Masonry Magazine June 2004 Page. 30
Mast Climbers
It's unusual to see a large masonry project wrapped in anything but a mast climber these days.
Judd Mashaw, General Manager of Big Sky and formerly with Smith Precision Masonry, comments, "If [Smith Precision Masonry) was putting up a single-story building, then we'd just use conventional scaffolding. But we liked to use the Bennu as much as we could. In fact, if we had the high-speed power unit that Bennu offers, which is just a 7 x 7 foot platform, we might have been able to use that instead of conventional scaffolding on those smaller projects."
From a labor standpoint, the loading and unloading of frames, X-braces and the hundreds and hundreds of boards needed in setting up conventional scaffolding on a large project takes much longer than setting up hundreds of linear feet of a mast climber.
Motorized mast climbers, according to Mashaw, have replaced other lifting scaffolding at Smith Precision Masonry.
"We have some crank-up style scaffolding, and we'd love to sell it to somebody," says Mashaw. "We just haven't used it since we have the Bennu."
He adds, "From a safety standpoint, I don't know how many times pipe scaffolding has either collapsed, or you've had broken fingers from plank movement and other accidents. Just having to move all of those frames, X-braces
CASE STUDY
MAST CLIMBERS VERSUS THE OTHER GUYS
MCAA member Dick Porter, G. Porter & Co., St. Charles, Ill., says he has never experienced an accident on a job site with his mast climbers. "There has been a huge drop in accidents ever since I've been using mast climbers. On average, with tubular or crank-up, we have from four to five serious injuries per year versus none with Hydro Mobile mast climbers." He defines "serious injuries" as jammed knees, sprained wrists (crank-up), or crewmembers walking off the frame of the scaffold during set-up or tear-down. In Porter's opinion, mast climbers are safer than any other access equipment.
According to Porter, based on a 100-linear-foot by 30-foot-high job, mast climbers are more economical in time and money. "In comparing set-up time based on my labor costs tubes are four times more expensive than mast climbers, and crank-type scaffolding is twice as expensive. In comparing tear-down time, tubes are eight times more expensive, and crank-up is four times more expensive than mast climbers."
As for productivity the difference is mainly seen in the number of masons and laborers used to complete the job. According to Hydro Mobile of Québec, Canada, estimates indicate a contractor can save approximately $3,479.35 in three days with a mast climber versus tubes, or $1,515.75 with a mast climber versus crank-type scaffolding
Porter has over 25 mast climbers from Hydro Mobile in his yard, which is a fairly large investment. He based his purchase decision on the safety factor provided by mast climbers, as his interest lies in providing a safe work environment for his crew. Production increased immediately, and labor savings just seem to follow, due in a large part to the easy set-up and high level of comfort on the platform.
"When workers feel safe, the productivity increases immediately." says Porter. "In comparison, a mason who has to work on wobbly access equipment won't be as productive."