Legal age of working at height

[David A]

I come across these situations on a weekly basis, and so far I have found the safety guidelines to be totally sensible, so if some person quotes a line from some regulation which seems to be illogical always ask to see the whole regulation and its context.I have yet to see the regulation which prevents a student working on a scaff/platform ladder.

[Tom]

An OT discussion about the use of PPE when working at height has been split to a new topic - Tom

[videoman1]

A theatre group have been asking to rig for them for a while now but I'm unsure I heard somewhere there was a law about the age.

Does anyone know the age you have to be to go up a scaff tower and work if there is one?

And if there is what can people under that age do?

 

Cady

 

Best thing to do is call your State Labor Office and ask for the OSHA safety Standards Office and ask them.

 

Moderation: You may not have spotted that the forum has mainly UK based membership, with a few ex-pats and useful people overseas - most of our younger members are having problems with the odd and poorly implemented rules in our school system. We don't have state labour offices, and OSHA is an American administration.

 

 

Many members haven't filled in the location field in their profile - and many members join and don't realise where we mostly are - a good reason for everyone to fill this in!

[charl.ie]

Sorry for the bump, but I feel there is some information I could add for the benefit of people searching about this.

 

I have recently been discussing the use of a scaffold at school with my drama teacher, who has a book on health and safety written by Surrey County Council and the insurance firm (I think!), which details the use of students using the scaffolding. It states (and I paraphrase)

 

Only students aged 15 or over (year 11) can go up a scaffolding under supervision of someone with a PASMA Certificate and with a signed permission slip from a parent/guardian detailing the dates when the student is allowed up the scaffold.

Students may not put the scaffold up.

Ladders are not a safe alternative.

All seems pretty reasonable to me

 

On a side note, this is from Surrey County Council, so if you live somewhere else your mileage may vary! Usual disclaimers apply.

[paulears]

Trouble is, Charlie - as you say, just because Surrey seem to have a common sense appoach, it doesn't automatically follow that the same rules apply.

 

The PASMA course covers

 

1. Introduction to Mobile Access Towers

2. Tower Assembly

3. Stability

4. Safe Use of Towers

5. Repositioning Towers

6. Tower Inspection

7. Care & Maintenance

8. Tower Dismantle

9. Regulations and Standards

 

Which makes sense for people who want to know all about the safe use of towers.

[torch1972]

I too am a performing arts technician at a secondary school and agree with alot that GreatBigHippy has said in his reply......."I've been following this thread silently with interest for a while now. I'm a performing arts technician at a secondary school and I run a technical crew with age ranges from 14-18. I have run in to all these issues time and again and decided that, within the law, I would have to make a decision that I would be happy standing by in any circumstance. Thus my take is that I will only allow students at A-level age to use the access equipment, and only with my supervision". ...... The only difference is I train everyone how to use all access equipment (ladders, towers, etc) and they are only allowed to use the equipment with the supervision of a member of staff.

 

I also argee with Brian's reply......

Brian

QUOTE (steve h @ 29 Mar 2008, 6:01 PM)

I was told that legally competence is defined as whether you have knowledge, are trained and have experience.

 

Yep, that works as a definition. You'll also find that sentiment in several Regulations.

 

paulears Finally makes the good point.....

Trouble is, Charlie - as you say, just because Surrey seem to have a common sense appoach, it doesn't automatically follow that the same rules apply.

 

Having done working at height training. Here is the bottom line (forget common sense) if there was an accident (Lets hope there never will be) the Health and Safety Executive/ the police will want to see the following....

 

1. A risk assessment for the piece of access equipment and for the active taking place.

2. A ladder/ access equipment inspection report (Which should be carried out regularly)

3. Is There proof that the person/s were trained and a competent person (trained by an establish training body e.g.PASMA)

4. The manufactures' instructions for the access equipment. (How to use the equipment and which may have an age limit on it )

 

The Health and Safety Executive will take the manufactures' instructions over any amount of risk assessments or common sense things you have done. That is why the Health and Safety Executive have stopped some theatres from using Tallerscopes, because the theatres were not following the manufactures' instructions.

 

Thats the bottom line if things go wrong.

[Ike]

A risk assessment for the piece of access equipment and for the active taking place.

A risk assessment is a process not a piece of paper. As part of an investigation the HSE may wish to see evidence that this process took place. While not having written evidence to hand might get you a slap on the wrist it isn't the end of the world as long as you can account for your decision.

 

A ladder/ access equipment inspection report (Which should be carried out regularly)

Only if it was equipment failure that caused the accident. Again not having a bit of paper ain't the end of the world as long as you can describe the procedures you have in place to maintain equipment to a safe standard.

 

Is There proof that the person/s were trained and a competent person (trained by an establish training body e.g.PASMA)

Wrong! They would want to know the person was competent, this does not have to include any formal training whatsoever. It wasn't a PASMA trainer who told you this was it?

 

The Health and Safety Executive will take the manufactures' instructions over any amount of risk assessments or common sense things you have done.

Wrong again! Whoever told you this is a lier or an idiot. In the world of health and safety risk assessment (AKA common sense) is god.

 

I'd be very very wary of blindly repeating things you've been taught regarding health and safety law by people who make a living from teaching people about health and safety. Have a look at reports of old cases where the HSE have actually taken action against employers to see what really goes on, it is all just common sense.

 

A concurrent post has been automatically merged from this point on.

 

All that post was regarding health and safety law and the HSE by the way, your school/LEA policy may well differ.

[torch1972]

Here is the problem with the Blue Room I don't need to say where I have got my information nor have you. We both work in the industry but have very different ideas what is needed. But if there was an accident saying the HSE will not mind if there is no written evidence of risk assessments or an equipment inspection reports is just wrong. The HSE will looking for proof that there are procedures in place to protect anybody use the equipment.

 

Common sense works a lot of the time speacially, if you think that would be unsafe working at heights, in which case you should seek further instructions before continuing but HSE deal in evidence that that procedures are places to protect everyone. My understanding is written evidence is the best and that verbal evidence is not good enough.

[Brian]

A risk assessment for the piece of access equipment and for the active taking place.

A risk assessment is a process not a piece of paper. As part of an investigation the HSE may wish to see evidence that this process took place. While not having written evidence to hand might get you a slap on the wrist it isn't the end of the world as long as you can account for your decision.

 

Just to clarify something. From "The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999"...

 

3. - (1) Every employer shall make a suitable and sufficient assessment of -

 

(a) the risks to the health and safety of his employees to which they are exposed whilst they are at work; and

 

(b) the risks to the health and safety of persons not in his employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct by him of his undertaking,

 

for the purpose of identifying the measures he needs to take to comply with the requirements and prohibitions imposed upon him by or under the relevant statutory provisions and by Part II of the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997.

 

....

 

(6) Where the employer employs five or more employees, he shall record -

 

(a) the significant findings of the assessment; and

 

(b) any group of his employees identified by it as being especially at risk.

my bold.

 

It's fairly easy to find prosecutions of companies for not having written down the result of their risk assessments.

[Ike]

But if there was an accident saying the HSE will not mind if there is no written evidence of risk assessments or an equipment inspection reports is just wrong.

Prove it. Quote me one case in which a prosecution was brought for missing paperwork. You want evidence to back up my argument? Just look through a few prosecutions on the HSEs site and you'll see every one is due to a major failure in the risk assessing process and a failure to reduce the risks to a reasonable level, not missing paperwork.

 

The company I work for has actually been involved in a potential prosecution by the HSE following the loss of a members of staffs arm in an industrial accident. Despite not having written risk assessments for the task (this was about ten years ago) it never went to court as the investigator was happy they had taken all reasonable precautions. I'm sure they can't be the only ones who have had a case such as this which hasn't been reported so as to maintain the companies image. Obviously I'm not going to post the specifics online but can PM more details to anyone who's interested.

 

Now I'm not for a second saying you shouldn't formally record your risk assessments. It is of course the law (for most companies), does help to ensure you don't miss anything and may prove useful in civil (non-HSE) case however I don't believe for one second the HSE would or has prosecuted solely for written record or risk assessment not being up to scratch. I am of course open to corrections if anyone has any evidence to the contrary.

 

It's fairly easy to find prosecutions of companies for not having written down the result of their risk assessments.

Can you find me one? Our H&S lawyer thinks otherwise.

 

We do of course have all our records up to scratch now.

[paulears]

The long running Tallescope story is a useful one to mention. All sorts of risk assessments showing, as I understand it, perfectly sensible processes that have been deemed safe and acceptable to venues - BUT the manufacturer doesn't agree, so HSE for the moment have sided with the manufacturer.

 

I'm not aware this particular case has been resolved yet?

[Andrew C]

I'm not aware this particular case has been resolved yet?

Oh, but it has. Not the way we want it though. Manufacturers say "No", HSE says "No", council venues say "No". So anyone still doing this perfectly sensible thing had better hope they don't have an accident...

[Ike]

This illustrates my point quite nicely. The HSE must surely know this is still taking place yet they don't prosecute, in order for there to be an accident there must be a failing of the risk assessment/management process in which case the prosecution would be for this, not the fact you're not following the manufacturers instructions. Obviously there is also the chance of a freak accident (earthquake or similar) in which case I can't see a prosecution being brought.

[Andrew C]

I don't agree Ike, you could just have a true "Accident". One of those one-in-a-million, nothing you can do, can't legislate against, accidents. Guy at the bottom just gets it wrong, guy at the top comes down the quick way, and the HSE say "Hello, hello, what's been going on here then?"

[Ike]

But have you ever know anyone or any company to be prosecuted for such an accident? I've heard of lots of 'one in a million' type accidents relating to the electrical industry and various hobbies, many of these have resulted in death or permanent disablement yet none have resulted in prosecution. The only prosecutions I know of that have been made by the HSE seem to be very sensible and I would back the verdicts 100%. I'm not saying a prosecution couldn't be brought but that in practice it wouldn't. Maybe. I am of course still open to correction if anyone has any evidence to the contrary.

 

I suspect we may just have to agree to disagree...

 

As a side thought I wonder if the HSE would be after you if you used a hammer without wearing safety goggles? After all you're probably not following the manufacturers instructions...