVIEW, and in that order, and ideally record / "justify" as you move from the first to the next, to the next, i.e. WHY are you climbing (and not simply because that's what you are highly trained to do and specialise in.)

 

Sorry, feel I'm just repeating myself here.

Paul

[Jim]

WORKING AT HEIGHT REGULATIONS 2005

 

These Regulations say that climbing work with a personal fall protection system (rope and harness) - can only be undertaken if:

 

1 - A risk assessment has demonstrated that the work can be performed safely while using that system.

 

2 - The use of other, safer work equipment (e.g. mobile elevating work platform) is not justified.

 

3 - The user and a sufficient number of available persons have received adequate training specific to the operation envisaged, including rescue techniques.

 

;-/

[Jim]

The key word there is 'justified'...

 

Access difficulties, ground conditions, locality of live electrical equipment, weather conditions, road traffic for example are all things for a climber to consider when planning mewp use.

 

If there are reasons why a mewp should not be used, then climbing is 'justified'.

 

Hope that helps - anyway, back to work!

[wisewood]

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.

 

Apologies for my lack of understanding but can you please clarify these CS quals ?

I'm a carver not a climber but will need to use a mewp on a big oak in a few months. What course will I need to take in regards to mewp training and will I be nullifying my insurance without the correct CS quals?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Apologies for my lack of understanding but can you please clarify these CS quals ?

I'm a carver not a climber but will need to use a mewp on a big oak in a few months. What course will I need to take in regards to mewp training and will I be nullifying my insurance without the correct CS quals?

 

Hmmm, interesting...and no apology needed, it is something of a mine-field at times.

 

I would suggest, albeit arguably, that regardless of what you are doing with the chainsaw, i.e. pruning / dismantling / carving, you will need both "adequate training" and a qualification, i.e. CS47 being applicable here (albeit no longer referred to as such because both City & Guilds / NPTC AND Lantra now offer the 'new' Level 2 -Use of a chainsaw from a MEWP qual.) This is because of H&S legislation and particular the PUWER Regs.

 

The other issue is a 'MEWP ticket' / qualification specific to the type of machine you are using...a further complicating factor unless you have an operator with you in the bucket but that introduces risk and more issues to consider.

 

Re-nullifying your insurance = potentially, but you'd have to speak with them as they may possibly have a different view for carving.

 

Hope this helps, at least a little, but do say if not...not a problem.

 

Cheers

Paul

[wisewood]

Hmmm, interesting...and no apology needed, it is something of a mine-field at times.

 

I would suggest, albeit arguably, that regardless of what you are doing with the chainsaw, i.e. pruning / dismantling / carving, you will need both "adequate training" and a qualification, i.e. CS47 being applicable here (albeit no longer referred to as such because both City & Guilds / NPTC AND Lantra now offer the 'new' Level 2 -Use of a chainsaw from a MEWP qual.) This is because of H&S legislation and particular the PUWER Regs.

 

The other issue is a 'MEWP ticket' / qualification specific to the type of machine you are using...a further complicating factor unless you have an operator with you in the bucket but that introduces risk and more issues to consider.

 

Re-nullifying your insurance = potentially, but you'd have to speak with them as they may possibly have a different view for carving.

 

Hope this helps, at least a little, but do say if not...not a problem.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

Thanks Paul, very useful info👍

In regards to the mewp it will probably be the tracked spider type.

I'm a little concerned over the CS 47 or equivalent as I only have CS30 which covers me for carving.

Is it possible to do the new level2 without working through the tree felling and climbing tickets?

Thanks, Si

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Thanks Paul, very useful info👍

In regards to the mewp it will probably be the tracked spider type.

I'm a little concerned over the CS 47 or equivalent as I only have CS30 which covers me for carving.

Is it possible to do the new level2 without working through the tree felling and climbing tickets?

Thanks, Si

 

Hi Si,

 

As I understand it you can access Level 2 - chainsaw from a MEWP with CS30, well certainly Lantra seems to allow such (see https://www.lantra.co.uk/awards/product/lantra-awards-technical-award-use-chainsaw-mobile-elevated-work-platform-mewp-2-0 where it states "please make sure that you hold a current licence to practice in the MEWP type you would like to use as well as a working knowledge of chainsaw maintenance and cross-cut techniques." However City & Guilds / NPTC says differently "Qualification Overview: The candidate must have previously completed pre-requisite units (201) Chainsaw Maintenance, (202) Cross-cutting and (203) Felling and Processing up to 380mm. " (see NPTC )

 

Cheers..

paul

[Peter]

The problem is, almost any tree could be accessed with a mewp given enough effort and the right machine.

 

Little spider lifts that can be tracked through a house for instance. I'm pretty sure at least 75% of trees could be accessed with a mewp.

 

However if I costed a mewp in to those jobs I wouldn't get any work.

 

So that leaves only one option, carry on climbing as usual, just make sure there are no accidents to investigate.