HSE Report on Working at Height

[Dave]

I don't think that this has been mentioned here before (I did a search), but when looking at the HSE web site (as I occasionally do), I found a rather comprehensive bit of recent contract research on working at height. Its title is "Review of Work at Height Practices in the UK Broadcasting Industry", but I have no idea why they called it that as there is basically nothing in it that is specific to the broadcast industry! Everything in it is completely relevant to the entertainment/event industry, and I think it should be essential reading for all involved, whether workers or managers.

 

It can be found here.

 

In my view, it's pretty depressing and identifies numerous examples of unsafe practices at the major events surveyed.

[Simon Lewis]

Dave,

 

Well spotted! Your comment about the use of the term "Broadcast" is spot on... it seems odd that they should use it....

 

For those who do not want to trawl through it, here are some key issues where the reviewers found problems at live events:

 

• No protection against falls

• No protection during access and egress

• No fall arrest backup during work positioning

• Unapproved PPE

• Incorrect selection of PPE

• Misuse of PPE

• Poor condition of PPE

• Poor selection of structural anchor points and poor installation of PPE systems

• Unprotected fragile roofs

• Inadequate rescue plans

 

 

It appears we're being watched... ;-)

 

Simon

[zonino]

it doesn't seem odd atall that broadcast is in the title, as that is the area in which they have done their research!

 

and yes we are being watched, although broadcast has a bit of a sharper eye on it than theatre, at the moment anyway.

 

I will be reading the document in due course!

[Pete McCrea]

Although only undertaken at 5 events.......

 

I shall endeavour to give it a read and let you know what I think.

[zonino]

I didn't give my opinions of what I thought of the sample size

 

I am however led to believe by other sources that this is fairly common, which is unfortunately

[Dave]

Obviously five events is a very small sample, but the fact that numerous serious issues were found when the crews knew they were being watched is not a good sign.

[zonino]

I've been fairly reliably informed, that it's all too common that the first things to get cut from broadcast budgets by the Prod. Companies is H&S, the above unfortunately doesn't do anything to disprove this statement

[Seano]

it doesn't seem odd atall that broadcast is in the title, as that is the area in which they have done their research! ...

... I will be reading the document in due course!

No it isn't, as any fule kno who's actually read it. All 5 are live events, the nearest to 'broadcasting' being a large banner install in Leicester square for a movie premiere.

 

Obviously five events is a very small sample, but the fact that numerous serious issues were found when the crews knew they were being watched is not a good sign.

Actually the individuals photographed were mostly unaware that they were being watched/filmed - the HSE's presence was known to some, but not generally announced and as I think you can tell from a number of the photos, they did make something of an effort to film discreetly.

Numerous issues are always found in this kind of study, thats what the study is for. There's work to do and no room for complacency, right enough, but its not all doom and gloom either - they also identified and acknowledged some aspects of the way things are done in our industry that they really liked.

 

A couple of howlers* aside (the bit about "broadcasting ain't the only one) the conclusions are balanced, sensible and positive. As far as I can see, in all the areas where they identified a real need for improvement there is already work underway to bring improvements about. In most of those areas we've already come quite a long way - if this survey had been conducted 10 or even 5 years ago, trust me, they'd have seen much more to concern them.

 

Work to do, definitely, but I really don't think we need to be too pessimistic about this.

 

Sean

x

 

* - One of those howlers touched a nerve, its a favourite rant. But in an effort to a) avoid de-railing this thread and b) get some sleep, I'll leave that alone for now.

 

edit: posts crossed, further comment added below...

 

I've been fairly reliably informed, that it's all too common that the first things to get cut from broadcast budgets by the Prod. Companies is H&S

 

a) see above - all of the events studied were primarily live events. None of the work pictured was funded by a "broadcast budget" as such.

b) anyway, just, well: no

 

Sorry if this seems abrupt, but frankly I don't think your comment could be characterised as 'fair', 'reliable' or 'informed'.

Maybe you're doing things the wrong way round. Rather than commenting now and reading the document in due course, why don't you try reading it now and then commenting in due course?

[Ike]

As far as the comments about sample size goes it's interesting to note they are only made by people who haven't bothered reading the thing! The report is an in-depth look at five different events and raises a good number of points both good and bad, the writers seem to have got their facts straight and put them across in a clear and concise way. All in all I would say it is a well written and researched report and well worth the effort of reading, it's just a shame about the inaccurate title.

 

The point about the lack of fall arrest used in conjunction with work positioning systems is an interesting one; I must confess to falling into this trap on a number of occasions. I will tend to use back-ups on work positioning systems rather than separate fall arrest however the report would class this as inappropriate fall arrest due to the chance of free-fall, all be it an inch at most. Is this just a bad habit I picked up from my arboriculture work or a fairly standard (but not necessarily best) practise?

 

Anyone else like to confess to using self-made work positioning PPE? I wouldn't dream of using self-made fall-arest PPE for anything more than a free-fall of an inch or two at most but I suppose that still fits under their definition of it.

 

 

Defiantly worth a read, its got pictures and everything. :blink:

[zonino]

Sorry if this seems abrupt, but frankly I don't think your comment could be characterised as 'fair', 'reliable' or 'informed'.

Maybe you're doing things the wrong way round. Rather than commenting now and reading the document in due course, why don't you try reading it now and then commenting in due course?

 

don't have time to read a 165 page document at the moment, got a 20 page document to write for a ex-HSE inspector (which is where my comments came from)

 

the comment about the title is from:

 

NEL was contracted by HSE to

undertake a review of work at height within the UK broadcasting industry.

 

<tongue in cheek>

perhaps you want to take it back to them and complain that it isn't focussed on the broadcast industry and they should change the name? (I'm sure that'll make them leave us alone even more )

</tongue in cheek>

 

off to do said pile of work

[Seano]

The report is an in-depth look at five different events and raises a good number of points both good and bad, the writers seem to have got their facts straight and put them across in a clear and concise way. All in all I would say it is a well written and researched report and well worth the effort of reading, it's just a shame about the inaccurate title.

 

All in all, I agree with you. Personally, I don't mind the title being a bit misconceived - I think there are a few other areas where its a bit half-baked, so I quite like having such a prominent reminder that the document is not infallible.

 

I will tend to use back-ups on work positioning systems rather than separate fall arrest however the report would class this as inappropriate fall arrest due to the chance of free-fall, all be it an inch at most.

I didn't see it this way.

Where the report criticised the use of work-positioning without separate fall-arrest, the work positioning was a single system with no back up or redundancy. If you're talking about using two separate work-positioning systems (like two Grillons or a Grillon and a daisy-chain - is that the kind of thing you mean?) I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If there's genuinely no possiblity of falling more than a few inches, then I think its fair to describe the back-up as preventing, rather than arresting a fall - and thats ok.

 

Anyone else like to confess to using self-made work positioning PPE? I wouldn't dream of using self-made fall-arest PPE for anything more than a free-fall of an inch or two at most but I suppose that still fits under their definition of it.

 

Here again I don't see anything wrong (but I may be on shakier ground with this one regarding chapter & verse of the WaH regs).

If we're talking about a suitable rope with suitable knots competently tied, whats wrong with that? The WaH regulations call for it to be "adequately strong and suitable for the task" - the devil is in the details, but I don't see a problem. Labelling and inspection may be an issue - as an item of work positioning gear it would definitely have to be uniquely identifiable and have an inspection log associated with it, but I'm not sure there's necessarily anything in the regulations to prevent a home-brew solution to that. (Obviously you'd have to be careful to ensure than any label didn't compromise the rope, but with a bit of imagination that's easily achievable.)

 

My understanding is that 'free-fall' is anything where you could fall further than about 50cm. I'm not sure if that figure is explicitly defined anywhere, but the manufacturers do seem to specify their work-positioning gear as being ok for a potential fall of up to half a meter. I don't think there's any doubt about a couple of inches though - that is clearly fall-prevention rather than fall-arrest.

 

Sean

x

 

PS: Disclaimer: I am not an expert on the WaH regulations, and am merely expressing my personal opinion here. I may of course be mistaken. So there.

[Snailtrail]

I read this with interest and found it very helpful... The only query I had was about the recommendation to use Fall Arrest equipment in a MEWP?

 

From my IPAF training I understood that it should be a work restraint lanyard rather than fall arrest - The idea being to stop you getting into a position to fall out.

 

Anyone else find that a bit odd?

 

Sam

[Jivemaster]

I found the article a good, relevant read about the real world that we inhabit. Actually for them to say that 1 in 5 events MET the regs was a good surprise as I've seen too many attempts at darwins especially in small hour rip outs.

 

The important bit is what happens next, Some things need real attitude change from the TOP, others need a refusal to accept outdated practise by operatives. The prevalence of freelance work was cited as one reason why a rescue team doesnt happen, and a reason why PPE is variable. I suspect that far too little info goes out to freelancers for them to provide the optimum PPE. Freelancers are never going to provide "collective fall protection" (their defn) because it is too expensive for one freelancer to foot the bill, though that is not an allowable defence.

[ed_]

I was wondering when this would come out! I worked on one of these gigs, and while our crew thankfully appears in the 'examples of good practice' section, I have to say that we were aware from day one that this survey was being carried out - and were probably a little bit more careful for it. No bad thing.

 

The guys carrying out the survey were a breath of fresh air compared to the usual jobsworth H&S types - all well aware that we can't be lumped with the construction industry for everything, but determined to assess all the risks.

 

For example, one operation they observed (on video) involved the lifting of a section of truss from truss lifts onto the top of a goalpost. Some of us were on (footed) ladders, some on the goalpost with harnesses, and one on a scaff tower. They recognised that there was no other practical manner in which to complete the structure and, in a discussion afterwards only took issue with the lack of hard hats for ground personnel when truss pins were being used at height. Fair enough I say.

[Jivemaster]

Let's hope that this is the start of a two way dialogue, HSE and event people. The opportunity to learn from situations, the opportunity to get safety planned into a job.