BFT90 Vs BFT150 - Which MCWP should you choose?

BFT Mastclimbing are proud to be industry leaders in mast climbing - an alternative way of accessing high-rise buildings compared with outdated scaffolding methods.
We provide an array of top quality Mast Climbing Work Platforms (MCWPs) that exceed expectations for projects up and down the country.
But with a fleet of 1,800 MCWPs to choose from, how do you know which is best for your project?
To help make things easier for you, we’ve taken our lightest and heaviest duty machines and compared them for you.
That way, when you’re procuring for your project, you can figure out the machine that best suits your requirements.

What are the advantages of the BFT90?

The BFT90 is a lightweight MCWP that can fit where others cannot. It can be easily transportable by van or lorry because of its compact nature and is ideal for low level flat refurbishments, window replacements and other projects that require access up to 90 metres high.
Its small size and speed of erection cuts project lead times as it can be installed quickly with a minimum of fuss. This is particularly true when you compare assembly and deconstruction of scaffolding for similar projects.

What are the advantages of the BFT150?

The heavy duty BFT150 can lift up to five tonnes on a twin mast configuration and has been developed for the most demanding projects across the UK. It has a very large deck area, which provides an increased amount of workspace, and the versatility of the telescopic extensions give great reach when it comes to accessing recessed areas.
It has a maximum height of 250 metres, which makes it the perfect alternative to scaffolding to access the tallest buildings.

So, which MCWP should you choose?

There is a very simple answer to this - both! And more!
At BFT Mastclimbing, you don’t need to choose just one piece of machinery for one project. When you procure mast climbers, there are different types of machines that are suitable for different tasks within the same project. Indeed, we are the only company that can offer four different types of MCWP for your project. We also provide greater flexibility than anyone else in the marketplace so we are your one-stop shop for quality mastclimbing solutions.
We provide a bespoke package for your project so that you can benefit from the advantages of smaller machines such as the BFT90, alongside the heavy lifting benefits that come about through the BFT150.
Furthermore, the BFT90 and BFT150 are just the models at either end of the scale - our BFT120 and BFT130 models fit requirements that fall between those outer brackets.
With every project, there is likely to be an element of light and heavy lifting. So if you want us to come up with a bespoke plan that makes the most out of all our MCWPs, click here to fill out the basic details about your project.
Alternatively, come and see them for yourself! We love inviting visitors to our health and safety centre so book an appointment today and you can see the BFT90 and BFT150 up close and personal. All you need to do is contact rob.munns@bftmastclimbing.com

Understanding the Government Code of Remediation

The Government Code of Remediation is structured into four parts: the scope; undertaking remediation; living with remediation; and general compliance. Each part addresses key aspects of cladding remediation projects, to mitigate fire safety risks that are present within buildings that feature external cladding whilst ensuring the safety and satisfaction of residents. It applies to buildings regardless of occupancy levels, whether fully, partially, or temporarily occupied.

Resident-Centric Approach

The Code puts residents at the heart of remediation. It is a direct response to the Grenfell tragedy, designed to protect residents from potential fire hazards and ensure their concerns are acknowledged throughout the remediation process.

Roles, Responsibilities And Accountability

The Code mandates that roles and responsibilities related to remediation must be clearly outlined and understood by all parties involved in the project. This includes contractors, developers, building owners, tenants, residents, and management companies, so each party knows its duties and is held accountable. Parties involved in the project cannot avoid Code compliance by delegating or subcontracting their obligations.

Effective Communication and Active Engagement

It’s stated in the Code that good communication needs to be maintained from the outset of the project so that residents remain informed and sufficient transparency is achieved. Proper channels should be implemented to ensure that residents can meaningfully engage in the decision-making process. The Code acknowledges potential language barriers and encourages the use of electronic forums to ensure information is disseminated efficiently. Residents should be kept up-to-date with project developments, enabling them to contribute and participate in the design and delivery of the project.

Minimising Impact On Residents

A significant focus within the Code is on minimising the impact of remedial works on residents. Contractors and developers are expected to take measures to reduce disturbances from on-site activity, including noise, dust, and general inconvenience so that disturbances to the residents are kept to a minimum. Balancing health and safety considerations with cost and time factors is another key pillar of Part 3 of the Code. The goal is to create the least inconvenience to the residents and achieve potential cost savings for contractors and developers.

Mental and Physical Health Of Residents

Acknowledging the potential impact on residents' mental and physical health, the Code mandates careful consideration and documentation of these aspects throughout recladding projects. This additional step of record-keeping holds parties accountable for their actions and highlights the seriousness of their responsibilities.

Revaluating Your Access Method

The Government Code of Remediation sets a high standard for remediation projects with a key goal to minimise the effect recladding has on the residents. The core objective of the Code revolves around mitigating the impact on residents' homes and common facilities, while concurrently prioritising the safety and security of the building and its inhabitants.

In this context, the Code calls into question the appropriateness of using scaffolding for extended periods. A two-year presence of scaffolding, according to the principles outlined in the Code, appears incongruent with the commitment to minimise impact and ensure safety, particularly concerning security issues and prolonged inconveniences for residents.