Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 08:40 AM |
|
|
OT - Legal question (but it is engineering)
ok here's the score
A company makes a lifting device, it's flawed cos if the pressure is lost from something like a burst hose it falls over drops it's 5 ton
load and could kill someone.
Now the customer just asked for a lifting device, no safety items like locks etc.
But the company making the device knows of the danger issues but since the customer never asked for safety stuff are just going to supply it without
any. They say it's no issue.
I say bo%%ocks, surely in these days of HSE it is a legal duty to have such safety items...
Am I right??
Do you know of any laws that apply here??
Cheers 
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
|
|
deezee
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 08:46 AM |
|
|
If a forktruck hose bursts, the load drops. So if thats acceptable, I imagine so is this lifting device.
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 09:04 AM |
|
|
I "guess" it if the customer has specified this (in writing) then the onus falls on them as the operator to ensure adequate H&S
assessment and provision within the workplace.
On the other hand, as the supplying company I'd not supply the equipment without checking the full legal implications and having everything
recorded in writing before anything is released.
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
The laws applicable depend on what task the device has been supplied to do and in what environment. If the device is supplied for use 'at
work' then you open the HASAW box and find the LOLER and PUWER regs. Any lifting equipment has to have a lifting equipment certificate issued by
the likes of Lloyds so if they deem it safe, they take some responsibility providing the gear is used appropriately and it is in good working order.
The users need to be appropriately experienced and trained (as per the hasaw+puwer/loler regs).
Outside of 'a working environment' the device had to be 'fit for purpose' and comes under, although not exclusively, the
consumer protection laws.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 09:10 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by deezee
If a forktruck hose bursts, the load drops. So if thats acceptable, I imagine so is this lifting device.
true but my main concern is that if pressure is lost in this case only one side would lose support and so could (most likely) tip over and the
operator is right next to it, unlike in a folklift
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 09:16 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
The laws applicable depend on what task the device has been supplied to do and in what environment. If the device is supplied for use 'at
work' then you open the HASAW box and find the LOLER and PUWER regs. Any lifting equipment has to have a lifting equipment certificate issued by
the likes of Lloyds so if they deem it safe, they take some responsibility providing the gear is used appropriately and it is in good working order.
The users need to be appropriately experienced and trained (as per the hasaw+puwer/loler regs).
Outside of 'a working environment' the device had to be 'fit for purpose' and comes under, although not exclusively, the
consumer protection laws.
Thanks owelly,
Yes this is a work environment lifting device. I'll have a look at those regs and see if I can find relevant rules. Their solution of lifting 5
tons of machinery purely balanced on 4 hydraulic rams (4 separate pumps too) is giving me sleepless nights…
cheers
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
marcjagman
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 09:37 AM |
|
|
You can legally refuse to operate said machinery if there is a flaw as stated by the company, you can't be forced to operate unsafe gear unless
it's in your contract. Your life on the line at the end of the day.
|
|
|
twybrow
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 09:44 AM |
|
|
If the machinery has moving parts, then it would need to be CE marked (unless it is a prototype), and that would include a risk assessment, which
should highlight and be used to mitigate any such risks...
|
|
|
mcerd1
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 10:42 AM |
|
|
I'm sure that the likes of Lloyds can give you some guidance on there requirements before issuing a certificate - what paperwork has your
customer asked for ?
if it was my design there would be no question - i'd fit some kind of mechanical locking device....
but at the very least I'd want a paper trail that clearly shows that you pointed out the issues (and maybe even offered solutions) that way its
documented that they ignored it
-
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 10:46 AM |
|
|
I encountered this once before some years back when I had a summer job at a bottling plant , one of the hydraulic operated pallet stackers had
suffered a hose blow out and the resulting uncontrolled descent caused a lot of very expensive damage.
The company who built the machines were forced to rework them to incorporate a valve mounted directly on the hydraulic cylinder.
With hydraulic platforms and similar devices the machine should designed with a restricting one way valve that acts as a brake. Unlike a simple
hydraulic jack in normally operation the platform is actually driven down as well as up by hydraulic pressure, as a result if a hose bursts the
the platform will descend but in only at slow speed.
[Edited on 24/5/11 by britishtrident]
|
|
|
coyoteboy
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 11:35 AM |
|
|
I'd hope that such safety devices were built in but would operate machinery as if they were not. As an engineer I'd consider it my job to
assess the risks and design it with safety in mind, regardless of whether it was specified by the customer, unless the customer asked specifically for
it not to be teh case and the dangers highlighted (and even then I'd think twice).
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
good posts guys giving me a lot to think about. The company I work for has been asked to build this thing and I am really struggling to point out
(or be taken seriously) that it's design is just plain dangerous, my boss just see's the safety issues as not our concern!
quote:
With hydraulic platforms and similar devices the machine should designed with a restricting one way valve that acts as a brake. Unlike a
simple hydraulic jack in normally operation the platform is actually driven down as well as up by hydraulic pressure, as a result if a hose bursts the
the platform will descend but in only at slow speed.
quote:
^ I like this, this is good idea, I shall mention it, ta
[Edited on 24/5/11 by Mr Whippy]
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
Promai Joe
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 01:15 PM |
|
|
Hi there,
In short, there is no direct regulation under LOLER that covers a secondary device to ensure loads do not drop.
If you look at regulation 4, in the Approved Code Of Practice (ACOP) section 104 says
“You should ensure the lifting equipment has adequate stability for its proposed use. You should take account of any combination of destabilising
forces that may adversely affect the stability of the lifting equipment”
This does not directly consider failure and is more concerned with load, ground and device stability. But it may be enough (taken slightly out of
context) to make them sit up and think.
As the chap earlier said, within the workplace you are required to do so much more than in your shed. This is where the term reasonably practicable
comes in, the balance between likelihood vs severity taking into account time, effort and money.
From the brief description of the device a secondary mechanical locking device (rachet or similar) sounds more than suitable and cost effective.
Possibly they could over engineer the hydraulics or add a secondary circuit so it is not foreseeable that the system can fail leading to a stability
issue.
Further legislation which may sway their opinion is as discussed earlier the Provision and use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (regulation 10) and
The Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008, where the idea of essential health and safety requirements is introduced, stability being one of
these requirements.
Additionally the Heath and Safety at Work Act Etc 1974 Section 6 (General duties of manufacturers etc)
puts a duty on manufactures to ensure it is fit for purpose.
If there was an accident and this went to court, one of the considering factors would be was the event foreseeable? I would suggest it is, especially
now you have voiced your concerns. Also the internet holds data for many years if not forever, so some legal eagle would probably stumble across this
posting!
If this is not a usual feature on devices like the one you are talking about, could the addition of a safety feature be used to promote the companies
superior equipment specification and their commitment to safe working. It could become a sales tool.
Feel free to U2U if you have any other concerns, this is my job and I am a member of the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, so somewhere
along the line this make me a professional!
Right, nerd head removed, oh and by the way I got my licence plate number today…woohooo off for some summer motoring
|
|
|
Dingz
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 01:20 PM |
|
|
They are called Hose burst valves, thought they had to be fitted to lifting equipment?
Phoned the local ramblers club today, but the bloke who answered just
went on and on.
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 24/5/11 at 01:31 PM |
|
|
Theres also a safety valve that is opened by pressure that closes when the pressure is lost like if a hose popped.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
