03.11.2012
UK contractors dictate entrapment solutions
Several UK contractors are demanding the fitting of specific anti-entrapment devices to all telescopic boom lifts on their sites from December or January.
While the requirement for anti-entrapment/crush protection has been foreseen for some time, there appears to have been something of a shift in policy by some contractors towards a far more prescriptive policy.
In recent weeks a number of bulletins have been issued detailing what will be accepted on sites - including Heathrow Airports Terminal 2 - going forward, complete with a 14 point listing of minimum functionality points and standards. The bulletins we have seen conclude that only Lavendon’s SkySiren, Niftylift SiOPs and in some cases JLG’s SkyGuard comply with all 14 points.
Please register to see all images
The Heathrow Terminal 2 bulletin
Yet it can be argued that they do not in fact meet all of the criteria – item 8 on all of the bulletins we have seen says: “Any device fitted should afford protection to the operator in all significant entrapment situations, taking into account that potential entrapment can occur whilst elevating, reversing or slewing.”
While the Sky Siren, SiOPs and SkyGuard are all first class systems and have the advantage of not adding to the size of the basket – strictly speaking they do not afford ‘protection’ in one of the most significant entrapment situations – that of driving/bouncing into a beam.
Please register to see all images
The SkySiren switch fits neatly to the front of the control station and can be retrofited to most boomlifts
Several of the crushing /entrapment incidents in the past few years have resulted from a situation where the machine was driven into a ground depression or over a protrusion while the platform was under or approaching an overhead obstacle.
This has caused the platform to rise rapidly into the obstacle. In such a situation the electronic solutions are unlikely to prevent serious injury, although JLG’s SkyGuard does have a breakaway system on its switch bar which might help. All will sound their alarms and stop the situation from getting worse but in such a case the damage is likely to have been done.
The roll bar type systems -such as Genie’s Operator Protective Structure and AFI’s Sanctuary Zone- are on the other hand likely to provide at least some protection in such a situation, depending of course on the force exerted and the exact nature of the obstacle, and which system you were using.
Please register to see all images
Genie's Operator Protective Structure
The situation is complicated in that rental company Lavendon is apparently refusing to sell or rent the Sky Siren system to other rental companies, as it looks to gain a commercial advantage and return on the significant investment it made to acquire the technology. At the same time the Niftylift system is currently only available on its larger models and the SkyGuard is limited to JLG diesel powered booms and has not yet received approval from several of the contractors.
Please register to see all images
The 14 point list
Vertikal Comment
This situation is becoming increasingly strange and tense, crushing or entrapment does happen and when it does it is often serious – although it should not happen if the operator is well-trained - and the new IPAF plus course might help here. However all of the systems on the market offer protection, while none of them cover every possible situation.
By being so prescriptive in their requirements contractors are potentially putting themselves in the firing line should they have a fatal crushing accident in which the person would have been saved by the roll bar solution but not by the electronic system and perhaps vice versa.
This is another example of contractors effectively mandating the redesign of and attachment to equipment, without the benefit or balanced and thorough analysis of the potential knock on implications that a manufacturing industry association led policy has. This is not a good way to develop such devices – they need an industry wide approach in league with regulators and industry associations such as IPAF.
The December date will without question case some odd situations on site and might just result in the wrong equipment being used for some jobs, because the safest most ideal machine for the application is not equipped with one of the approved solutions or is not in the Lavendon fleet.
While the contractors are taking this initiative for all the right reasons, it is entirely possible that it will create more problems than it will solve. Other questions that might be asked are: Are these contractors also mandating it on all of their international sites from the same date? And are they being as diligent when it comes to electrocution risks, by fitting power line proximity alarms and cut outs when there is a chance of them being present on site?
The anti-entrapment protection issue is now a fact of life on an increasing number of sites and not just in the UK. Most rental companies and an increasing number of manufacturers have stepped up to the challenge presented by the contractors on this subject, it therefore seems premature and unrealistic to now take it another step and hand down prescriptive global solutions, rather than allow the safety inspector on site to determine the type of system that is most appropriate for the job, following his/her detailed risk assessments.
Finally the contractors have stated that there is an “unacceptably high incidence of crushing injuries involving telescopic booms” while any accident is unacceptable, crushing is well down the list when it comes to potential risks while using this type of equipment. Ground conditions and overhead power lines are the cause of far more incidents, as the new accident statistics from IPAF are beginning to show quite clearly.
Please register to see all images
Another form of the list
Please register to see all images
Niftylift's SiOPs system is fully integrated into the control panel
Please register to see all images
JLG's SkyGuard crush protection system
Please register to see all images
AFI's Sanctuary Zone
Woody
The Anti-Entrapment discussion will without doubt carry on for some time and in doing so will cause more problems for all involved, the contractors and suppliers alike. The resources and finances being used to determine which are the best solution may be greatly reduced should the companies that are requesting these devices take a 'back to basics' approach and concentrate on training and working environment awareness.
An example would be for a main contractor to produce a course for MEWP operators on site that must be attended along side the main site inductions they already have in place. The course could highlight the specific risks on that site when working at height. It would be no different than requesting a hot works permit or excavation permit. They could also insist on operators obtaining additional training such as the IPAF+ course and many other that individual hire companies and organisations are currently running. Another point is many operators do not have an up to date IPAF log books. Main contractors could force the issue of being familiarised and the recording of it.
As already said by many others no device fitted will stop all accidents because there will always be one operator who 'didn't look up' or understand the operating capabilities of his/her machine and in many cases the lack of risk assessments and method statements comes into play too often.
USER ACCOUNT CLOSED
If anything can be gained from the comments above, it is the universal acceptance that there is no better substitute for eliminating the risk of entrapment than prior planning and the deployment of professional and experienced operators.
Anybody who as attended an IPAF ‘Mobile 3a / 3b Operator’ course will only be too aware that instruction is given to ‘Assess the Route First’ to identify potential hazards prior to operating / manoeuvring the machine.
The very definition of the word ‘Access’ in its self can be defined as ‘Approach’ (See the dictionary). This can be used to describe our ‘approach’ to the assessment process as well as the physical operating of the machine.
Any additional safety feature added to a machine can only be applauded as a positive, however the reliance on any such device should not negate the contractor or their appointed ‘operator’ from the responsibilities of prior planning and ‘Site Specific Assessment’.
For contractors to require a ‘Generic’ or ‘Prescriptive’ policy across the board is paramount to asking for one machine to do all jobs. This is an impossible requirement, as all jobs / tasks / locations come with their own unique set of problems / hazards / risks.
When it comes to planning, too many individuals are hiding behind ‘generics’. If you rely solely on ‘generics’ and not identify the ‘site specifics’, then anticipate an increase in ‘general’ accidents!
A second theme to emerge from the comments above is the need to unify as an industry. Austin Baker has commented in previous correspondence the need for cohesion and as many have also suggested above, the best-placed organisation to spearhead that cohesion is IPAF.
It is encouraging to see that Tim Whiteman has responded to the above article in person and as such, should help dispel any previous suggestion that IPAF show lack of response or involvement.
I am a big supporter of IPAF and all that the Federation stands for. However as an IPAF member in the ‘minority’ category of ‘user’ I do wonder if membership representation is somewhat top heavy.
If I were to ever make a derogatory comment about IPAF it would only be this:
Manufacturers, rental companies and the large contractors disproportionately represent the overall membership of IPAF. For an organisation that one can assume, makes the majority of its income from the licence fees of its trainees, it seems strange that there are no committees directly voiced by a cross section of its resulting trained machine operators? Indeed, once an operator has gained their PAL, it could be argued there is very little ‘after sales service’ or encouragement to become a member.
It is perhaps ironic that I write this on the Sunday 11th November (Armistice Day). Although most of us are not concerned with the politics of war, all too often many will unwillingly get drawn into the conflict. If those who are responsible for drawing up the battle plans pay a little more attention to those who it effects most, catastrophe can sometimes be averted.
Many of the previous posts are penned by the very ‘Generals’ of our industry. Please then, gather in your intelligence reports, work together, be diligent and decisive in your planning and actions and leave nothing to chance. Do not misguide anyone into ‘walking’ across no-mans-land because they would ‘presume’ no harm could befall them.
Out of all due respect to the importance and lessons that ‘today’ should hold for us, ‘Casualties of War’ should never be a term associated with our industry.
vertikal editor
The following letter was received in our offices today for posting as a comment on this subject:
Good morning Leigh
Well done on starting a discussion that is sorely needed. I write I must stress as Austin Baker and not as IPAF or AFI-Uplift limited.
Any work that is done to promote safety in our industry has to be applauded. Every injury received is one injury to many and the work being undertaken by the Manufacturers, Hirers and Contractors must be applauded.
For this concerted effort to work however the industry needs several factors to be totally aligned.
•We must all have the same aim
•We must all provide accurate information
•We must ensure that everyone is fully aware of the consequences of our actions
•We must all understand what it is we are discussing.
I am not trying to be simplistic. Mention has been made frequently of fatalities using MEWP’s. Let us all be clear that a properly used MEWP by properly trained operators managed by properly trained managers under the control of properly run sites would reduce accidents without doubt.
The sad fact is however that often; industry becomes emotive over one incident, ignoring the thousand of man hours of operation that go by without a hitch. Once however the emotion starts to run we have, as in this case, ended up with emotion that is set to overrun common sense.
I have again recently seen reference to ‘involuntary operation of controls’ whilst the evidence of this being the cause of accidents is wrong. By its very action the effect of this action is actually a secondary act and not a primary function. The cause of these accidents is the fact that the operator has already been pushed onto the control surfaces following a crush type incident.
What we are all trying to do is protect operators from being crushed in a MEWP. It is admirable that different engineering solutions are being sought by so many in order to protect operators. These must take their place along with better education and better and improved site conditions.
We do though need to reign in emotion and take a huge dose of common sense. I agree whole heartedly with Ray that IPAF along with the controlling government authority (HSE in the UK but others worldwide) need to grab hold and ensure that all of the facts are presented to all of the interested parties so that everyone be they contractors or hire companies, manufacturers be they large organisations or one man bands and as important health and safety officials all have the opportunity to make informed decisions and very importantly be allowed to trade in a free market whilst providing the very best that our industry can offer to their customers and suppliers alike.
So IPAF, what has been achieved in the past is commendable, but I am afraid that we have to live in the present and plan for the future. If this and challenges like this are not grasped and controlled with clear decisive leadership I fear that for some of our members, there might not be a future. We are looking to you to take this opportunity to show the membership exactly what IPAF is here for.
Austin Baker
accessboy
To sum it up from 1st Jan these sites will only allow Nationwide booms as they have the monopoly on the SkySiren. I don't think there are significant enough numbers of Niftys and JLG's fitted with their own devices to offer any competition.
Vertikal's comment as follows when Nationwide bought Blue Sky Access was quite prophetic;
'How Lavendon has arrived at this valuation is a mystery, but given the nature of the Blue Sky business we have to assume that it is aware of new or existing products that can really give it an edge, especially with major contractors which it is keen to find ways to lock in. It is also possible that such developments will help improve its yield from such customers.
To an outsider this deal looks incredulous by any traditional method of valuing a business, for which Lavendon is surely the largest customer by far. However if Lavendon can really exploit the latest developments, the very scale of its operations could make it look a cheap deal in years to come - and after allcompared with technology (DotCom) valuations it is low.'
Tim Whiteman, IPAF
Dear Vertikal,
IPAF's members have been at the forefront of the debate about understanding and preventing entrapment incidents. This has included manufacturers, hire companies and contractors around the world. It has led to an HSE endorsed Best Practice Guide, an accident reporting campaign, a new training programme, and the creation of a Forum for UK contractors, hire companies, manufacturers and the HSE to address safety issues.
IPAF members played the leading role in preparing what is now accepted worldwide as the industry guidance on anti-entrapment procedures. The "Best Practice Guide to avoiding Trapping/Crushing injuries" (BPG) was published in 2010 by the UK Government's Strategic Forum for Construction Plant Safety Group and can be downloaded here: [[link: http://www.ipaf.org/en/publications/avoiding-trappingcrushing-injuries/]]Best Practice Guidance for MEWPs[[link]] It is available in eight languages (including a dedicated US Edition) and has been downloaded hundreds of times.
The BPG was prepared by a group that included the Health & Safety Executive and it warns that there are additional risks attached to using MEWPs in restricted overhead spaces. It specifies that site management needs to assess those risks before work starts and stresses that no single engineering solution is likely to be applicable to all situations - all have pros and cons - and makes clear that selecting a skilled operator is an important part of the solution.
"The guidance is straightforward, comprehensive and easy to adopt. It represents best practice. I .... commend the guidance to anyone who owns, supplies or controls the operation of MEWPs. Please read the publication and turn the advice into action" writes Phillip White, HM Chief Inspector of Construction and Chair of CONIAC in the foreword to the document.
IPAF has also published the document "Guidance on Selection of Anti-Entrapment Devices for MEWPs" which summarises the characteristics of some of the systems available. This is also available in eight languages from the Publications section of [[link:http://www.ipaf.org]]www.ipaf.org[[link]]
IPAF has met with the UKCG and worked with its members to develop additional training for operators that are in high risk situations. That optional training, PAL+, was launched on 1st July and the UKCG has asked key trades such as steel erectors and net riggers to obtain PAL+ by 1st January 2013 Details here: [[link:http://www.ipaf.org/en/resources/news/article/ukcg-to-support-pal-for-steel-erectors-and-net-riggers/]]www.ipaf.org/en/resources/news/article/ukcg-to-support-pal-for-steel-erectors-and-net-riggers/[[link]]
Understanding the causes of entrapment incidents is vital and IPAF launched its accident reporting project on 1st January this year. For the first time ever, the industry is trying to collect reliable data about fatal accidents worldwide to allow the industry to analyse what causes fatal accidents. In addition, Peter Douglas, chair of the IPAF UK Country Council, has spearheaded a campaign to mandate all of IPAF's UK hire company members to report accidents as of 1st January 2013. Many have already signed up voluntarily to this programme in advance of the deadline, but I would ask the companies involved in this debate to sign up now, rather than waiting until next year. [[link: http://www.ipaf.org/accident]]www.ipaf.org/accident[[link]]
The IPAF UK MEWPs Safety Forum, which I chair, brings contractors, hire companies, manufacturers and the HSE together to review issues relating to the safe use of MEWPs and has endorsed the Best Practice Guide. I have received many calls from IPAF members about alerts issued by the contractors listed above, and have spoken to Ray Ledger about the concerns he raised. I am today writing to the contractors listed in the article recommending they review the actions they are taking against the HSE's recommended best practice to prevent entrapment and will be inviting them to a specially convened meeting to review anti-entrapment policies.
Tim Whiteman, IPAF CEO.
Firstly, I must congratulate you on your article regarding anti-entrapment devices.
From an industry perspective here in the UK it is critical, in my opinion, that our industry association, IPAF, firmly takes the lead in this area and works closely with both manufacturers and the appropriate regulators to ensure that all of the potential solutions are carefully evaluated and a common standard is agreed so that those contractors currently mandating anti-entrapment devices are doing so from a position of knowledge.
All of the current anti-entrapment devices being offered have both strengths and weaknesses and, as your article so clearly points out, there is no one solution that fully addresses all aspects of the issue. Therefore, it is critical that contractors fully assess all of the risks involved in each application as recommended in the MEWP Best Practise Guide and then make an informed decision when they select the most appropriate device for that particular application. The prescriptive approach currently being adopted by some contractors is at best ill conceived as they may, unfortunately, make themselves potentially vulnerable should a crushing incident occur that may have been prevented by an alternative anti-entrapment device that was not considered when fully assessing the risks involved in the particular application.
On a different note, it is very important that the UK powered access industry does not become isolated from an international perspective when it comes to this issue. Whilst we welcome healthy competition, it is important to recognise that there is a wider issue here and the industry must adopt common technical standards, especially in all matters concerning safety, if it is to be taken seriously. With this in mind, I reiterate my first point that IPAF must firmly take the lead in this area and work closely with both manufacturers and the appropriate regulators to ensure that all of the potential solutions are carefully evaluated and a common standard is agreed.
Best regards
Nick Selley
Group Business Development Director
AFI-Uplift
Stuart McKenzie
Where will health and safety stop . you can add as much safety devices to a machine as you like but if you dont have a properly trained operator with a bit of common sense then all the safety systems in the industry will not provent an accident.
vertikal editor
The following comment was received in our offices today for includion as a comment to this report:
I note your excellent article on Vertikal dated 3 November.
Firstly let me make it very clear that my group has already demonstrated total commitment to the safety of our customers by purchasing a significant number of sanctuary zone systems from Afi, almost before anybody in the industry.
What is happening now has not been carefully evaluated, tried and tested and I believe one of the reasons for this is the total lack of response or involvment by IPAF.
If ever there has been a need for objective input to the customers by a body with no commercial involvement it is now.
Needless to say Peter Douglas of Lavendon does have a vested interest but some responsibilty to the entire access industry is needed and he should encourage IPAF to show leadership and objectivity.
Regards
Ray Ledger
Kimberly Group