Impact wrench banning by the NASC?

FFS you ought to see the thickness of the folder I have for all the certificates, nightmare. Will the PTTLS allow me to teach myself?:idea:

---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 PM ----------

that might be another course I could run, could make a fortune.

Get it right round yus.:laugh:
 
The main reason i bought mine was for stripping jobs, the company i am working for at the moment are house bashes using readylok and board bearers which the nuts that tighten on the ledger seize up as the thread gets clogged up with dust.Were on price work and after a couple of days stripping my joints are shot!, this tool has helped so much.
 
philliosmaximus said:
Not sure about the Impact Wrench , but i have seen a good few doubles ( dropped forged) that the threads have stripped on the inside of the nut , this can only be down to sub standard material being used , as i dont remember seeing this on any old doubles ever.
We got so many at one time that we now buy pressed steel fittings .
Aom is a big fan as are a few other lads on here of the IW and they where saying that with a little practice you dont over tighten the fittings .
Why dont the NASC invest some time and into getting the toques and noise levels
with the vibration levels on these machines and liaise with a manufacture to produce a purpose made scaffolders IW , instead of just banning them .
Click to expand...

good points philo but we all know nasc do not like to seek advice about anything from anyone. They remind me of a few people who are no longer around.
 
I find that the NASC has adopted this position without engaging in the debate---To condemn the use of the Impact Wrench without due diligence into the subject appears somewhat Luddite, indeed on of their Leading Members have been using IW since the late 90's.

The bottom line is that if the coupler has not been applied to the BS 1139 Paragraph 5 Sub-Paragraph 5.2.1.6 and the Manufacturers Recommendations the coupler is out of compliance.

But then, what do we know were only Scaffolders...

I have all but given up with the promotion of the IW in the UK, the powers that be are non responsive on this matter, where as other Global Region are more willing to embrace New Technologies. The UK are about to fall behind and loss their delusional belief that they are the Global leading lights within the Industry.
 
do many companies in britain/scotland actively encourage the use of IW , id never heard of it until recently and dont know anyone who uses/ has used them
 
Likewise jb78 i never heard of them until i started coming on here , and i have only sen them in use once , mind you i have yet to see the step in use in London
:D
 
it would seem strange using one , although i see mr scaffs point
 
Iam the first to embrace anything that makes our life safer or more comfortable , and i have talked to A Hilti rep about these , they would be great for certain jobs , like birdcages or heavy duty loading bays where you have a lot of doubles , and great for job thats ben up a while where the fittings have seized on.
 
yeah , could have used it years ago when i took down a job offshore that had been up for 4 years , after spraying it with stuff and leaving it for hours , we still had to take it down in massive L shapes , and then into the sea as you do , although i dont ever see myself actually paying for one of them
 
Garry Adams said:
I find that the NASC has adopted this position without engaging in the debate---To condemn the use of the Impact Wrench without due diligence into the subject appears somewhat Luddite, indeed on of their Leading Members have been using IW since the late 90's.

The bottom line is that if the coupler has not been applied to the BS 1139 Paragraph 5 Sub-Paragraph 5.2.1.6 and the Manufacturers Recommendations the coupler is out of compliance.

But then, what do we know were only Scaffolders...

I have all but given up with the promotion of the IW in the UK, the powers that be are non responsive on this matter, where as other Global Region are more willing to embrace New Technologies. The UK are about to fall behind and loss their delusional belief that they are the Global leading lights within the Industry.
Click to expand...

what is your actuall job discription garry and were the fek to you find aall this out paragraph 5 sub paragraph 5.2.1.6 ??? lol and form which document lol ya not a nutty scientist are ya garry marra lol
 
i watch out for garry's posts and i must say they are always very eloquent
 
ASW in oxford every lad on there has 1 its where i 1st saw them and wouldnt be without mine and see its not gonna be easy to outlaw them from sites
 
jb78 said:
yeah , could have used it years ago when i took down a job offshore that had been up for 4 years , after spraying it with stuff and leaving it for hours , we still had to take it down in massive L shapes , and then into the sea as you do , although i dont ever see myself actually paying for one of them
Click to expand...


Sounds like an Oxy torch would have been more use then an Impact Wrench :D
 
Scaff 1989

Job Description: Hairy assed Scaffolder...

BS 1139 gives you the torque values...its BS rules but nobody complies to the specific torque values---over the years I have had so much negative responses in trying to establish a control measure to regulate and comply to the torque values and to be candid I couldni give a flying feck---I have had more debate and input from the Forum Members that anyone else---I dont think that the Industry in General and the Nasc in particular have contributed, its a pity though, I think we have all missed a trick here...
 
Last edited:
When you put it like that Paddy it makes perfect sense .
But i have always thought that the powers that be are trying there hardest to convert us all over to system type scaffolds , so their argument could be that S.T.A.R.S and the need for them would only reinforce the use of system as there is no need to regulate any torque values , just get the cheap labour to bang it together ,
 
I think there is an air of panic surrounding torque values and these machines. As I have said too many times to mention now to reduce the torque take the fekin finger of the trigger.

Just as a wee experiment, today I was working with another scaff who uses the Hilti and a spanner man. Every now and again I would ask the spanner man to check the Hilti user's fittings and every time he felt they were loose and gave them another turn. It's been a while since we have seen well serviced fittings as we have been really busy but we finally managed to get a few done last week and these were top notch and every time we compared the spanner to the IW the spanner was torqued more.

The advertised capabilities of these machines is like everything else in this world, greatly exaggerated and to get anywhere near these values you need to hammer it like hell and stand there like a lemon for what seems like an eternity when everyone else knows your average scaffolder has the attention span of a gnat and gets bored after a nano second and wants to move on to the next fitting. I know this is hardly scientific but it's a fact nonetheless and a good enough reason for me to happily continue on my merry way.
 
I think the point Paddy is making Aom is that either with a spanner or an IW you still dont have any way of checking the torque , and if a purpose made tool was made with a max torque to the B.S standard ten you could never be wrong

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

We all d our fittings up to different torques , some lads have arms like Gorillas and some have massive spanners , personally i turn the spanner until all the slack is taken up then give it 2 full turns , when i was younger and not as wise i used to tighten them till they screamed , now i know i was always over tightening them and making and work for my self
 
I've had a copy of that document for some time Phil and completely agree but the technology is just not there yet. It's like the advanced rails, what came first the technology or the regulation?

My point is, yes it may well be possible to over tighten a fitting using an IW, just as it's possible to over tighten a fitting with a swing over so if any ban was to come to pass the swing over would become obsolete just as quickly as the IW.

A while back now whilst discussing it with Gary, I threatened to get a torque wrench and check all my fittings just to see and this was before we got the IW's, but the only man who has one is the big fitter who uses it for the truck wheel nuts and it just became too much hassle.

If ever the day comes we all have to prove 50NM of pressure on our fittings the spanner can be put in the bin.

---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------
philliosmaximus said:
I think the point Paddy is making Aom is that either with a spanner or an IW you still dont have any way of checking the torque , and if a purpose made tool was made with a max torque to the B.S standard ten you could never be wrong

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:44 PM ----------

We all d our fittings up to different torques , some lads have arms like Gorillas and some have massive spanners , personally i turn the spanner until all the slack is taken up then give it 2 full turns , when i was younger and not as wise i used to tighten them till they screamed , now i know i was always over tightening them and making and work for my self
Click to expand...

I agree with your second point 100%, so does that mean your swingover is not fit for purpose?
 
Exactly because there are to many variants to calculate , you have know way of regulating how tight every fitting is with a swing over spanner , so from that point of view an impact wrench with a maximum torque setting to suit our needs is the answer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom