Osha and hoisting climbers

chaps might have been a bad example since it is covered under logging and PPE sections in OSHA
 
arborer said:
Not true because I care and I am sorry if this has been discussed "ad nauseum". I am looking for just one link or citation in OSHA documentation that references the topic. Without that all I have is speculation and opinions. Once again I am familiar with the ansi standards for tree work but am looking specifically for OSHA crane regulations.... and a source.
Click to expand...

If you want an example where OSHA allows 133 to over rule 1910 or 1926, you're not going to get verifiable proof. You'll only get the repetitive answer "arborists are covered by Z133". OSHA is law, and unless proven otherwise, is the law of the land, second hand hearsay notwithstanding.
 
Dougfir said:
If you want an example where OSHA allows 133 to over rule 1910 or 1926, you're not going to get verifiable proof. You'll only get the repetitive answer "arborists are covered by Z133". OSHA is law, and unless proven otherwise, is the law of the land, second hand hearsay notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
This is true, however OSHA does work with knowledge of the Z and has (and continues to ) reference the Z during inspections. And, some regions OSHA have gone to extent of writing amendments that specifically allow arborists to be hoisted by a crane for tree operations (CalOsha, Washington. ..)This is a huge move in that it sets a precedence for other areas of OSHA to look to.
 
ANSI probably is most relevant after the fact in a court case after a mishap to judge if one was "acting reasonably". OSHA is an attempt at prevention of mishaps but they don't have embedded tree advisers in our trade to create relevant law. Both serve a positive role witnessed by the many accidents in our trade and therefore the need for never ending improvement.

I do not have to follow either of these entities due to the fact that I am the crane owner AND the one being hoisted...but I am constantly trying to stay aware of the current state of safety...just common sense. Treebuzz/forums and threads like this with cited advice to up and comers and veteran crane climbers alike are invaluable. Repetition of protocol to novice practitioners should NEVER be looked down on as boring and tedious. You have heard it a million times...but the one time they hear it may save their life.
 
Mark Chisholm said:
This is true, however OSHA does work with knowledge of the Z and has (and continues to ) reference the Z during inspections. And, some regions OSHA have gone to extent of writing amendments that specifically allow arborists to be hoisted by a crane for tree operations (CalOsha, Washington. ..)This is a huge move in that it sets a precedence for other areas of OSHA to look to.
Click to expand...


Mark, is that WA state or DC that you mention? Thanks.
 
Mark Chisholm said:
This is true, however OSHA does work with knowledge of the Z and has (and continues to ) reference the Z during inspections. And, some regions OSHA have gone to extent of writing amendments that specifically allow arborists to be hoisted by a crane for tree operations (CalOsha, Washington. ..)This is a huge move in that it sets a precedence for other areas of OSHA to look to.
Click to expand...
mark, dougfir is going to fight you tooth and nail. his mind is made up. he knows everything about crane regs. move on a don't waste your time.
 
Mark Chisholm said:
And, some regions OSHA have gone to extent of writing amendments that specifically allow arborists to be hoisted by a crane for tree operations (CalOsha, Washington. ..)This is a huge move in that it sets a precedence for other areas of OSHA to look to.
Click to expand...

Washington and California are not covered by OSHA, they have met the criteria set by the Feds, and their own seperate and independent plans have been accepted.

Washington never wrote seperate rules for arborists, WAC 296-155-55405 and it's successors have always been on the books
 
Last edited:
dbl612 said:
mark, dougfir is going to fight you tooth and nail. his mind is made up. he knows everything about crane regs. move on a don't waste your time.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you read Mark Chisolms post, he agreed that nowhere written does OSHA rules take a secondary roll to ANSI standards. He agreed with me.
 
It has no force of law, and is not a defense when cited for violations under 1910 or 1926. I don't know why I bother answering you, you have your mind made up and think that you are some kind of expert. You are free to find legal citations that prove the contrary, but so far all you've offered up is your opinion with no proof.
 
Dougfir said:
It has no force of law, and is not a defense when cited for violations under 1910 or 1926. I don't know why I bother answering you, you have your mind made up and think that you are some kind of expert. You are free to find legal citations that prove the contrary, but so far all you've offered up is your opinion with no proof.
Click to expand...
i guess i am wrong, being new to tree crane removals and such. please advise how i should proceed with doing future work that the office sets up for me. thanks.
 
the part that i truly amazing to me is you continue to argue with mark chisholm, who probably has done more to promote safe tree crane removal work with climbers. and to show his class, he continues to say he will get back to you with more info, instead of telling you to do whatever you want in whatever state you are working in.
 
dbl612 said:
the part that i truly amazing to me is you continue to argue with mark chisholm, who probably has done more to promote safe tree crane removal work with climbers. and to show his class, he continues to say he will get back to you with more info, instead of telling you to do whatever you want in whatever state you are working in.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read his post, where he agreed with me that ANSI was not law, and nowhere is there language where the Feds secede the regulations of CFR 1919 and 1926 to ANSI rules not accepted as law or federal regulation.

I am not in a OSHA state, and I am unaware of whether you are either. My state specifically allows the use of bosuns seats.

Furthermore, it is not my concern of what your employers policy are.
 
Dougfir said:
I guess you didn't read his post, where he agreed with me that ANSI was not law, and nowhere is there language where the Feds secede the regulations of CFR 1919 and 1926 to ANSI rules not accepted as law or federal regulation.

I am not in a OSHA state, and I am unaware of whether you are either. My state specifically allows the use of bosuns seats.

Furthermore, it is not my concern of what your employers policy are.
Click to expand...
 
Dougfir said:
I guess you didn't read his post, where he agreed with me that ANSI was not law, and nowhere is there language where the Feds secede the regulations of CFR 1919 and 1926 to ANSI rules not accepted as law or federal regulation.

I am not in a OSHA state, and I am unaware of whether you are either. My state specifically allows the use of bosuns seats.

Furthermore, it is not my concern of what your employers policy are.
Click to expand...
its not my concern what you do in whatever state you are working in. we work in ct., mass.,and ny., all three states which are very intense on safety inspections by OSHA, so apparantly your concerns have no merit here. boson's chairs are only allowed by OSHA with a safety harness and separate life line and anchorage around here. your results may vary as they say in cooking school.
 
dbl612 said:
its not my concern what you do in whatever state you are working in. we work in ct., mass.,and ny., all three states which are very intense on safety inspections by OSHA, so apparantly your concerns have no merit here. boson's chairs are only allowed by OSHA with a safety harness and separate life line and anchorage around here. your results may vary as they say in cooking school.
Click to expand...
Ct isn't an OSHA state.

And an arborist harness is in fact a type of bosons chair.
 
dbl612 said:
get you're facts straight before you comment. ct is an OSHA state and an arborists harness is not a bosuns chair. where do you get these facts, disneyworld?
Click to expand...
https://www.osha.gov/dcsp/osp/approved_state_plans.html

A positioning harness of any type when used to knowingly suspend an individual would meet all the criteria of the definition of a bosuns seat, albeit a soft one.

You continue to indicate your lack of knowledge with every post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom