I'd want to be getting paid alot to be sitting in that, thats unbelievable. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushie
Printable View
I'd want to be getting paid alot to be sitting in that, thats unbelievable. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushie
close blue are the same as the ones I got...Quote:
Originally Posted by disco_thrasher
4/3 Are breaches of the same code just worded differently but Ill let that slide for here...
2. Id accept that the mobile home is for a lunch room and while poorly placed might pass as legal on site. but I'll also give credit for that...
you cant really put administration onto an object being demolished so no points there....
Theres one BIIIG HUGE garganutan rule of excavator operation that is obviously being disregarded here.....
something about where you park it and where you dig.........
if no-one else is interested in having a crack, congratulations you just got a labour free service on ya rig. (pm me to claim)
Think on this. The job, by the size & age of the stack is in Europe or North America, a relic of steam driven mills from the nineteenth or early twentieth century. They have different safety rules, less restrictive than some of the lunatic social engineer driven ones we are being forced to operate under. The excavator is a small one, see size of its cab against size of its plant house. Crane is a big bugger with a near vertical lift, not much stick out. Excavator is on the string so can not going to fall more than the stretch in the string which will be near bugger all if the cranie keeps the tension on. They are obviously doing it this way because they can not blow it down, most likely streets of houses and factories underneath. They will pull bricks down into the stack and when it is a reasonable height will attack it from the outside. Nice tidy job, and probably being done by specialists. I look at the outside ladder and wonder about the poor buggers who had to climb that on a cold wet windy day for the four bob a day or so they were being paid in 1900.
Two questions:
How would you pull it down? I looked at it and thought frightening but ingenious.
How did they build it?
I wonder if the chimney wasn't stable enough to support a sliding skeleton frame to demolish.
Cheers
Simon
we all have to do our job to the best of our ablity and my job is to make sure workers go home safe and alive each day.quoted by you "some of the lunatic social engineer driven ones we are being forced to operate under."if thats what it take to enforce safe job practices then thats what it takes ..my union members are happy with me enforcing safety on the job so they can make another dollar and take it home to feed ther families >>>>>>>>every body is aloud there own opinion ,and mine is safety comes first with no cost tagQuote:
Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm
ignoring the fact that those type of lattice boom cranes are not rated for shock loading...
Hes using a jack hammer attachemnt to go at a brick layed structure that hes sitting on top of....
ok fair enough hes on 3 legs and hes got a crane as backup, what happens when the wall crumbles out from under just one leg and inverts the excavator...
They have the big ass crane on site, there is nothing to stop them using a wrecking ball on a latice boom crane as it doesnt impose any shock load to the boom, (well it does but not as much or in the same way as a snatch load will)
I'll give them points for the way they were doing it and if it was a reo concrete structure might not have been laughing at it so hard... (on the same line of thought as "why dont you use bricks as bases for jacks if you need to increase their height?"
but the big points were for....
1. The excavator is digging out the surface it is sitting on. depending on where you are and who you are this is known as overhanging, digging under or tunneling under and is a no-no everywhere...
Well put,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,," known as overhanging, digging under or tunneling under and is a no-no everywhere...[/QUOTE]Blknight.ausQuote:
Originally Posted by Blknight.aus