When a lift won’t reach?

vertikal editor
We did respond to Mr Seddon in full and had already taken some of the criticsms on board from the net contractor. We have also opened up a positive and healthy debate with both parties.

However while fully respecting their opinions,and taking note of the points they make, we are not in full agreement with them, both in general and relating to the specific job.

We feel that the subject of safe net installation is a subject that deserves more coverage and a wider understanding among access proffesionals and end users and we will be covering the subject in future issues of Cranes & Access magazine.

We have also started a positive dialogue with Faset which we hope will lead some positve developments in the near future.

I read your recent article with some surprise, disappointment and anger.

Surprise at the writer’s acknowledged lack of knowledge of the subject matter under report whilst criticising an industry sector, and the lack of investigation of the full facts surrounding this work, and disappointment that you had not approached the industry body responsible for the Safety Net Rigging industry for guidance or comment on the article before proceeding to publish it.

FASET represents the safety net rigging industry in the UK and overseas, and as such sets the training and competence standards for the industry. FASET also sit on the European Standards committees that govern how the industry works, so we are the best placed organisation to comment on this subject.

FASET feel that the article you initially published was factually inaccurate and aimed to sensationalise the photographs you published. It also served to damage the image of a well regulated and well respected industry, and one that is a major hirer of access equipment.

With regard to the article, we should be very clear here - all safety net rigging work is carried out with one aim – to save lives. It would be very remiss if this came at the expense of global risk – i.e. that the works to erect the safety nets were carried out in an unsafe manner that transferred the risk of injury disproportionally to the installers of the nets.
To this end the FASET Health, Safety and Technical Committee, with the assistance of the HSE, have produced a hierarchy of installation methods for safety nets, and supporting guidance for the application of this hierarchy. (see http://www.faset.org.uk/docs/FASET-Best-Practice-2007.pdf )

The hierarchy is as follows:

1. Rig / de-rig Safety Nets remotely using remote attachment devices.

2. Rig / de-rig using powered access (MEWPs).

3. Rig / de-rig using ladders (recommended maximum height 4.5m).

4. Industrial climbing access techniques.

FASET has also developed specific training which is designed to enable the competent safety net rigger to directly access the structure in a safe and practical manner in order to erect safety nets where other access techniques prove impractical. (In fact, it was developed by FASET in partnership with an IRATA Training Company with input from the HSE)

The two techniques that the net riggers are taught are:

1. Accessing the structure whilst sat on the steelwork (with suitable harness and lanyard combinations to ensure their safety)

2. Working suspended from the steelwork (work positioning).

These access methods fit firmly in the hierarchy listed above.

These techniques have been developed in order that the safety nets can be installed where remote rigging techniques, MEWP access or the use of ladders is impractical. The work is strictly controlled with the operatives being suitably qualified and the works managed to provide them with adequate protection whilst they carry out the work. It should be remembered that these various techniques are used to install safety nets in order to provide passive collective fall protection for the roofers whilst their element of the work is carried out.

With regard to the specific case you highlight, I have spoken to the safety netting contractor involved (I am aware that you have also been in correspondence with him). The company have informed us that the site has severe access restrictions at ground level allied to a complex steel frame making MEWP access to the entire structure for the installation of safety nets impossible. This is also borne out by others with knowledge of this project and other similar ones. As such risk assessment proved that for the part of the works that is inaccessible by MEWP, the installation of the safety nets by riggers with IRATA qualifications, using the techniques highlighted above would be the safest in global risk terms. This is entirely in line with the industry best practice guidelines above.

You admit that you “do not know enough about the installation of safety nets to be categoric about alternative methods of installing them” and that “One thing is clear, it is very dangerous work, as the fatality statistics show”. Would a little research have been in order before publishing? I think so. I also ponder what statistics you refer to. Would you be kind enough to clarify?

I also take issue with inflammatory quotes like – “Definitely one for our Death Wish series”. Works such as these when properly planned using the appropriate equipment and qualified staff are very safe.

If we look at accident statistics which FASET collect on the safety netting industry on an annual basis, we can prove that safety nets save a number of lives each year whilst very few injuries are reported from installers or fallers. (On average over 50 lives are saved by compliantly installed safety nets per year, and that is only the ones that are reported by the faller or their employer to our members.)

We acknowledge that in recent years, two net riggers have lost their lives whilst installing safety nets. This is indeed a tragedy. I should point out that in both cases the riggers were working from MEWPs.

As a result of these accidents, FASET has spent a lot of time assisting in the development of the IPAF PAL+ course, and is backing this qualification for its riggers.

Additionally, all FASET Member Companies undergo a thorough audit process prior to acceptance to ensure they are of a sufficient standard to become members. This audit is repeated after 12 months and then every second year to ensure standards are maintained. We have a complaints procedure in the event of any issues with a Member. Companies are refused admittance to membership if they fail, and we have removed companies where they did not adhere to what is expected of a member. Therefore we take any allegations against a Member very seriously indeed.

Having looked into this matter I am convinced that the nets were installed using the appropriate technique given the site specific circumstances (circumstances you were not aware of at the time of publishing). I am also sure that appropriate measures were used to ensure the riggers safety.

I would therefore suggest that with an acknowledged ignorance of the subject matter in question, it would be wise that you investigate fully and consult the industry experts before publishing articles such as the one in question.

FASET are of the opinion that we should not let this matter lie as the article in our view was damaging to the industry and the contractor in question because of the lack of understanding illustrated. We also believe that it should not have been published without comprehending the site specifics, the industry and methodology used. As such we would appreciate further dialogue on this matter.

I should also note that the FASET Board would also like to take this up with your superiors in due course.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards

Tony Seddon
Company Secretary