Florida 100% tie-off concerns

Discussion in 'Safety - General Safety Issues' started by Marc LeClair, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Marc LeClair

    Marc LeClair Frequent Poster

    Sure, we can give them an atta boy for tying off, but that might be because they know if they were ever caught free climbing that their future work would be cancelled until they went through a bunch of explanations and proactive safety programs if it was Bechtel or any of the other management firm that will not allow this garbage.

    You forgot to mention an important concern. Those mounts they are on are probably not man rated and that makes it even worse. You don't mention how tall the tower is. Why couldn't they pay for a crane with an approved manbasket???
  2. Kevin Hoover

    Kevin Hoover Friend of the Community

    From looking at the pictures of the "Florida Tower Crew", they appear to be working on an LTE project. If they are a sub working for a large turfing vendor, I can guarantee that they are not getting paid enough to pay for their own crane. (Not that this is good reason not to use one)

    In many cases a crane is supposed to be provided as a "pass through expense" where "safety" deems it necessary, but actually getting this done can be like pulling teeth. A request for a crane (especially from a sub that is new to a particular vendor, or when the project is behind schedule) is is often rejected, and the sub is told that another crew can be found if they are incapable of completing the task.

    If the booms are inadequate for personnel, how would the crew find that information? I have not seen a structural analysis that provides this information. (This could just be my experience) I have seen booms much worse than the ones in the "pictures" where the S.A. has ok'd an additional three or four hundred pounds on a single point of attachment. Again, requests for additional support to be approve such as a hand rail etc.. can be rejected, and the S.A. referenced as the authority to proceed.

    None of these issues that I have mentioned are an excuse for any tower worker to venture beyond the limits of safe work practices, nor are they reason for an employer to require their employees to do so. On this I could not agree with you more, but these are very real problems that tower crews face every day as they try to meet the "deadlines" that are so heavily pressed upon them.
    I wonder if the punishment for these violations ever really finds it's way to the root of the problem...??
    openshortload likes this.
  3. Richard Bell

    Richard Bell Friend of the Community

    I cannot understand how tower designers and management can accept a co-location such as this without recognizing the danger involved in the installation. I can assure you that if they did just one installation, physically went up and did the work on a budget with penalties for non-performance, they would redesign the entire system. During the AT&T Long line tower days, the designers provided a walkway with handrail to the sidelights for maintenance. Now, with SAFETY supposedly being the main concern of all the cellular companies, they accept designs such as this for one reason, and one reason only. COST! Yet the cost for providing and installing platforms at each co-location elevation and mount the antennas on the handrail would not amount to more than a 5% increase in the overall cost of the tower.

    Let's quit blaming the contractors and the men for these fatalaties and place the blame where it belongs----on the people controlling the purchase and installation of the towers. In an industry as large as our telecommunication system, it's unbelieveable that purchasing decisionmakers continue to address this problem by requiring more complicated and cumbersome safety belts and climbing gear. And while I am on this subject, I suspect that the reason this guy didn't pull himself up to safety was because he couldn't do chin-ups with a fifty pound belt strapped on.

    I worked on the AT&T Long Line self-supporters for years and I don't recall a single fatalaty during this period from a man falling-----and none of the workers on these towers wore any safety belts.
  4. openshortload

    openshortload Friend of the Community

    If they are a sub working for a large turfing vendor, I can guarantee that they are not getting paid enough to pay for their own crane. (Not that this is good reason not to use one). so true , this is when the carriers need to step in and inspect there sites

Share This Page