NASC-Good,Bad or just plain Ugly? (4 Viewers)

NASC were aware of the clamp in 2000 but sat on it until 2005 until the introduction of working at height regs and SG4:05. The SG4:00 committee said they were not prepared to put one product to their members "why" and set about looking for alternatives wrappa, barracuda etc.
 
NASC were aware of the clamp in 2000 but sat on it until 2005 until the introduction of working at height regs and SG4:05. The SG4:00 committee said they were not prepared to put one product to their members "why" and set about looking for alternatives wrappa, barracuda etc.

That pretty much contradicts what you said in your earlier post :- 'NASC member companies did not think the scaffolders worthy enough to spend the money on this level of safety'


Why would any trade orginisation force their members to use any one particular peice of equipment when there are various alternatives, some of them a far superior product - albeit more expensive...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom