If you have not posted before, the community forum requires separate registration from WirelessEstimator.com's main site. All you'll need is a user name and password.

Non man rated mounts

Discussion in 'Safety - General Safety Issues' started by Robert Dick, Aug 3, 2010.

  1. Robert Dick Friend of the Community

    There is currently some debate at my company regarding non man rated mounts. We all know that the manufactures do not provide direction on how much weight a mount can hold. When " non man rated " label is used does this mean that the mount cannot support a man's weight or does this mean that a mount cannot handle the added weight forces imposed when a crew member falls into his/her harness if he/she uses the mount as a safety tie off anchor point? Some of our management look at this issue that if the climber is tied off to the tower it is safe to climb out on a T-Arm. Is this the case? Is there anywhere that has documentation concerning this issue?
  2. Safety Third Friend of the Community

    "Non-man rated" means the mount is not designed to hold the weight of a man. Not while tied to the mount. Not while tied to the tower. Not at all. It still amazes me that companies continue to go the cheap route of ordering and installing these mounts, especially when you consider the only way to access them is by rope access (when there are appropriate anchorage points above) or by aerial work platform (which is not cheap). Don't let a company "spokesperson" at any level tell you to "get out there and do your job" when dealing with a non-man rated mount. My favorite "solution" to the access problem is for a company to install temporary hanging ice-bridge sections from the T arms so a climber can walk out on them to reach the antennas. If the mount can't safely support the weight of a human life, what makes anyone think it can support the weight of aftermarket steel components AND the weight of a man climbing out onto it.

    You can always tell when a company has relied on a dangerous climbing procedure to access antennas when you see a T arm where the antennas mast pipes look like this: /------\ on the face of the boom. When a climber's weight was bending the boom face down while the climber was setting the mast pipe to plumb, he locks it in place, then goes to the other side and does the same thing. It was plumb while his weight was tipping it, but once he's not on the steel anymore the boom face goes back to level and tada.
    PhilPro likes this.
  3. Trooper472 Friend of the Community

    Just got into that same pissin match 2 weeks, ago. They brought us the bridge kit, and wouldn't understand that the kit does not make them safer. It adds more weight, and more work to install, and who goes back out there to deinstall them? They didnt think about that part... Bad enough that some carriers went to the larger antennas that bow them out under their own weight, but just go ahead and add a 250lb man on top. I thought these engineers/cm/pm were suppose to be good at math.
  4. Safety Third Friend of the Community

    There are two companies, Valmont and Andrews, who make these temporary access pieces, BUT they are only for use on their specific MAN-RATED model #'d T arm mounts.
  5. PhilPro Friend of the Community

    Safety Third hit the nail on the head - great explanation my friend - Non-Man Rated means just that, at no time should the t-arm be put under the stress of the additional weight of a man. Rope access and the use of man-lifts are the only safe means of access to these mounts.
  6. spudw Friend of the Community

    Manufacturers aren't ever going to produce a mount that can support 5000 lbs of a man falling for two reasons.
    1. It would cost too much and they wouldn't be able to sell them because carriers want the cheapest product they can get.
    2. Their liability would be exposed if there ever was an accident. The manufacturer has no idea as to what the end user is going to put on the mount. Once it was overloaded then the mount could not support the man and there would be a huge lawsuit if the climber were to be injured or killed if he fell and the mount trailed alongside him.
  7. Gonzo First Time Poster

    To my knowledge there is no such thing as "man-rating" on a tower mount. It would be nice if NATE or OSHA would step up and in the interest of safety and define what "man rating" should be. I understand NATE probably does not want the liability, but I would think OSHA would want to step up to the plate and come up with a true definition.
  8. David Lehrer Industry Observer

    I'm not sure that this is something OSHA would or could do Gonzo since their fall protection regulations are very specific and short, because they don't want to get involved with drilling down into every industry's unique problems due to construction processes and they defer to ANSI to set the standards.

    NATE isn't going to do anything like you said because of the liability problem.....plus they might stir up a hornets nest becaue a lot of their members are mount manufacturers and they might @#!! a few of them off.

    I think it would be better if the manufacturers to get together and stop all of this competitive marketing BS.

    Or do people believe the manufacturers can't police themselves? Or don't care?

Share This Page

Welcome to your new "Community"!

We promise that this will be the most constructive and informational forum in the industry designed solely for the wireless structure design, development, construction and maintenance industry.

This new forum is light years ahead of its original design in 2005. Take a quick test drive of the site and you'll see the movers and shakers of the industry offering new threads or replying to existing posts.

More importantly, you'll enjoy the newest advantages in social networking available through this forum and find the latest advancement in community groups - to name a few such as: