Readyloks (1 Viewer)

Jase222

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2013
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Lately we have a lot of designs where the ledger bracing is omitted in favour of a kicker lift when using readylocks anyone know why this is flavor of the month, we have about 80% of designs like this!
 
Sounds crazy, I know - but have you ever thought of asking the engineer(s)?
 
Sounds crazy, I know - but have you ever thought of asking the engineer(s)?
Yeah I did his answer was readylocks form a ridged struture thus not needing bracing, nuts even refused me adding bracing
 
I am unsure why the addition or omission of a kicker lift would affect the use of Readylok. But this may be a requirement of a TG20 compliant Readylok??
I note TG20 pages 31 & 32 make reference to transom units unclad & clad, both without ledger bracing (cladding being highly permeability netting) Both of which show no kicker lift
Prefabricated transom units are again mentioned in section 4.5 page 52, and also in 6.9 page 70

At no point can I see mention of the need for the foot tie.

All the above said as an Engineer I would always prefer to see the foot tie
 
You can't change the design without your engineers approval even if you think you are making it safer.
 
No point in having an engineer if you don't take his advice

That could be the start of an interesting discussion. The way some company's rules are written, you don't have a choice about whether or not to have an engineer. The engineer may have little real understanding of scaffolding beyond reading TG20 so does that trump the extensive practical and theoretical training that a scaffolder has undertaken? I'm not sure that it always does.

I would suggest that if the engineer has drawn something that doesn't look right or goes against the scaffolder's training and experience, it should be raised with him as a discussion point rather than a request for approval - in my experience some/many/most (delete as applicable) engineers can be stubborn and dogmatic on occasions and resistant to implied criticism rather than open to treating it as a learning opportunity. By talking things through, those attitudes might change and we would all end up better for it.
 
That could be the start of an interesting discussion. The way some company's rules are written, you don't have a choice about whether or not to have an engineer. The engineer may have little real understanding of scaffolding beyond reading TG20 so does that trump the extensive practical and theoretical training that a scaffolder has undertaken? I'm not sure that it always does.

I would suggest that if the engineer has drawn something that doesn't look right or goes against the scaffolder's training and experience, it should be raised with him as a discussion point rather than a request for approval - in my experience some/many/most (delete as applicable) engineers can be stubborn and dogmatic on occasions and resistant to implied criticism rather than open to treating it as a learning opportunity. By talking things through, those attitudes might change and we would all end up better for it.

I'm almost sure that Engineers feel the same about Scaffs, but that has always been and may well always be the case.
You will always find good and bad Engineers and Scaffolders.
Regards
Alan
 
Top Bottom