BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
david west <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Keep your hands off me, you filthy human!
Date:
Wed, 8 Aug 2001 21:17:04 +1000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
 --- Ralph Walter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Having seen various items (including my camera,
> once) fall from on high, I am
> not at all certain that the public welfare would be
> served by relying solely
> on netting at the bottom of a swingstage to catching
> falling or dropped
> objects near their point of departure, in lieu of
> stopping them at the last
> millisecond on a sidewalk bridge.

Having also watched various objects fall from great
heights, I'm not sure that I'd want to rely on a some
measly sidewalk bridge (we call them footpath
hoardings, or overhead protection structures in the
bureacracy's terminology!) a mere 3.6m (12') wide to
catch them.  It is amazing how far objects can deviate
if they hit a projecting string course on the way
down!

Whereas if there is netting around the swinging
scaffold so that objects cannot fall ... then the
problem goes away!

> Netting and bridge would be best, in my
> view, bridge second, and net alone third.  Would you
> really feel better
> walking under a netted swingstage than under a
> bridge (assuming the bridge
> isn't loaded with God-knows-what to several times
> its capacity)?

I take your point, and agree with your first
preference.  Indeed, this is probably my preferred
approach.  However, I need to get a downgrade on the
loading capacity of the sidewalk bridge from a
uniformly distributed load to a more realistic point
load capacity.  Therefore, I'd offer a much higher
capacity for the swinging scaffold!  And tie it back
against the building at all times that work was being
carried out.  The principle would be similar to the
mast-climbing platform described by Peter Epperly (see
my response to him under separate cover).

Our review of regs suggests that whilst there is in
fact nothing which says we cannot do this, in practice
it will be virtually impossible to get approval.
Performance standards are yet to reach the OHS
environment in this regard (although they are present
when others want ALL the risk to rest on our
shoulders!).

Cheers

david

_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2