This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Note – this is not for me in this situation but I'm trying to help reach a conclusion.
Just wondering if anyone has experience of lone working in remote areas, ideally as a student but work context is fine too.
The situation would be working in an upland area on river tributaries, sometimes in a forest/wood environment. There’s a farm within c.1 mile and a road within 500m but zero mobile signal, little passing traffic and very few/no people walking around. The university says the site isn’t “that” remote and as an online map/graph shows there should be moderate phone coverage so they think it should be fine if you set up a check-in procedure.
The frequency of required visits mean loan working is needed (can’t get a field assistant 2/3 times a week). In the event of an injury, which I would deem reasonably high due to wading through rivers, walking up rocky tributaries etc, the options are:
Try to make it to the road / farm. But let’s assume the injury is bad enough to make this unlikely.
Try to contact someone. Mobile phone signal means this is unlikely.
Wait it out for someone to come across you (unlikely).
Wait for someone to raise the alarm when you don’t return home that evening.
Hope check in procedure works.
1. The check-in procedure suggested is contact the farmer at various point.
2. Contact the ranger at various points.
3. Contact the university when arriving/safe etc.
The problems with this are:
1. Farmer is often working and therefore not at home to check in with.
2. Ranger is roaming across a large area (likely not to include fieldwork locations) and does not have mobile contact.
3. Hard due to lack of mobile coverage (requires up to 90 minutes diversion to walk back to vehicle, drive to coverage and then get back to fieldwork location.
A request has been made for a GPS transmitter for the department (cost is £170 one off or £100 + £130 annual charge). This has been dismissed as the site is not remote enough to require one and they discourage lone working (but acknowledge it is often needed and do allow it). I think this is crap because they are basing their view on an idealistic scenario and not taking into account reality. Great, a chart says that there should be phone coverage but 10+ trips have proven this incorrect, etc.
If there was an injury/death then I assume this logic and prior knowledge would come back to bite them.
I believe the university (or one of the 2 industrial partners (or NERC)) should ensure the safety of their student and not try to pass things off as lower risk than they actually are in order to not, I assume, eat into existing departmental/H&S budgets.
Any thoughts on options to take? Or best practice for this type of situation?
Are the university being unreasonable?
Ultimately there will be a transmitter purchased, but it's whether that should come from the student's, rather than the universities, money.
Post edited at 11:44
1
1
In reply to James Malloch:
What will you be doing around the upland rivers? Defusing unexploded bombs? Shoring up old mine adits? Checking out gold deposits? What is there that you can be doing alone in the country that's so dangerous that you're worrying about it?
What will you be doing around the upland rivers? Defusing unexploded bombs? Shoring up old mine adits? Checking out gold deposits? What is there that you can be doing alone in the country that's so dangerous that you're worrying about it?
Post edited at 11:47
20
6
In reply to James Malloch:
Are you worrying too much? Isn't the key really to avoid doing anything too dangerous, as if you have an accident in the water, it's unlikely that any mobile phone-based or GPS-based checking-in solution is going to help, anyway?
What do the ranger and the farmer do?
At university, as part of our geology degree, we had to spend a month doing a mapping project, which involved working on our own in remote hilly areas all day every day, but staying with another student or students, so effectively checking in every evening. Nobody had mobile phones or GPS, it was just about being sensible and trying to leave rough plans as to what areas we intended to be in each day.
Are you worrying too much? Isn't the key really to avoid doing anything too dangerous, as if you have an accident in the water, it's unlikely that any mobile phone-based or GPS-based checking-in solution is going to help, anyway?
What do the ranger and the farmer do?
At university, as part of our geology degree, we had to spend a month doing a mapping project, which involved working on our own in remote hilly areas all day every day, but staying with another student or students, so effectively checking in every evening. Nobody had mobile phones or GPS, it was just about being sensible and trying to leave rough plans as to what areas we intended to be in each day.
Post edited at 11:47
8
1
In reply to James Malloch:
The University - or, more correctly, whoever is taking that particular stance - is being cheapskate and, probably, unreasonable. Presumably the person(s) involved would rather spend the money on more fancy lunches ...
On the other hand, *who* is making the decision so far? If you have real concerns, I would recommend that you escalate: citing H&S generally gets action.
One question: you say that "A request has been made for a GPS transmitter ... Ultimately there will be a transmitter purchased." Exactly what kind of device do you have in mind?
The University - or, more correctly, whoever is taking that particular stance - is being cheapskate and, probably, unreasonable. Presumably the person(s) involved would rather spend the money on more fancy lunches ...
On the other hand, *who* is making the decision so far? If you have real concerns, I would recommend that you escalate: citing H&S generally gets action.
One question: you say that "A request has been made for a GPS transmitter ... Ultimately there will be a transmitter purchased." Exactly what kind of device do you have in mind?
Post edited at 11:50
3
In reply to James Malloch:
To be fair, I tend towards the university point of view on this.
When I did fieldwork for my undergraduate dissertation (including a lot of wandering up and in a more remote river than you describe) it was just accepted that beyond some basic minimisation (risk assessment, first aid training, assessing conditions, letting someone know where you are, roping a friend in to observe and carry stuff) there isn't any easy way to get around the fact that you have to do some things alone.
Similarly, working in a very hazard averse culture professionally, it has been accepted that sometimes one man has to go and poddle around by a river - the preference is send two people in but there's recognition that it isn't always practical or necessary.
Risk management is about establishing measure to reasonably prevent risk. Clearly, in this instance, unless the student brings along a field partner (the usual workaround if there's a really sticky point) there isn't much else to be done. I don't see the benefit of a GPS transceiver as in the occurrence of a serious risk - drowning - it is unlikely to be much help.
Summarily, I don't think the university's standpoint is unreasonable, nor is it out of step with normal practice (as I know it).
To be fair, I tend towards the university point of view on this.
When I did fieldwork for my undergraduate dissertation (including a lot of wandering up and in a more remote river than you describe) it was just accepted that beyond some basic minimisation (risk assessment, first aid training, assessing conditions, letting someone know where you are, roping a friend in to observe and carry stuff) there isn't any easy way to get around the fact that you have to do some things alone.
Similarly, working in a very hazard averse culture professionally, it has been accepted that sometimes one man has to go and poddle around by a river - the preference is send two people in but there's recognition that it isn't always practical or necessary.
Risk management is about establishing measure to reasonably prevent risk. Clearly, in this instance, unless the student brings along a field partner (the usual workaround if there's a really sticky point) there isn't much else to be done. I don't see the benefit of a GPS transceiver as in the occurrence of a serious risk - drowning - it is unlikely to be much help.
Summarily, I don't think the university's standpoint is unreasonable, nor is it out of step with normal practice (as I know it).
5
In reply to James Malloch:
Its a while since I've done much field work but compared to places I've worked in the past that doesn't sound remote. I know the days of a student disappearing into the Scottish mountains for 2 weeks fieldwork with no planned contact are long gone (that was for my undergraduate dissertation in 1981) but a system such as I used with SNH for many years (1990s) when working alone in the mountains (often scrambling on rocky ground) where I phoned an arranged contact once back at base seemed a good compromise.
But I suspect what was considered fine a few years ago would now be frowned on by health & safety 'experts'
Its a while since I've done much field work but compared to places I've worked in the past that doesn't sound remote. I know the days of a student disappearing into the Scottish mountains for 2 weeks fieldwork with no planned contact are long gone (that was for my undergraduate dissertation in 1981) but a system such as I used with SNH for many years (1990s) when working alone in the mountains (often scrambling on rocky ground) where I phoned an arranged contact once back at base seemed a good compromise.
But I suspect what was considered fine a few years ago would now be frowned on by health & safety 'experts'
6
In reply to James Malloch:
Given that water is a significant risk factor, it seems unwise in the extreme to rely on consumer mobile phone coverage, as an incident with the water may well damage a phone handset beyond usability. Conversely, would an injured person always be able to remove a mobile phone from a waterproof container in a rucksack?
If the H&S division of the university - not the department - have a written submission from you giving evidence based reason(s) why their lone worker plan is unsafe, then the legal types might be unhappy in the extreme for the situation to progress.
I'm surprised that lone working involving river wading and scrambling would be deemed acceptable, but my experience of this is high and dry mountain landscapes, not rivers. PMR446 radius were used in our case, although they may not work well in your landscape.
Which part of "the university" is this coming from? The PI within a department? The H&S rep in the PI's department? The institutional H&S service? If it is one of the first two, I would go to the later. If it's the later, I would think it unreasonable, but I am not an expert by any means. I'm basing my assumptions of reasonableness on how risk averse institutional H&S divisions tend to be these days. Corporate manslaughter charges arising from H&S inadequacies can land people in jail these days.
Mind you, a lot of this depends on the training and qualification of the field worker. If the institution can show that the individual is suitably qualified that counts for a lot in an arse-covering sense, as well as hopefully a practical sense.
Given that water is a significant risk factor, it seems unwise in the extreme to rely on consumer mobile phone coverage, as an incident with the water may well damage a phone handset beyond usability. Conversely, would an injured person always be able to remove a mobile phone from a waterproof container in a rucksack?
If the H&S division of the university - not the department - have a written submission from you giving evidence based reason(s) why their lone worker plan is unsafe, then the legal types might be unhappy in the extreme for the situation to progress.
I'm surprised that lone working involving river wading and scrambling would be deemed acceptable, but my experience of this is high and dry mountain landscapes, not rivers. PMR446 radius were used in our case, although they may not work well in your landscape.
> Are the university being unreasonable?
Which part of "the university" is this coming from? The PI within a department? The H&S rep in the PI's department? The institutional H&S service? If it is one of the first two, I would go to the later. If it's the later, I would think it unreasonable, but I am not an expert by any means. I'm basing my assumptions of reasonableness on how risk averse institutional H&S divisions tend to be these days. Corporate manslaughter charges arising from H&S inadequacies can land people in jail these days.
Mind you, a lot of this depends on the training and qualification of the field worker. If the institution can show that the individual is suitably qualified that counts for a lot in an arse-covering sense, as well as hopefully a practical sense.
Post edited at 12:00
2
In reply to James Malloch:
The person doing the work should undertake arisk assessment. In the (hopefully) unlikely event of an incident the HSE will ask for this before any other paperwork. If on that assessment the person doing the work has identified the risk / hazard of lone working, and said they require x/y/z kit to enable them to do the work safely the HR dept are going to have to work fairly hard on covering their arses whilst explaining that they blew the cash on a sandwich upgrade for their last board meeting.
The person doing the work should undertake arisk assessment. In the (hopefully) unlikely event of an incident the HSE will ask for this before any other paperwork. If on that assessment the person doing the work has identified the risk / hazard of lone working, and said they require x/y/z kit to enable them to do the work safely the HR dept are going to have to work fairly hard on covering their arses whilst explaining that they blew the cash on a sandwich upgrade for their last board meeting.
6
1
In reply to James Malloch:
I assume you are the student? There should be a risk assessment for this work. Whilst we all accept risks for our hobbies etc, the work environment is different. It's not an unreasonable scenario to fall, twist an ankle and then not be able to make it to help. You therefore need to be able to contact someone (or not go unaccompanied). There are alternatives to mobile phones.
The way to handle this is to do the risk assessment - highlight the issues and solutions - then it needs to be signed off by your supervisor. I know H&S can seem a pain but in this case it's here to help you.
You are not unique in this position.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-fieldwork/
Section 5 is what you need.
I assume you are the student? There should be a risk assessment for this work. Whilst we all accept risks for our hobbies etc, the work environment is different. It's not an unreasonable scenario to fall, twist an ankle and then not be able to make it to help. You therefore need to be able to contact someone (or not go unaccompanied). There are alternatives to mobile phones.
The way to handle this is to do the risk assessment - highlight the issues and solutions - then it needs to be signed off by your supervisor. I know H&S can seem a pain but in this case it's here to help you.
You are not unique in this position.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-fieldwork/
Section 5 is what you need.
8
1
In reply to James Malloch:
A lone worker situation has to be failsafe rather than activating something in an emergency.
Something that monitors movement and sends a signal if there has been movement in the last 15mins. No movement - no signal - further investigation by third party.
It's then down to whoever is carrying out the task to decide if they are comfortable with a signal every 15mins or 8hours etc. That's not down to the employer.
The student needs to decide whether the activity they are about to undertake is safe at the point of work, it's not decided by an employer who visited the site in the summer and is now in an office 200miles away.
The employer needs to back up the student if the student decides that collecting data that day is too dangerous for one person. They can then collect some data from somewhere else and come back another day when it's more safe or with assistance.
.
A lone worker situation has to be failsafe rather than activating something in an emergency.
Something that monitors movement and sends a signal if there has been movement in the last 15mins. No movement - no signal - further investigation by third party.
It's then down to whoever is carrying out the task to decide if they are comfortable with a signal every 15mins or 8hours etc. That's not down to the employer.
The student needs to decide whether the activity they are about to undertake is safe at the point of work, it's not decided by an employer who visited the site in the summer and is now in an office 200miles away.
The employer needs to back up the student if the student decides that collecting data that day is too dangerous for one person. They can then collect some data from somewhere else and come back another day when it's more safe or with assistance.
.
4
4
23
2
Bit of a quick response but thanks for all the replies and views so far.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Installing and monitoring natural dams. Re the worry, slipping on wet rocks, crossing a river etc could result in a broken leg, head injury, or other.
In reply to skog:
Is it unlikely? If you break a leg and it's raining you'll get cold and deteriorate quickly and a transmitter could alert someone and create a response.
In reply to Rob:
This is my thought. It's been discussed with both the department and H&S manager for the faculty. Though I'm not sure if this has been escalated to any higher level (I'm not sure how it works). H&S say it is the department's responsibility, and visa versa.
The type of transmitter would be something like a personal locator beacon. This could transmit an emergency signal to local services and the university. A cost of £175 seems small for something that could benefit many students (it's a geography department).
In reply to SpaceCaptainTheodore:
Some fair points but in an age where technology is relatively cheap and risks are there that can be mitigated it seems, in my opinion, unreasonable to pass these off as acceptable. Drowning, maybe it wont help. Falling and suffering a head injury, not so unlikely and something like this could save lives.
In reply to wintertree:
The PhD is assessing flooding and the effect of natural dams. So getting to data loggers, which need to be in the river channel, is part and parcel of the project. It's not hugely deep c.1m ish, but I think the risk assessment process seems fairly lax.
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Installing and monitoring natural dams. Re the worry, slipping on wet rocks, crossing a river etc could result in a broken leg, head injury, or other.
In reply to skog:
Is it unlikely? If you break a leg and it's raining you'll get cold and deteriorate quickly and a transmitter could alert someone and create a response.
In reply to Rob:
This is my thought. It's been discussed with both the department and H&S manager for the faculty. Though I'm not sure if this has been escalated to any higher level (I'm not sure how it works). H&S say it is the department's responsibility, and visa versa.
The type of transmitter would be something like a personal locator beacon. This could transmit an emergency signal to local services and the university. A cost of £175 seems small for something that could benefit many students (it's a geography department).
In reply to SpaceCaptainTheodore:
Some fair points but in an age where technology is relatively cheap and risks are there that can be mitigated it seems, in my opinion, unreasonable to pass these off as acceptable. Drowning, maybe it wont help. Falling and suffering a head injury, not so unlikely and something like this could save lives.
In reply to wintertree:
The PhD is assessing flooding and the effect of natural dams. So getting to data loggers, which need to be in the river channel, is part and parcel of the project. It's not hugely deep c.1m ish, but I think the risk assessment process seems fairly lax.
4
1
Would a handheld VHF be suitable? Either contact the Mountain Rescue regularly, or the ranger?
Maybe for next year, another uni team could develop a wireless system that could be accessed by drone? i.e. fly a drone to close to the data logger, collect data wirelessly, fly to next site,
Post edited at 12:22
2
1
In reply to James Malloch:
Sounds like an idylic place to work to me !
Seriously, have you checked that there is no mobile coverage anywhere and have you checked for different operators on different bands ?
Sounds like an idylic place to work to me !
Seriously, have you checked that there is no mobile coverage anywhere and have you checked for different operators on different bands ?
4
In reply to hang_about:
It's my girlfriend. I work for a bank (in risk management which is one reason I think this seems a bit ridiculous, though I guess our budget for this is larger...) so don't have to deal with rivers unfortunately. The risk assessment has been carried out (and passed) but it's come about due to the lack of a system to deal with any injuries, which you mentioned aren't unreasonable scenarios.
I'm passing the thread and the NERC link on, thanks!
> I assume you are the student? There should be a risk assessment for this work. Whilst we all accept risks for our hobbies etc, the work environment is different. It's not an unreasonable scenario to fall, twist an ankle and then not be able to make it to help. You therefore need to be able to contact someone (or not go unaccompanied). There are alternatives to mobile phones.The way to handle this is to do the risk assessment - highlight the issues and solutions - then it needs to be signed off by your supervisor. I know H&S can seem a pain but in this case it's here to help you.You are not unique in this position.http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-fieldwork/Sec... 5 is what you need.
It's my girlfriend. I work for a bank (in risk management which is one reason I think this seems a bit ridiculous, though I guess our budget for this is larger...) so don't have to deal with rivers unfortunately. The risk assessment has been carried out (and passed) but it's come about due to the lack of a system to deal with any injuries, which you mentioned aren't unreasonable scenarios.
I'm passing the thread and the NERC link on, thanks!
In reply to James Malloch:
I was going to walk up mount Snowdon last summer with my climbing partner. After a risk assessment we decided not to.
I was going to walk up mount Snowdon last summer with my climbing partner. After a risk assessment we decided not to.
11
13
In reply to James Malloch:
A sceptic might think that if you are worried about being in the outdoors so much then perhaps a slightly more office based education or career would suit.
I imagine that farmer who is not home, is encountering far greater daily risks.
I would just get on with it and use your education to monitor water levels and the weather forecast. Take appropriate clothing and if the dams are so vast and deep a buoyancy aid.
A sceptic might think that if you are worried about being in the outdoors so much then perhaps a slightly more office based education or career would suit.
I imagine that farmer who is not home, is encountering far greater daily risks.
I would just get on with it and use your education to monitor water levels and the weather forecast. Take appropriate clothing and if the dams are so vast and deep a buoyancy aid.
11
2
In reply to James Malloch:
Assuming this is uk summer then it seems to me at least the most serious risk is one which no amount of electronics can guard against is drowning after a trip/slip and head injury. Pretty much everything else is less serious and can be mitigated with appropriate training, clothing, kit, forecast, a pre-arranged work plan and rescue call-out time if they haven't checked in safe once finished for the day.
jk
Assuming this is uk summer then it seems to me at least the most serious risk is one which no amount of electronics can guard against is drowning after a trip/slip and head injury. Pretty much everything else is less serious and can be mitigated with appropriate training, clothing, kit, forecast, a pre-arranged work plan and rescue call-out time if they haven't checked in safe once finished for the day.
jk
1
In reply to James Malloch:
I thought it was the water you were worried about? Other than drowning (which a mobile or GPS won't help with), and assuming it wasn't winter, someone with a broken leg wouldn't normally be at risk of dying before they could be rescued. As long people knew rougly where they were and noticed they hadn't checked in in the evening, that is.
Again, what do the ranger and the farmer do?
> Is it unlikely? If you break a leg and it's raining you'll get cold and deteriorate quickly and a transmitter could alert someone and create a response.
I thought it was the water you were worried about? Other than drowning (which a mobile or GPS won't help with), and assuming it wasn't winter, someone with a broken leg wouldn't normally be at risk of dying before they could be rescued. As long people knew rougly where they were and noticed they hadn't checked in in the evening, that is.
Again, what do the ranger and the farmer do?
1
GrahamD:
Not all networks but a number so far, but will try to check all.
Summo:
A sceptic may think that. But enjoying being outdoors doesn’t mean you should just accept all risks when there are ways to mitigate them.
Even on the most perfect day with low water levels you can still easily trip/fall and cause injury which means you may need help.
Skog:
Water is a worry but there are plenty of other causes of injury which could result in the need for assistance. Head injuries, for example.
The farmer owns the land, but I guess he just get on with his farming. He’s allowed the university to use his land but he’s not an active participant in the project.
The ranger looks after the area as it is a shooting estate. So capturing predators, fixing things etc. He drives around on a quad bike type thing but would infrequently pass by specific areas due to their location.
Not all networks but a number so far, but will try to check all.
Summo:
A sceptic may think that. But enjoying being outdoors doesn’t mean you should just accept all risks when there are ways to mitigate them.
Even on the most perfect day with low water levels you can still easily trip/fall and cause injury which means you may need help.
Skog:
Water is a worry but there are plenty of other causes of injury which could result in the need for assistance. Head injuries, for example.
The farmer owns the land, but I guess he just get on with his farming. He’s allowed the university to use his land but he’s not an active participant in the project.
The ranger looks after the area as it is a shooting estate. So capturing predators, fixing things etc. He drives around on a quad bike type thing but would infrequently pass by specific areas due to their location.
1
2
2
In reply to James Malloch:
Sorry, I meant what do the farmer and ranger do to cover themselves for if something goes wrong when -they- are working alone?
If head injuries are a worry, wear a helmet, surely?
Sorry, I meant what do the farmer and ranger do to cover themselves for if something goes wrong when -they- are working alone?
If head injuries are a worry, wear a helmet, surely?
3
In reply to James Malloch:
Try a Manx Telecom sim card - they roam across all UK networks so will maximize chance of getting a signal when in remote areas.
Try a Manx Telecom sim card - they roam across all UK networks so will maximize chance of getting a signal when in remote areas.
3
In reply to James Malloch:
I appreciate you're worried about your girlfriend but do you not think you may be overthinking this a little? Perhaps it's growing up in that environment a few years before you without all the tech we're used to now but honestly it sounds like a relatively low risk job in a not especially remote environment, one in which other people apparently work alone every day. I think perhaps in a world of near ubiquitous GPS and mobile phone coverage we've maybe lost sight of what is a reasonable amount of self reliance. That said, I can empathise, my (rather accident prone and carefree) partner did her final 3 month uni placement essentially solo in rural Uganda and it was a worry at times but ultimately it was a great experience.
edit: 999 works across all networks so if there is any cover there is emergency cover.
jk
I appreciate you're worried about your girlfriend but do you not think you may be overthinking this a little? Perhaps it's growing up in that environment a few years before you without all the tech we're used to now but honestly it sounds like a relatively low risk job in a not especially remote environment, one in which other people apparently work alone every day. I think perhaps in a world of near ubiquitous GPS and mobile phone coverage we've maybe lost sight of what is a reasonable amount of self reliance. That said, I can empathise, my (rather accident prone and carefree) partner did her final 3 month uni placement essentially solo in rural Uganda and it was a worry at times but ultimately it was a great experience.
edit: 999 works across all networks so if there is any cover there is emergency cover.
jk
Post edited at 13:28
14
In reply to James Malloch:
I think the intent of skog's question was to ask what they do to ensure their safety given that they also appear to be lone working in the same area.
To me, it seems that a system with a check-in at the end of the working day would be enough. No check-in means a MRT search of the work area. Combined with a decent amount of warm clothes, survival bag, and torch/whistle to help the search team, that should deal with the most likely immobilising injuries. The subset of accidents where the injury kills you before the search team arrives that evening, but would be survivable if the team arrived after 1-2hrs, seems quite small.
> The farmer owns the land, but I guess he just get on with his farming. He’s allowed the university to use his land but he’s not an active participant in the project.
> The ranger looks after the area as it is a shooting estate. So capturing predators, fixing things etc. He drives around on a quad bike type thing but would infrequently pass by specific areas due to their location.
> The ranger looks after the area as it is a shooting estate. So capturing predators, fixing things etc. He drives around on a quad bike type thing but would infrequently pass by specific areas due to their location.
I think the intent of skog's question was to ask what they do to ensure their safety given that they also appear to be lone working in the same area.
To me, it seems that a system with a check-in at the end of the working day would be enough. No check-in means a MRT search of the work area. Combined with a decent amount of warm clothes, survival bag, and torch/whistle to help the search team, that should deal with the most likely immobilising injuries. The subset of accidents where the injury kills you before the search team arrives that evening, but would be survivable if the team arrived after 1-2hrs, seems quite small.
Post edited at 13:27
8
In reply to r0b:
If you dial 112 or 999 all phones cross network anyway.
> Try a Manx Telecom sim card - they roam across all UK networks so will maximize chance of getting a signal when in remote areas.
If you dial 112 or 999 all phones cross network anyway.
1
In reply to James Malloch:
As I say. Something that you physically have to activate is useless. If you fall and bang your head you can't activate it.
The systems we are looking at for our lone working systems involve turning a unit on, notifying a central control centre of your intentions/work area then clocking out afterwards and turning the unit off.
Legally your employer must pay for any H&S equipment.
As I say. Something that you physically have to activate is useless. If you fall and bang your head you can't activate it.
The systems we are looking at for our lone working systems involve turning a unit on, notifying a central control centre of your intentions/work area then clocking out afterwards and turning the unit off.
Legally your employer must pay for any H&S equipment.
2
In reply to James Malloch:
If you still get injured even on a perfect day perhaps you are doing something wrong?
I can appreciate your predicament; I work in the forest in remote location etc.. but I avoid accidents by having had training, follow best practice, avoid taking risks, never try to rush the job, wear appropriate ppe etc... the same if dealing with the tractor pto shaft for example, taking zero risks etc.. As as an accident in a remote location won't end well.
> Summo:Even on the most perfect day with low water levels you can still easily trip/fall and cause injury which means you may need help.
If you still get injured even on a perfect day perhaps you are doing something wrong?
I can appreciate your predicament; I work in the forest in remote location etc.. but I avoid accidents by having had training, follow best practice, avoid taking risks, never try to rush the job, wear appropriate ppe etc... the same if dealing with the tractor pto shaft for example, taking zero risks etc.. As as an accident in a remote location won't end well.
4
1
In reply to James Malloch:
There are lots of iPhone utilities. Even with sketchy phone coverage texts can get out.
Ultimately it's the rescue plan and the people watching remotely that are the biggest problem.
There are lots of iPhone utilities. Even with sketchy phone coverage texts can get out.
Ultimately it's the rescue plan and the people watching remotely that are the biggest problem.
1
In reply to MG:
Seconded. Always nice to be able to listen to a bit of Ken Bruce & Bob Harris while you're waiting to be rescued. Makes the time go much quicker.
> Radio?
Seconded. Always nice to be able to listen to a bit of Ken Bruce & Bob Harris while you're waiting to be rescued. Makes the time go much quicker.
13
In reply to James Malloch:
If there's no phone signal a GPS location transmitter won't work (unless it's a satellite one which would be VERY costly). GPS is a receive-only technology, you need another technology to send your position back.
If there's no phone signal a GPS location transmitter won't work (unless it's a satellite one which would be VERY costly). GPS is a receive-only technology, you need another technology to send your position back.
1
4
In reply to hang_about:
Bingo.
Bingo.
The university are being unreasonable.
> Whilst we all accept risks for our hobbies etc, the work environment is different.
Bingo.
> It's not an unreasonable scenario to fall, twist an ankle and then not be able to make it to help.
Bingo.
The university are being unreasonable.
3
In reply to Neil Williams:
SPOT sounds like the solution that has been identified, judging by the initial price and annual fee.
> unless it's a satellite one which would be VERY costly
SPOT sounds like the solution that has been identified, judging by the initial price and annual fee.
3
In reply to James Malloch:
Satellite kit is clearly an option but on land and at British latitudes there are problems. At least one MRT false alarm from a check-in function has occurred in the UK due to the short-comings of some constellations. It is also possible that woods and outcrops will obstruct the very weak signals used in these systems.
The further north you go and the steeper the terrain then the more Iridium kit becomes the most reliable option. Using a PLB is also an option in those conditions but location may take longer because of terrain issues.
In less steep terrain and in southern areas, things like SPOT become more reliable.
=====================
I suspect the HMRC approach on what is an employee and what is a business expense might give you indicators for who pays.
Satellite kit is clearly an option but on land and at British latitudes there are problems. At least one MRT false alarm from a check-in function has occurred in the UK due to the short-comings of some constellations. It is also possible that woods and outcrops will obstruct the very weak signals used in these systems.
The further north you go and the steeper the terrain then the more Iridium kit becomes the most reliable option. Using a PLB is also an option in those conditions but location may take longer because of terrain issues.
In less steep terrain and in southern areas, things like SPOT become more reliable.
=====================
I suspect the HMRC approach on what is an employee and what is a business expense might give you indicators for who pays.
1
In reply to James Malloch:
Speaking as a farmer my opinion is that if you are doing a job with the likelihood of injury that requires immediate assistance then you shouldn't be working alone.
Where such a serious injury is unlikely then you arrange to check in at a set time and carry what you need to make yourself comfortable and await rescue.
Speaking as a farmer my opinion is that if you are doing a job with the likelihood of injury that requires immediate assistance then you shouldn't be working alone.
Where such a serious injury is unlikely then you arrange to check in at a set time and carry what you need to make yourself comfortable and await rescue.
21
In reply to James Malloch:
From pushing the H&S you may also change the way you have to work. So buoyancy aids, helmets and other PPE may become a requirement of all work.
In my line of work any working near water is required to have lifejacket, helmet, supervisor, radios and a safety vehicle on site as minimum. That's isn't even to enter the water but within a couple of metres of the waters edge.
From pushing the H&S you may also change the way you have to work. So buoyancy aids, helmets and other PPE may become a requirement of all work.
In my line of work any working near water is required to have lifejacket, helmet, supervisor, radios and a safety vehicle on site as minimum. That's isn't even to enter the water but within a couple of metres of the waters edge.
3
In reply to James Malloch:
We look up. For weeks, for months, that is all we have done. Look up. And there it is-the top of Everest. Only it is different now: so near, so close, only a little more than a thousand feet above us. It is no longer just a dream, a high dream in the sky, but a real and solid thing, a thing of rock and snow, that men can climb. We make ready. We will climb it. This time, with God's help, we will climb on to the end.
Tenzing Norgay
(Written before the invention of Heath and safety legislation )
We look up. For weeks, for months, that is all we have done. Look up. And there it is-the top of Everest. Only it is different now: so near, so close, only a little more than a thousand feet above us. It is no longer just a dream, a high dream in the sky, but a real and solid thing, a thing of rock and snow, that men can climb. We make ready. We will climb it. This time, with God's help, we will climb on to the end.
Tenzing Norgay
(Written before the invention of Heath and safety legislation )
2
2
In reply to Dorchester:
Yes. Doing your own thing, in your own time, using your own judgement is fine - indeed, it's the aspiration, isn't it? - and I guess we all do that when we go out climbing, mountaineering, etc. On the other hand, people are still getting hurt - and killed - on building sites. Me: I like Health and Safety ...
Yes. Doing your own thing, in your own time, using your own judgement is fine - indeed, it's the aspiration, isn't it? - and I guess we all do that when we go out climbing, mountaineering, etc. On the other hand, people are still getting hurt - and killed - on building sites. Me: I like Health and Safety ...
Post edited at 16:35
7
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Hi Rob, I agree, but this thread just leaves me feeling that we have lost something in our modern lives and a sense of proportionality.
Hi Rob, I agree, but this thread just leaves me feeling that we have lost something in our modern lives and a sense of proportionality.
Post edited at 16:40
4
In reply to James Malloch:
We have a (retch) buddy-system that's intended for remote working on moors, mountains etc ie an agreed contact point and call-in time/window which triggers a checklist system if missed
We have a (retch) buddy-system that's intended for remote working on moors, mountains etc ie an agreed contact point and call-in time/window which triggers a checklist system if missed
1
In reply to Dorchester:
That's why the Primary Industries, like Mining, Construction and Forestry still have the highest (relative) fatalities.
It can be great work, but it is hazardous.
(I'm a builder)
To the OP: The situation you describe suggests two staff are required and that lone working is not appropriate
That's why the Primary Industries, like Mining, Construction and Forestry still have the highest (relative) fatalities.
It can be great work, but it is hazardous.
(I'm a builder)
To the OP: The situation you describe suggests two staff are required and that lone working is not appropriate
3
1
In reply to Dorchester:
The proportionality is that not everyone is comfortable wading through rivers in remote areas on their own. That there are people who see nothing wrong with wading through rivers in remote areas on their own and think that the people who aren't comfortable should just get on and do it regardless of how uncomfortable or unsafe they feel doing it.
When that second group are running companies and don't care about the first group you get into a whole world of problems.
> Hi Rob, I agree, but this thread just leaves me feeling that we have lost something in our modern lives and a sense of proportionality.
The proportionality is that not everyone is comfortable wading through rivers in remote areas on their own. That there are people who see nothing wrong with wading through rivers in remote areas on their own and think that the people who aren't comfortable should just get on and do it regardless of how uncomfortable or unsafe they feel doing it.
When that second group are running companies and don't care about the first group you get into a whole world of problems.
Post edited at 17:40
4
1
In reply to James Malloch:
It is difficult to judge this from afar, since I don't have the full risk assessment.
However, if this is NERC-funded research, then it should follow the extensive NERC fieldwork policy. Your girlfriend will be able to gain useful advice from NERC H&S at Swindon (I can provide contact details). Evidence from British Geological Survey field teams suggests that SPOT trackers are not as reliable as previously thought.
I am surprised that the university condones any lone working in remote areas.
N
It is difficult to judge this from afar, since I don't have the full risk assessment.
However, if this is NERC-funded research, then it should follow the extensive NERC fieldwork policy. Your girlfriend will be able to gain useful advice from NERC H&S at Swindon (I can provide contact details). Evidence from British Geological Survey field teams suggests that SPOT trackers are not as reliable as previously thought.
I am surprised that the university condones any lone working in remote areas.
N
3
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Maybe, then, the ones that ARE comfortable with doing it should do it and the ones that aren't should, perhaps, look for different work.
Maybe, then, the ones that ARE comfortable with doing it should do it and the ones that aren't should, perhaps, look for different work.
6
6
In reply to Oceanrower:
You'd run out of miners very quickly.
> Maybe, then, the ones that ARE comfortable with doing it should do it and the ones that aren't should, perhaps, look for different work.
You'd run out of miners very quickly.
5
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
The problem with that scenario is that they ARE comfortable for many years - right up to the point when, one day, they have a serious accident. At that point the weaknesses in the system become glaringly apparent, particularly when an inspector from the HSE arrives and begins asking questions!
HSE's own statistics show that highly experienced, confident workers can still get themselves in the $h1t.
The problem with that scenario is that they ARE comfortable for many years - right up to the point when, one day, they have a serious accident. At that point the weaknesses in the system become glaringly apparent, particularly when an inspector from the HSE arrives and begins asking questions!
HSE's own statistics show that highly experienced, confident workers can still get themselves in the $h1t.
4
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
This works the other way too.
I did all kinds of iffy stuff when it was just me but now I have a bunch of employee's and a few safety qualifications under my belt, in other words I will be held very liable if something goes wrong due to a lack of training or resources for any of my guys I tend towards being a bit ott.
If you are loan working you need a robust lone worker system in place, as a minimum it should be a GPS based man down system.
Typically they can get a location message out on a signal strength that a mobile phone won't recognise and they have a panic button too.
Personally I just refuse to loan work if there is no mobile signal and if my customers don't like that they can get someone else to do the job.
> When that second group are running companies and don't care about the first group you get into a whole world of problems.
This works the other way too.
I did all kinds of iffy stuff when it was just me but now I have a bunch of employee's and a few safety qualifications under my belt, in other words I will be held very liable if something goes wrong due to a lack of training or resources for any of my guys I tend towards being a bit ott.
If you are loan working you need a robust lone worker system in place, as a minimum it should be a GPS based man down system.
Typically they can get a location message out on a signal strength that a mobile phone won't recognise and they have a panic button too.
Personally I just refuse to loan work if there is no mobile signal and if my customers don't like that they can get someone else to do the job.
2
In reply to cousin nick:
This thread now reminds me of the feeling on the first day of a course when you realise with horror that you will need to spend the following 3 days nodding and agreeing while someone commits you to a slow death by PowerPoint.
You grit your teeth and try to will the clock to make it to the first coffee break while bombarded with useful phrases like 'safety is no accident' delivered in Ernest by someone with a nasal accent and an ill fitting suit and absolutely no sense of humour or irony.
Slide after slide of HSE statistics and NERD fieldwork policy.
My work here is done, I'll get my coat...
This thread now reminds me of the feeling on the first day of a course when you realise with horror that you will need to spend the following 3 days nodding and agreeing while someone commits you to a slow death by PowerPoint.
You grit your teeth and try to will the clock to make it to the first coffee break while bombarded with useful phrases like 'safety is no accident' delivered in Ernest by someone with a nasal accent and an ill fitting suit and absolutely no sense of humour or irony.
Slide after slide of HSE statistics and NERD fieldwork policy.
My work here is done, I'll get my coat...
3
In reply to James Malloch:
A consideration may be what would happen if someone were to experience a debilitating heart attack?
How would they call for help?
An example from my experience is that I used to work in a highly classified area. Supposedly inaccessible for those who weren’t cleared. But one day I left my keys inside when I went for a coffee. So off I trot to Security and ask them to let me back in. They can’t – They aren’t cleared (so I ask what would happen if I had a heart attack live on CCTV).
I got back in – but afterwards the company had to have a concrete roof fitted to the area (Big Plus – I didn’t get sacked).
Recently I experienced such a heart attack. I could get to the phone, but not the front door. Told them which window to break and I'm still here today.
A consideration may be what would happen if someone were to experience a debilitating heart attack?
How would they call for help?
An example from my experience is that I used to work in a highly classified area. Supposedly inaccessible for those who weren’t cleared. But one day I left my keys inside when I went for a coffee. So off I trot to Security and ask them to let me back in. They can’t – They aren’t cleared (so I ask what would happen if I had a heart attack live on CCTV).
I got back in – but afterwards the company had to have a concrete roof fitted to the area (Big Plus – I didn’t get sacked).
Recently I experienced such a heart attack. I could get to the phone, but not the front door. Told them which window to break and I'm still here today.
5
In reply to Dorchester:
I'm a strong believer that health and safety is messing with the gene pool as it is taking natural selection out of the equation.
Or if you want to hear a much better argument watch the link below as Steve Hughes has a much better way with words.
youtube.com/watch?v=BAnGYfnFz9I&
I'm a strong believer that health and safety is messing with the gene pool as it is taking natural selection out of the equation.
Or if you want to hear a much better argument watch the link below as Steve Hughes has a much better way with words.
youtube.com/watch?v=BAnGYfnFz9I&
2
2
In reply to monkeypranks:
Yes. It would be much better to have loads of people injured and maimed and depending on the state.
Yes. It would be much better to have loads of people injured and maimed and depending on the state.
8
2
In reply to James Malloch:
Release a bear in to the area she's working.
Then the university will have to provide at least a transmitter because of the increased risk.
Release a bear in to the area she's working.
Then the university will have to provide at least a transmitter because of the increased risk.
6
In reply to monkeypranks:
I fear your work here is wasted. The Health and Safety executive have arrived and resistance is useless, attempts at humorous responses will be met with hostility.
It's a bit like the Borg on Star Trek, you have taken on a collective entity with one mind and a number of thick HMSO publications.
I fear your work here is wasted. The Health and Safety executive have arrived and resistance is useless, attempts at humorous responses will be met with hostility.
It's a bit like the Borg on Star Trek, you have taken on a collective entity with one mind and a number of thick HMSO publications.
Post edited at 19:49
3
1
In reply to James Malloch/Mark - in some work situations I would have died if I had a heart attack. I have done months of geologic fieldwork several hours away from anyone else and also some months of farming in parts of Norway where getting access will take hours, and you will not be discovered for a very, very long time. I am not wishing to sound macho as that wasn't how the thought process goes - rather it's more like 'great, I get to work in a beautiful place doing something I am interested in and enjoy' and the numerous small potential risks get put to the back of your mind.
I am not sure how to put it gently, but that is how it goes if you want to work in mountainous remote areas. The unverstity have made a risk assessment? I sympathise with their position.
I am very sure the farming was more dangerous, risk prone than the fieldwork.
I am not sure how to put it gently, but that is how it goes if you want to work in mountainous remote areas. The unverstity have made a risk assessment? I sympathise with their position.
I am very sure the farming was more dangerous, risk prone than the fieldwork.
10
In reply to wbo:
There is a big difference between taking on a job where you know from the outset that is what is required. You receive the training and support required.
We've already had a farmer stating that you don't do certain activities alone.
It sounded to me that the student is being told to carry out an activity that normally shouldn't require lone working and wasn't comfortable with it.
There is a big difference between taking on a job where you know from the outset that is what is required. You receive the training and support required.
We've already had a farmer stating that you don't do certain activities alone.
It sounded to me that the student is being told to carry out an activity that normally shouldn't require lone working and wasn't comfortable with it.
4
1
In reply to Alasdair Fulton:
Why not just have a drone hovering over them, sending live images back to control room.
> Would a handheld VHF be suitable? Either contact the Mountain Rescue regularly, or the ranger?Maybe for next year, another uni team could develop a wireless system that could be accessed by drone? i.e. fly a drone to close to the data logger, collect data wirelessly, fly to next site,
Why not just have a drone hovering over them, sending live images back to control room.
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
There's a lot of anti H&S stuff on this thread - and I've been on the receiving end of the dreaded PowerPoint training course. But NERC have lots of people doing field work in about as extreme conditions as you can imagine. They have a sensible, well-thought out policy that is directly applicable in this case.
I'm a biochemist and I'm fortunate enough to have had my career in an era where H&S has been applied reasonably well. I've seen enough older colleagues get solvent related cancers not to be gung-ho about this.
Edit: Not responding directly to you DoR!
There's a lot of anti H&S stuff on this thread - and I've been on the receiving end of the dreaded PowerPoint training course. But NERC have lots of people doing field work in about as extreme conditions as you can imagine. They have a sensible, well-thought out policy that is directly applicable in this case.
I'm a biochemist and I'm fortunate enough to have had my career in an era where H&S has been applied reasonably well. I've seen enough older colleagues get solvent related cancers not to be gung-ho about this.
Edit: Not responding directly to you DoR!
Post edited at 20:14
3
1
In reply to timjones:
I appreciate your optimistic view and you are probably longer in the tooth in farming than me, but in reality it just isn't like that. In a H&S perfect world things like chainsaws or pto drives would not exist etc.... how many farms in the UK are one man bands so the chances of working as a pair never exist for many. If tractors or harvesters had tachographs like trucks many farmers would be out of their weeks hours by weds evening. As an aside if only people would pay more for certain products then industries like farming, forestry and trawler fishing could probably be safer.
A uni field trip isn't farming or forestry so their procedures could or should be tighter for inexperienced students.
> Speaking as a farmer my opinion is that if you are doing a job with the likelihood of injury that requires immediate assistance then you shouldn't be working alone. Where such a serious injury is unlikely then you arrange to check in at a set time and carry what you need to make yourself comfortable and await rescue.
I appreciate your optimistic view and you are probably longer in the tooth in farming than me, but in reality it just isn't like that. In a H&S perfect world things like chainsaws or pto drives would not exist etc.... how many farms in the UK are one man bands so the chances of working as a pair never exist for many. If tractors or harvesters had tachographs like trucks many farmers would be out of their weeks hours by weds evening. As an aside if only people would pay more for certain products then industries like farming, forestry and trawler fishing could probably be safer.
A uni field trip isn't farming or forestry so their procedures could or should be tighter for inexperienced students.
Post edited at 20:34
4
1
In reply to James Malloch:
if there's legitimate risk then lone working should be avoided at all cost. I have a friend who lost vision in one eye in a similar(ish) enviroment to what you're describing. Having said that they were carrying out activities that present a significantly higher risk factor than what you're describing, and again the injury was due to the activity not the place. However, he was told that if help had been on hand then its likely some degree vision could have been saved.
Coming from a forestry background lone working can really put the heebee jeebees into me. I still do it. And actually i get a lot out of it, its nice to be out there getting on with my own thing. You just have to be extra conscious of what you're doing.
From a risk assessment stand point the university is slightly chancing their arm. I think you're absolutely right that if something happened they'd be in it pretty deep. And a SPOT would significantly the consequences of getting yourself stuck out there with a broken leg.
At the end of the day, as with all things H & S, it's up to her. If she refuses to do the work on the grounds of safety, and she can justify that (which she clearly can), then the university doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Edit: also, ignore any comparisons from this website to climbing in x or y location. accepting risk professionally vs in a hobby context are completely different, irreconcilable and incomparable.
further edit: i just re-read a post above, and realise she's getting in the bloody rivers?! this probably says a lot about my comfort with that particular environment but i think she'd be nuts to do that on her own! soloing loose rock? fine. using a chainsaw while dangling in a tree? fine. Getting my feet wet? sod that....
if there's legitimate risk then lone working should be avoided at all cost. I have a friend who lost vision in one eye in a similar(ish) enviroment to what you're describing. Having said that they were carrying out activities that present a significantly higher risk factor than what you're describing, and again the injury was due to the activity not the place. However, he was told that if help had been on hand then its likely some degree vision could have been saved.
Coming from a forestry background lone working can really put the heebee jeebees into me. I still do it. And actually i get a lot out of it, its nice to be out there getting on with my own thing. You just have to be extra conscious of what you're doing.
From a risk assessment stand point the university is slightly chancing their arm. I think you're absolutely right that if something happened they'd be in it pretty deep. And a SPOT would significantly the consequences of getting yourself stuck out there with a broken leg.
At the end of the day, as with all things H & S, it's up to her. If she refuses to do the work on the grounds of safety, and she can justify that (which she clearly can), then the university doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Edit: also, ignore any comparisons from this website to climbing in x or y location. accepting risk professionally vs in a hobby context are completely different, irreconcilable and incomparable.
further edit: i just re-read a post above, and realise she's getting in the bloody rivers?! this probably says a lot about my comfort with that particular environment but i think she'd be nuts to do that on her own! soloing loose rock? fine. using a chainsaw while dangling in a tree? fine. Getting my feet wet? sod that....
Post edited at 20:57
4
In reply to Chris Harris:
My uni project suggestion was serious! Drones are already used for inspecting flare stacks on oilrigs - significantly cheaper and safer as it can be done without even shutting down, no scaffold or rope access required, much lower risk of accidents.
Your suggestion is facetious as it would mean someone has to control a drone to watch someone....d'oh....
> Why not just have a drone hovering over them, sending live images back to control room.
My uni project suggestion was serious! Drones are already used for inspecting flare stacks on oilrigs - significantly cheaper and safer as it can be done without even shutting down, no scaffold or rope access required, much lower risk of accidents.
Your suggestion is facetious as it would mean someone has to control a drone to watch someone....d'oh....
2
1
In reply to James Malloch:
She should go with a buddy (as Blurty advised), or not go.
(I know you said "can’t get a field assistant 2/3 times a week").
Good luck to both of you.
> Note – this is not for me in this situation....
She should go with a buddy (as Blurty advised), or not go.
(I know you said "can’t get a field assistant 2/3 times a week").
Good luck to both of you.
2
1
In reply to bouldery bits:
Or a set of bear bells, far cheaper for a cash strapped uni.
> Release a bear in to the area she's working.Then the university will have to provide at least a transmitter because of the increased risk.
Or a set of bear bells, far cheaper for a cash strapped uni.
1
In reply to Rigid Raider:
It's one of those things where within an organisation type setting, what is thought of as fine for a private individual to go and do, isn't fine for a school/university, or in my case a conservation charity. I did a survey of a grazing boundary which meant spending the day out walking, and when doing it 'officially', I (as a volunteer) had to be with somebody else (where as staff just need to ring and tell another member of staff they're back at their car etc). In the end, from not getting things finished when with the other volunteer, I cycled out by myself and locked my bike up, and without telling the charity I was doing, walked around the site another few times to get things properly sorted. It was only tramping up and down fields, splashing through a few rivers and negotiating woodland with undergrowth in away from footpaths, but the possibility of my tripping up and banging my head or twisting my ankle on uneven ground, is the kind of thing which, if was to happen, is something which any organisation which has looking after it's staff and volunteers as one of it's legal responsibilities, needs to have risk assessed for.
As it happened, I didn't have any accidents (other than the odd 'oops'-trip on a sticky up stone in a footpath) because I was aware I was out by myself in some places where I'd be very unlikely to meet another person, like tramping through woodland where I wasn't on the path but following a fence line, but the kind of rare and very bad luck accident which could leave somebody by themselves and cold and injured, and if they were there for long enough dehydrated or with hypothermia (or in my case as a diabetic something potentially quite serious if 'out in the sticks' by myself for long enough without access to further medical bits and pieces and food etc), is the kind of situation where another person is handy, and covers s what's required to do with risk assessments too.
It can be annoying in terms of resources and availability of people, and logistics, but it doesn't do any harm to think about this kind of thing, and doesn't always mean that people are becoming risk averse in general life, it's just something which applies when in an 'official setting'.
> What will you be doing around the upland rivers? Defusing unexploded bombs? Shoring up old mine adits? Checking out gold deposits? What is there that you can be doing alone in the country that's so dangerous that you're worrying about it?
It's one of those things where within an organisation type setting, what is thought of as fine for a private individual to go and do, isn't fine for a school/university, or in my case a conservation charity. I did a survey of a grazing boundary which meant spending the day out walking, and when doing it 'officially', I (as a volunteer) had to be with somebody else (where as staff just need to ring and tell another member of staff they're back at their car etc). In the end, from not getting things finished when with the other volunteer, I cycled out by myself and locked my bike up, and without telling the charity I was doing, walked around the site another few times to get things properly sorted. It was only tramping up and down fields, splashing through a few rivers and negotiating woodland with undergrowth in away from footpaths, but the possibility of my tripping up and banging my head or twisting my ankle on uneven ground, is the kind of thing which, if was to happen, is something which any organisation which has looking after it's staff and volunteers as one of it's legal responsibilities, needs to have risk assessed for.
As it happened, I didn't have any accidents (other than the odd 'oops'-trip on a sticky up stone in a footpath) because I was aware I was out by myself in some places where I'd be very unlikely to meet another person, like tramping through woodland where I wasn't on the path but following a fence line, but the kind of rare and very bad luck accident which could leave somebody by themselves and cold and injured, and if they were there for long enough dehydrated or with hypothermia (or in my case as a diabetic something potentially quite serious if 'out in the sticks' by myself for long enough without access to further medical bits and pieces and food etc), is the kind of situation where another person is handy, and covers s what's required to do with risk assessments too.
It can be annoying in terms of resources and availability of people, and logistics, but it doesn't do any harm to think about this kind of thing, and doesn't always mean that people are becoming risk averse in general life, it's just something which applies when in an 'official setting'.
Post edited at 00:02
2
2
In reply to summo:
What has being long in the tooth got to do with it?
My point was that if you are using a chainsaw you shouldn't be working alone, because you could easily bleed to death before any fancy device will get help to you.
If the worst injury that you can anticipate is a twisted ankle then it is acceptable to work alone as long as someone knows where you are and you arrange to report in at the end of the day.
That is surely the essence of good risk assessment?
What has being long in the tooth got to do with it?
My point was that if you are using a chainsaw you shouldn't be working alone, because you could easily bleed to death before any fancy device will get help to you.
If the worst injury that you can anticipate is a twisted ankle then it is acceptable to work alone as long as someone knows where you are and you arrange to report in at the end of the day.
That is surely the essence of good risk assessment?
Post edited at 06:22
2
In reply to timjones:
Lone working is very common practice in the nordics. But at least in Sweden you can't 'work' with a saw without having done the training courses. It is now illegal. It is also forbidden to lone work wind blown or storm damage.
Yeah you'll bleed out in a minute. Just like that guy in a garden in London? 1 or 2 weeks ago. I carry my mobile, a tournequet and 2 big dressings. If I need more than that I'm next to dead, if I need less I will make it out myself, or to tractor/shelter/quad. Although I'm never more than 3km from a car drivable road, I have the means to light a fire where I work. I always have full ppe, use best practice zero risk. If trees are hung or problematic then I will either use the winch to fix straight away or hang orange tape as a reminder to me, or warning to others who might wander there.
Yes and if wearing ppe, use well maintained kit, take rest breaks, follow best practice I see no reason why this is not the case for lone work forestry.
Of course it is down to the individual but I don't rush I don't allow myself to feel time pressure, by either a contract or the weather. Early season each year I will often just cut half days at first giving myself a chance to become accustomed to cutting again. Cutting when knackered end at the end of a long day is inviting an accident.
Edit. I will add I did my courses in 2006 although I was cutting(more hobby) before that and have owned and worked in the forest every winter for the past ten years, but still learning! I did do a small course here and meet the safety people, but the Swedish course and the UK CS ones are pretty similar.
The Swedish courses are less interested in doing varied fancy cuts, dog tooth etc.. but they do more environmental stuff too which isn't surprising.
> What has being long in the tooth got to do with it?
More experience? > My point was that if you are using a chainsaw you shouldn't be working alone, because you could easily bleed to death before any fancy device will get help to you.
Lone working is very common practice in the nordics. But at least in Sweden you can't 'work' with a saw without having done the training courses. It is now illegal. It is also forbidden to lone work wind blown or storm damage.
Yeah you'll bleed out in a minute. Just like that guy in a garden in London? 1 or 2 weeks ago. I carry my mobile, a tournequet and 2 big dressings. If I need more than that I'm next to dead, if I need less I will make it out myself, or to tractor/shelter/quad. Although I'm never more than 3km from a car drivable road, I have the means to light a fire where I work. I always have full ppe, use best practice zero risk. If trees are hung or problematic then I will either use the winch to fix straight away or hang orange tape as a reminder to me, or warning to others who might wander there.
> If the worst injury that you can anticipate is a twisted ankle then it is acceptable to work alone as long as someone knows where you are and you arrange to report in at the end of the day.That is surely the essence of good risk assessment?
Yes and if wearing ppe, use well maintained kit, take rest breaks, follow best practice I see no reason why this is not the case for lone work forestry.
Of course it is down to the individual but I don't rush I don't allow myself to feel time pressure, by either a contract or the weather. Early season each year I will often just cut half days at first giving myself a chance to become accustomed to cutting again. Cutting when knackered end at the end of a long day is inviting an accident.
Edit. I will add I did my courses in 2006 although I was cutting(more hobby) before that and have owned and worked in the forest every winter for the past ten years, but still learning! I did do a small course here and meet the safety people, but the Swedish course and the UK CS ones are pretty similar.
The Swedish courses are less interested in doing varied fancy cuts, dog tooth etc.. but they do more environmental stuff too which isn't surprising.
Post edited at 08:21
3
In reply to Morgan Woods:
May not be remote compared to some places but there are plenty of places in Scotland where you can be several miles from a road and not see anyone all day.
But the site described in the first post doesn't sound particularly remote & this seems more an issue of lone working rather than remoteness
> wait a sec.... you're in the UK?what is there that is remotely remote?
May not be remote compared to some places but there are plenty of places in Scotland where you can be several miles from a road and not see anyone all day.
But the site described in the first post doesn't sound particularly remote & this seems more an issue of lone working rather than remoteness
1
In reply to Timmd:
Your post is the perfect illustration on my thoughts on health and safety. The problem I have is it is a process which now automatically has to be done in most cases without any change to the final outcome.
I own a chainsaw and some land. I won't use it when I my own as I can see that a catastrophic bleed is easily foreseeable and the consequences serious.
If I'm honest, to the op I wouldn't let my girlfriend wander about on a moor up to her waist in a river as it's not sensible.
Farmers all over the country go out and do tasks, sometimes one gets trapped under a quad bike or goes in a bailing machine.
You have kindly donated your time to a voluntary organisation. They insist that you cannot walk around fields and woods on your own because 'it's too risky', for gods sake is this what we have come to?
It's the thought behind it that there is some liability if something happened. How on earth has litigation become part of this process, we seem to blindly follow the US in all things.
I also object to the process, usually 7 pages of A4 with an all encompassing remit such as 'does the work involve heights above 2.5 meters?
Having completed and handed over this rubbish all are now happy that we have compliance with HSE regs. It adds nothing but pointless process because we now have too.
Lastly the people enforcing this were previously found jotting down train numbers at London train terminals. White middle aged men who have now found a new focus for their boring nerdy thought processes. Who will quickly justify the most pointless exercise with "its health and safety" an argument which cannot be contradicted in their mad struggle to have some point to their lives and tell others what they can and can't do...
Your post is the perfect illustration on my thoughts on health and safety. The problem I have is it is a process which now automatically has to be done in most cases without any change to the final outcome.
I own a chainsaw and some land. I won't use it when I my own as I can see that a catastrophic bleed is easily foreseeable and the consequences serious.
If I'm honest, to the op I wouldn't let my girlfriend wander about on a moor up to her waist in a river as it's not sensible.
Farmers all over the country go out and do tasks, sometimes one gets trapped under a quad bike or goes in a bailing machine.
You have kindly donated your time to a voluntary organisation. They insist that you cannot walk around fields and woods on your own because 'it's too risky', for gods sake is this what we have come to?
It's the thought behind it that there is some liability if something happened. How on earth has litigation become part of this process, we seem to blindly follow the US in all things.
I also object to the process, usually 7 pages of A4 with an all encompassing remit such as 'does the work involve heights above 2.5 meters?
Having completed and handed over this rubbish all are now happy that we have compliance with HSE regs. It adds nothing but pointless process because we now have too.
Lastly the people enforcing this were previously found jotting down train numbers at London train terminals. White middle aged men who have now found a new focus for their boring nerdy thought processes. Who will quickly justify the most pointless exercise with "its health and safety" an argument which cannot be contradicted in their mad struggle to have some point to their lives and tell others what they can and can't do...
Post edited at 09:17
3
4
In reply to Morgan Woods:
How remote do you think you need to be in order to die due to not being found soon enough?
> wait a sec.... you're in the UK?what is there that is remotely remote?
How remote do you think you need to be in order to die due to not being found soon enough?
In reply to James Malloch:
Interesting topic and thread. I work in an industry where one aspect of what we do means we often have people out doing this kind of work. Typically, we would not allow lone working, especially near water, especially without appropriate protection being identified (how to balance the H&S brigade of wanting a lifejacket when working in proximity to water....difference between a floating inspection and walking along a canal path for instance?!) You use 'rivers' which is a loose term - what width, depth, flow rate etc will be encountered?
I think you need to take this back to basics and do a proper risk assessment - what is the likelihood of each potential risk occurring and what is the consequence of that. Then, how can you mitigate each, thinking about the risk, not the consequence. Then, how can you manage each consequence if the worst does occur post mitigation. Finally, what are the remaining unreasonable risks and how does what you are proposing address those. What benefit for example, is there to have a real time GPS position. What is the trigger to send in for rescue? How will that affect the consequence of the risk that is meant to mitigate? What happens if there is no GPS? What is the trigger to send in for rescue? How will that affect the consequence of the risk? When broken down, you may find that the 'mitigation' isn't actually a mitigation but a false confidence.
Doing a risk assessment isn't 'just paperwork'. It needs to be relevant, applicable and agreed. Last week a subcontractor had someone hospitalised for ignoring a standard mitigation action (and of the type that many of us would ignore in our own personal life to 'save time/effort/because it's not really a risk'). Similarly, another subcontractor has someone learning to walk again after not performing the checks required in the works procedure. The checks were required, because the risk assessment had identified the risk of death and mitigation which had to be checked everytime before use. He is lucky to be alive.
Then of course, both parties have to be happy with the status and actions. If not happy, stop work.
This needs to be done on a practical level and not thinking on a 'who will be responsible if injury occurs' as that is when people end up with stupid over the top H&S solutions.
Edit: I am sure people will think this makes me sound like a paper monkey. Not the case, and I have often been challenged on my "disregard" for H&S process. However, having seen people injured and worked on projects where people have been killed (not on my watch), I do not want anyone to have that experience.
> N In the event of an injury, which I would deem reasonably high due to wading through rivers, walking up rocky tributaries etc,
Interesting topic and thread. I work in an industry where one aspect of what we do means we often have people out doing this kind of work. Typically, we would not allow lone working, especially near water, especially without appropriate protection being identified (how to balance the H&S brigade of wanting a lifejacket when working in proximity to water....difference between a floating inspection and walking along a canal path for instance?!) You use 'rivers' which is a loose term - what width, depth, flow rate etc will be encountered?
I think you need to take this back to basics and do a proper risk assessment - what is the likelihood of each potential risk occurring and what is the consequence of that. Then, how can you mitigate each, thinking about the risk, not the consequence. Then, how can you manage each consequence if the worst does occur post mitigation. Finally, what are the remaining unreasonable risks and how does what you are proposing address those. What benefit for example, is there to have a real time GPS position. What is the trigger to send in for rescue? How will that affect the consequence of the risk that is meant to mitigate? What happens if there is no GPS? What is the trigger to send in for rescue? How will that affect the consequence of the risk? When broken down, you may find that the 'mitigation' isn't actually a mitigation but a false confidence.
Doing a risk assessment isn't 'just paperwork'. It needs to be relevant, applicable and agreed. Last week a subcontractor had someone hospitalised for ignoring a standard mitigation action (and of the type that many of us would ignore in our own personal life to 'save time/effort/because it's not really a risk'). Similarly, another subcontractor has someone learning to walk again after not performing the checks required in the works procedure. The checks were required, because the risk assessment had identified the risk of death and mitigation which had to be checked everytime before use. He is lucky to be alive.
Then of course, both parties have to be happy with the status and actions. If not happy, stop work.
This needs to be done on a practical level and not thinking on a 'who will be responsible if injury occurs' as that is when people end up with stupid over the top H&S solutions.
Edit: I am sure people will think this makes me sound like a paper monkey. Not the case, and I have often been challenged on my "disregard" for H&S process. However, having seen people injured and worked on projects where people have been killed (not on my watch), I do not want anyone to have that experience.
Post edited at 10:00
6
In reply to Castleman:
I agree with you but I do enjoy a good rant on a Friday morning.
I do see a big distinction however in sites like forests, building sites etc and walking the countryside with a clipboard and pen ( pointed writing implement which should not be stored in a trouser pocket as in the event of trip or fall it could lacerate the genitals)
I agree with you but I do enjoy a good rant on a Friday morning.
I do see a big distinction however in sites like forests, building sites etc and walking the countryside with a clipboard and pen ( pointed writing implement which should not be stored in a trouser pocket as in the event of trip or fall it could lacerate the genitals)
Post edited at 11:03
2
1
In reply to Dorchester:
I get what you mean, but it's to allow for the random bad luck that the charity has the safeguards it does, if I'd got my foot caught on a creeper or a root and got hurt while going down hill, I might have been glad of some company, and most of the time pairs are easy enough to arrange. One of the guys who does regular land management while leading volunteers has a more relaxed attitude to risk, and there's a certain amount which doesn't get back to HR, he'll tell people what they 'should be doing' and then let them get on with things as they see fit.
It can become vexing. A family friend mentioned working within a factory company, and on the shop floor it was found that to do a certain process, it was easier to use a knife to do something, and rather than handing knives to people and getting on with things, things had to be stopped while the risk assessment was updated to include knives as well. That can seem rather daft, but another example could be dangerous practices not happening on a building site any more because of the process of risk assessing.
I think this may be a stereotype?
> Your post is the perfect illustration on my thoughts on health and safety. The problem I have is it is a process which now automatically has to be done in most cases without any change to the final outcome. I own a chainsaw and some land. I won't use it when I my own as I can see that a catastrophic bleed is easily foreseeable and the consequences serious. If I'm honest, to the op I wouldn't let my girlfriend wander about on a moor up to her waist in a river as it's not sensible. Farmers all over the country go out and do tasks, sometimes one gets trapped under a quad bike or goes in a bailing machine. You have kindly donated your time to a voluntary organisation. They insist that you cannot walk around fields and woods on your own because 'it's too risky', for gods sake is this what we have come to?
I get what you mean, but it's to allow for the random bad luck that the charity has the safeguards it does, if I'd got my foot caught on a creeper or a root and got hurt while going down hill, I might have been glad of some company, and most of the time pairs are easy enough to arrange. One of the guys who does regular land management while leading volunteers has a more relaxed attitude to risk, and there's a certain amount which doesn't get back to HR, he'll tell people what they 'should be doing' and then let them get on with things as they see fit.
> It's the thought behind it that there is some liability if something happened. How on earth has litigation become part of this process, we seem to blindly follow the US in all things. I also object to the process, usually 7 pages of A4 with an all encompassing remit such as 'does the work involve heights above 2.5 meters? Having completed and handed over this rubbish all are now happy that we have compliance with HSE regs. It adds nothing but pointless process because we now have too.
It can become vexing. A family friend mentioned working within a factory company, and on the shop floor it was found that to do a certain process, it was easier to use a knife to do something, and rather than handing knives to people and getting on with things, things had to be stopped while the risk assessment was updated to include knives as well. That can seem rather daft, but another example could be dangerous practices not happening on a building site any more because of the process of risk assessing.
> Lastly the people enforcing this were previously found jotting down train numbers at London train terminals. White middle aged men who have now found a new focus for their boring nerdy thought processes. Who will quickly justify the most pointless exercise with "its health and safety" an argument which cannot be contradicted in their mad struggle to have some point to their lives and tell others what they can and can't do...
I think this may be a stereotype?
Post edited at 12:13
4
In reply to Dorchester:
I'm not sure you're well suited to being allowed to handle firearms, if that's your attitude to health and safety procedures.
Of course, you may just be a Walt, and not actually allowed near anything more dangerous than a pencil sharpener.
> Glocks, MP5's and a dodgy coffee machine.
I'm not sure you're well suited to being allowed to handle firearms, if that's your attitude to health and safety procedures.
Of course, you may just be a Walt, and not actually allowed near anything more dangerous than a pencil sharpener.
1
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
Cheeky scamp! I know it's not a Terminal but can I recommend Clapham Junction. It's supposed to be the best spot in the UK. There's a lovely bit at the end of platform 10 with a bench where you can have lunch. It's where I saw my first brush type 2.
Cheeky scamp! I know it's not a Terminal but can I recommend Clapham Junction. It's supposed to be the best spot in the UK. There's a lovely bit at the end of platform 10 with a bench where you can have lunch. It's where I saw my first brush type 2.
Post edited at 13:50
2
In reply to Dorchester:
There is a big drive to introduce common sense in health and safety.
What you have a problem with is not health and safety it's the improper application of it.
It is down to the person carrying out the activity to do the risk assessment, not somebody sitting in an office who has never done the job.
The OPs girlfriend isn't comfortable wading rivers on her own but is fine if someone is there to raise an alarm. I cannot see any issue with that.
The issue comes when other people tell her what she should and shouldn't be comfortable doing.
There is a big drive to introduce common sense in health and safety.
What you have a problem with is not health and safety it's the improper application of it.
It is down to the person carrying out the activity to do the risk assessment, not somebody sitting in an office who has never done the job.
The OPs girlfriend isn't comfortable wading rivers on her own but is fine if someone is there to raise an alarm. I cannot see any issue with that.
The issue comes when other people tell her what she should and shouldn't be comfortable doing.
3
In reply to summo:
On the CS31/'small trees' course I went on in 2011, we were told that the majority of chainsaw accidents tend to happen after 2pm in the afternoon. I guess this might apply to a lot of situations, with how humans have a bit of a dip around this time of day and become less alert.
I really recommend them actually, it's Morton Training (Services?), run by Andrew Morton near Goole, there's courses in almost everything one can think off to do with land management and tree work, and they can tailor courses for individual groups too.
Edit: Cellox granules and dressings are quite popular in the UK, Cellox is meant to help blood to clot.
> Early season each year I will often just cut half days at first giving myself a chance to become accustomed to cutting again. Cutting when knackered end at the end of a long day is inviting an accident.
On the CS31/'small trees' course I went on in 2011, we were told that the majority of chainsaw accidents tend to happen after 2pm in the afternoon. I guess this might apply to a lot of situations, with how humans have a bit of a dip around this time of day and become less alert.
I really recommend them actually, it's Morton Training (Services?), run by Andrew Morton near Goole, there's courses in almost everything one can think off to do with land management and tree work, and they can tailor courses for individual groups too.
Edit: Cellox granules and dressings are quite popular in the UK, Cellox is meant to help blood to clot.
Post edited at 19:41
In reply to DancingOnRock: this might be more of an issue if there's multiple months of fieldwork required - the cost of a field assistant will hammer your budget
In reply to Timmd:
Also folk might rush to finish the job today to save coming back tomorrow, or squeeze in x more trees.
They have bits of shrimp or crab shell in them which draws in blood and speeds up clotting.
> On the CS31/'small trees' course I went on in 2011, we were told that the majority of chainsaw accidents tend to happen after 2pm in the afternoon.
Also folk might rush to finish the job today to save coming back tomorrow, or squeeze in x more trees.
> Edit: Cellox granules and dressings are quite popular in the UK, Cellox is meant to help blood to clot.
They have bits of shrimp or crab shell in them which draws in blood and speeds up clotting.
Post edited at 19:48
1
In reply to summo:
Yes to both. Good point actually, I've been rushed in the past when volunteering. I bought myself some of the stuff when I passed my chainsaw course. I keep meaning to donate some to the conservation charity I did my course through, as their HR decided it was too expensive. The guy in charge of land management reasoned that it isn't too expensive if you need to use it, but they still don't have any.
Yes to both. Good point actually, I've been rushed in the past when volunteering. I bought myself some of the stuff when I passed my chainsaw course. I keep meaning to donate some to the conservation charity I did my course through, as their HR decided it was too expensive. The guy in charge of land management reasoned that it isn't too expensive if you need to use it, but they still don't have any.
Post edited at 19:53
In reply to James Malloch:
At Bangor you could never work alone in the field. We all did but it was very much against university policy.
I spent a fall working in remote Maine rivers diving for mussels alone. It was pretty dangerous as these were huge rivers, with the odd log coming down plus bears and moose on the banks.
The reality was it was economically unviable to do it with anyone so it was a no questions asked policy.
Talk to your health and safety guy in the school. We had a death by a technician working in a side building alone and that led to a lot of trouble.
At Bangor you could never work alone in the field. We all did but it was very much against university policy.
I spent a fall working in remote Maine rivers diving for mussels alone. It was pretty dangerous as these were huge rivers, with the odd log coming down plus bears and moose on the banks.
The reality was it was economically unviable to do it with anyone so it was a no questions asked policy.
Talk to your health and safety guy in the school. We had a death by a technician working in a side building alone and that led to a lot of trouble.
In reply to James Malloch:
The company I work for spends orders of magnitude more money than that on safety equipment to mitigate risks that are far lower in terms of both probability and impact.
I'm shocked the university rejected the £170 (assuming that they would agree with your description of the situation and hence risk) and would assume the person you dealt with is unfamiliar with the university's responsibilities to its employees/ students in this situation.
I'd be gobsmacked if they weren't considered negligent in this situation, if an accident were to occur. I'm personally doubtful whether a gps is sufficient mitigation and suspect that a large company doing this work would mandate paying two people to do the job together at all times, even if that caused delays due to availability.
The company I work for spends orders of magnitude more money than that on safety equipment to mitigate risks that are far lower in terms of both probability and impact.
I'm shocked the university rejected the £170 (assuming that they would agree with your description of the situation and hence risk) and would assume the person you dealt with is unfamiliar with the university's responsibilities to its employees/ students in this situation.
I'd be gobsmacked if they weren't considered negligent in this situation, if an accident were to occur. I'm personally doubtful whether a gps is sufficient mitigation and suspect that a large company doing this work would mandate paying two people to do the job together at all times, even if that caused delays due to availability.
Post edited at 08:54
1
My favourite when I sat on the safety committee was a member of staff who was somewhat obsessed about the dangers of adders (in Yorkshire). Turns out he'd brought a load of grass samples in from the field, placed them in a drying oven and ended up with a hot and bothered adder on his hands.
Never heard that one before but I did acquire a stock of plastic snakes for strategic positioning in the future.
Never heard that one before but I did acquire a stock of plastic snakes for strategic positioning in the future.
5
In reply to James Malloch:
Imagine that.
Ahh .. your OP is becoming much clearer now.
> It's my girlfriend.
Imagine that.
> I work for a bank (in risk management
Ahh .. your OP is becoming much clearer now.
3
4
In reply to James Malloch:
The best plan is to say you've been, not go and make up the results.
This has got me through a Geograhy O, A and degree course.
The time is better spent hillwalking and in the pub.
The best plan is to say you've been, not go and make up the results.
This has got me through a Geograhy O, A and degree course.
The time is better spent hillwalking and in the pub.
8
In reply to James Malloch:
I think that line 1 of the risk assessment would go something like this:
Activity Risk ProbxCost Mitigation Outcome
Walking in River Drowning Unlikely x Death None suggested HALT
Stolen from our Uni Risk assessment form:
V Unlikely Unlikley 50/50 likely v likely
5- Fatality Medium High High High High
Medium
Improve risk reduction measures within specified timescale.
High
Stop or restrict activity and make appropriate improvements immediately
If the water was more than, lets say ankle to mid shin deep, then some kind of (swift) water rescue training (?qualification) and equipment may be appropriate.
I would also suggest that an analytical risk assessment would be required for each visit, so that activities were suspended if the river was in spate etc and that this was recorded for each visit - perhaps several times per day.
If the OMM requires people to work in pairs when they only may be in water, then no H&S manager worth their title would sign off a risk assessment that relied on 'check in' active rescue capability would be required on site. Lone working simply isn't a sensible suggestion here.
It might we worth reminding the University of the penalties for H&S failures.
I think that line 1 of the risk assessment would go something like this:
Activity Risk ProbxCost Mitigation Outcome
Walking in River Drowning Unlikely x Death None suggested HALT
Stolen from our Uni Risk assessment form:
V Unlikely Unlikley 50/50 likely v likely
5- Fatality Medium High High High High
Medium
Improve risk reduction measures within specified timescale.
High
Stop or restrict activity and make appropriate improvements immediately
If the water was more than, lets say ankle to mid shin deep, then some kind of (swift) water rescue training (?qualification) and equipment may be appropriate.
I would also suggest that an analytical risk assessment would be required for each visit, so that activities were suspended if the river was in spate etc and that this was recorded for each visit - perhaps several times per day.
If the OMM requires people to work in pairs when they only may be in water, then no H&S manager worth their title would sign off a risk assessment that relied on 'check in' active rescue capability would be required on site. Lone working simply isn't a sensible suggestion here.
It might we worth reminding the University of the penalties for H&S failures.
2
In reply to James Malloch:
Hi
Check the NERC H&S documentation on Fieldwork & lone working.
Short one: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-lone-working/
Longer document: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-fieldwork/
IN the latter document, in Section 7.1. the advice is: "If you are alone, do not enter the water that is knee deep." and:
"If you are working along the water's edge, do not work alone".
Looks like the project needs to budget in a field assistant to me (and I have done many, many days of lone fieldwork for NERC).
Hi
Check the NERC H&S documentation on Fieldwork & lone working.
Short one: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-lone-working/
Longer document: http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/policy/safety/procedures/guidance-fieldwork/
IN the latter document, in Section 7.1. the advice is: "If you are alone, do not enter the water that is knee deep." and:
"If you are working along the water's edge, do not work alone".
Looks like the project needs to budget in a field assistant to me (and I have done many, many days of lone fieldwork for NERC).
1
1
In reply to Maarten2:
Whilst I agree with the principle, it is ambiguous. Does it mean that if water is ankle deep, you are advised that it is ok to enter it alone, but not to work alone alongside it?!
> the advice is: "If you are alone, do not enter the water that is knee deep." and: "If you are working along the water's edge, do not work alone".
Whilst I agree with the principle, it is ambiguous. Does it mean that if water is ankle deep, you are advised that it is ok to enter it alone, but not to work alone alongside it?!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...