Hoisting someone Up

[Jivemaster]

Look carefully at the whole task, its the sum of lots of smaller tasks, all of which have to be done competantly by a competant person in the meaning of the act (HSAW and LOLER) also within the license of the performance venue and within the artistic constraints of the performance-visible bits (cage cable etc) .

 

Only you can decide which bits you are competant to complete or not competant.

 

Has anyone looked for a suitable suspension point near where you want to work.

 

Its very likely that your engineers can make the cage etc but to the plans of a competant design authority.

lifting cages are frequently used in the construction industry for lowering men into tunnel shafts so the technology exists.

[jagardner1984]

It is pretty obvious what happens when you put too much force on an inappropriate point:

 

http://www.roadie.net/actruss.jpg

 

So question one has to be, can the infrastructure in the venue.

[Jivemaster]

OK we can all find a pic of a truss collapse, but we all rely on competantly installed lifts in buildings to get to the 5th/55th floor. The aim point - actor or two raised 5 metres - is easily attainable by safe working practise, by competant operators and designers. Achieving the competancies may be taxing, or over budget for a one off. in which case contract out the job, but under hsaw you may contract out the excecution of a task but NOT the responsibility for it, so you must have sufficient competance to check the workings of comtractors, over whom you may not have managerial authority.

[jagardner1984]

That would seem to be a big problem if you are someone with HSWA responsiblity, as you decide (for example) you are not sufficiently competent to make the particular decision, or carry out the particular task, so you get someone in to do the job, but then you may still not have the competence to check the work - so what happens then?

[timmath]

That would seem to be a big problem if you are someone with HSWA responsiblity, as you decide (for example) you are not sufficiently competent to make the particular decision, or carry out the particular task, so you get someone in to do the job, but then you may still not have the competence to check the work - so what happens then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is the whole point if contracting projects out... if you can not do it you get someone who can. When the work is complete they will sign it off, acknowledging they are responsible for those works. Therefore if you are not competant to check their work don't - thats what you are paying them for.

 

regards

 

Tim

[Jivemaster]

The points to note are that while you can select contractors and examiners, and compliance specialists, the HSE does NOT allow you to contract out the responsibility. Hopefully by engaging competant people and a competant company you reduce the hazard and the risk, but the risk and liabilities remain with you. In the case of an incident you would have to show that the contractors were chosen for their skills and competancies and that these were suitable for the job in question.

 

HSE's notes to the WAH regs specifically give example;; Office building roof needs repair, roof repair company called in by office manager, OFFICE MANAGER responsible if roofing company's system of work is unsafe and a fall occurs. The typical office manager hasnt a clue about WAH and roofs but according to HSE IS Responsible and liable.

 

This is why self employed subbies have to present safe working methods and plans before starting work.

[jagardner1984]

Thank you Jivemaster for that answer, in reality that is quite a problem, because you can effectively not have a clue (in the circumstances mentioned above you would have no reason to have a clue), and be doing everything you can, by getting in outside contractors, and still be responsible.

 

I am not saying it is wrong, but it is undoubtedly a problem. How long until an Office Manager, who should be worried with IT development, personnel management etc - has to have a working knowledge of Working at Height regs.

 

I am sure there must be some kind of practical compromise, without compromising safety - for example, provide specific contracts which specifically transfer responsibility to the contractor, assuming they are accredited by a national organisation because of an approved, safe, method of work.

 

There must be a way to stop the spiralling beauracracy and compensation culture without compromising safety. I am sure the above has many flaws which you guys will point out - it is purely a suggestion, which can be discussed, pulled apart, ridiculed - whatever you wish!!!

[sam.henderson]

I should imagine that if the office manager could give a risk assement for ' the competence of the roof contractors' including things like chosen due to buuilding experiance, track record, a member of building regualtion associations etc. etc. then the HSE would say fine you did all you could to minimise the risk of the whatever.

 

Sam

[jagardner1984]

But the problem, Sam, is that:

 

you must have sufficient competance to check the workings of comtractors

 

So even if you have done all that, you are still ultimately responsible.

[sam.henderson]

well then its a massive catch 22!!

 

Sam

[jagardner1984]

Precisely - which is why I think what I suggested earlier would form something of a compromise.