I did actually look at their website but I didn’t notice this section. Amongst their manuals this “floating work platform” doesn’t get a mention, only their dock.
All of their manuals basically say “observe local safety regulations”.
Honestly I feel silly looking this up because this whole set up is so absurd. Anyhow, here is western australia’s relevant regulation and it says that Elevated Work Platforms should only be used on solid surfaces on pdf page 37:
Relevant risk control measures when using EWPs should include […] ensuring the EWP is only used on a solid level surface, unless it is designed for use on
rough terrain,
Therefore, using an EWP on a barge is not an appropriate work safe practice.
What? I asked what makes you certain that the dock isn’t designed for it. If you’re certain, presumably you have a reason for this certainty and already know the specs from looking at it. I can’t see into your mind to know your motivation for making this assertion, which is why I asked.
I assume you have some expertise that makes this obvious to you, so would you like to share it?
No one with a Height Safety Clearance is going to work from a platform which is not certified for that use.
It’s up to you to prove that this contraption is certified. Spoiler: it’s not.
Anyhow, while I look forward to reading your final witty retort, I’m happy to let you engage in whatever practices you deem to be safe while I do the same. Good day sir.
(Not parent commenter) lil hedge makes it harder to argue! And more clear to me about experience/intuition vs. some specific dataset on hand.
Hope this comment doesn’t feel pushy - emphasis on my additions:
The lift is likely on a gimbal. If the wheels on one side of the lift are 1cm higher than the other, that would move the platform at the top by 8cm or something. If both guys are on one side of the platform that could be enough to make the whole thing tilt by another 1cm at the wheels, and so on.
From what I can tell, that lift is not designed to be operated on a plastic barge. So, ostensibly:
That dock is not designed to carry equipment, certainly not an elevated platform, and is not designed to be operated as a barge.
Oh man. This is just using legal speak to water down my comments. It’s lemmy, I’m not on trial.
The lift is not “likely” on a gimbal. It is balanced on top of a floating thing - that’s a statement of fact. If the subject of the statement can rotate around a point like said floating thing then it’s a gimbal.
What makes you say the dock isn’t designed to carry equipment?
Show me me the specs. Note also that this dock is not fixed to pylons, so it’s being used as a barge.
EZ Dock Floating Work Platforms
The manufacturer markets them for carrying equipment.
Huh.
I did actually look at their website but I didn’t notice this section. Amongst their manuals this “floating work platform” doesn’t get a mention, only their dock.
All of their manuals basically say “observe local safety regulations”.
Honestly I feel silly looking this up because this whole set up is so absurd. Anyhow, here is western australia’s relevant regulation and it says that Elevated Work Platforms should only be used on solid surfaces on pdf page 37:
Therefore, using an EWP on a barge is not an appropriate work safe practice.
What? I asked what makes you certain that the dock isn’t designed for it. If you’re certain, presumably you have a reason for this certainty and already know the specs from looking at it. I can’t see into your mind to know your motivation for making this assertion, which is why I asked.
I assume you have some expertise that makes this obvious to you, so would you like to share it?
I consider myself an expert in not dying.
No one with a Height Safety Clearance is going to work from a platform which is not certified for that use.
It’s up to you to prove that this contraption is certified. Spoiler: it’s not.
Anyhow, while I look forward to reading your final witty retort, I’m happy to let you engage in whatever practices you deem to be safe while I do the same. Good day sir.
(Not parent commenter) lil hedge makes it harder to argue! And more clear to me about experience/intuition vs. some specific dataset on hand.
Hope this comment doesn’t feel pushy - emphasis on my additions:
:)
Oh man. This is just using legal speak to water down my comments. It’s lemmy, I’m not on trial.
The lift is not “likely” on a gimbal. It is balanced on top of a floating thing - that’s a statement of fact. If the subject of the statement can rotate around a point like said floating thing then it’s a gimbal.