17.05.2012

Balfour Beatty safety alert UPDATED

We have finally received a copy of the Balfour Beatty Safety Alert, issued in the UK, that lays down new rules regarding scissor lift control boxes working on its sites.

The Alert was prompted by an incident in which a man working for one of its subcontractors caught the sleeve or other loose part of his coat or clothing on the live joystick of a scissor lift, causing the unit to lurch forward under the ladder rack he was working on. The man suffered a fractured rib, but the incident could easily have caused a more serious injury or in the worst case a fatality.
Please register to see all images

The Safety Alert

Balfour Beatty issued the Alert shortly afterwards, effectively banning machines whose joysticks are not completely shrouded from its sites. We understand that the company investigation found a machine with a joystick that was completely surrounded, and as a result have made this design its example of a ‘compliant’ machine.

Suppliers found out about this only when the machines they were delivering to site were refused and the alert given as the reason. The interpretation of what was and what was not acceptable also seems to vary widely from site to site. The problem is that the number of scissor lifts with the type of control box shown as compliant, are in the minority. Even those with some sort of protection around the front of the joystick would not necessarily prevent loose clothing from catching on it.

All controls have some form of dead-man in addition to any surrounding protection, with many it is a trigger, while others employ a button or a time delayed ‘enable’ button. Fact is that joysticks are rarely live for longer than a few seconds after they are used. Either that was the case here, or the clothing managed to catch and engage the trigger as well as pull on the joystick?

One very good point of the alert is that it flags up the issue to other site managers, warning about the risk of loose clothing and the importance of inspecting machines before use. However it is also encouraging rental companies to start modifying their machines to satisfy site interpretations of what is ‘compliant’ and what it not, thus negating the CE certification and possibly creating a new hazard.

Vertikal Comment

While we applaud the intentions behind this bulletin and the drive to improve safety, the first two things that spring to mind from this bulletin so far are: - One - that major contractors are tending to quickly mandate overly prescriptive solutions, following examples of classic operator error.

And - Two - that in spite of all that has been said contractors are still not openly sharing information with the industry as a whole. We formally requested a copy of this Alert two weeks ago and still do not have an official copy or confirmation of what happened from the contractor.

The fact is that this incident was caused by loose clothing not only catching on the controller, but also being then pulled, rather than unhitched. Wearing such loose clothing is not dissimilar, in principle, to driving a car while wearing clogs, eventually it will lead to an accident, when it does the first reaction shouldn’t be to demand a change of design to the car’s clutch or the brake pedal.

The site inspectors are making decisions that are in danger of overruling detailed and thoughtful CE related risk assessments and analysis, as they focus on a specific issue, the solution to which might well be the creation of an additional hazard. Certainly machines should be checked that they are in working order and that any protective bars or covers not missing, but this is in danger of going much further.

In our opinion the correct thing to have done in this situation would be to have warned all staff of the incident and its cause and warned them to be alert for such an eventuality - as the company did, but then to have raised the on-going technical concern with the relevant manufacturer, or the industry as a whole through an organisation such as IPAF… it could be that the best solution to this is not to add shrouds which can create other issues, but to use an improved dead-man function such as a spring loaded button or heat/touch sensitive joystick?

We would have liked to have known a lot more detail about what actually happened, as it is hard to image that this was just a simple catch of the sleeve on a joystick which is easily and quickly rectified.

While modern aerial lifts are by far and away the safest equipment on site, there are always lessons to be learnt that can help fine tune or improve them still further. This is not best served by prescriptive solutions created on a local level however. That approach, which used to be the case throughout Europe, leads to a different machine for every area and eventually stifles progress and becomes a brake on new ideas and improvements.

UPDATE.....One

We have now heard from Balfour Beatty, which has informed us that it is issuing an update to the alert that helps clarify the situation. It added that its aim is to purely ensure that the controls on lifts such as this cannot be inadvertently operated as appears to have been the case in this incident. The photographs used, were intended to purely as examples of what might be acceptable, rather than prescriptive solutions.

We will be flowing up on this subject here and in the next Cranes & Access magazine and hope to be in a position to publish a formal statement from the company shortly.

UPDATE Two

Balfour Beatty statement

Balfour Beatty Engineering Services (BBES) has responded to our requests for information, and clarified its position on this subject.

As part of its Zero Harm campaign the company says that it operates a strategy of Eliminate, Minimise and Mitigate, with the preferred option always to eliminate risk where possible. As part of this strategy it seeks to work closely with equipment manufacturers, suppliers and trade bodies.

This includes sharing knowledge and experience that might lead to improvements in the safe the safe use of powered access equipment. It singles out Nationwide Platforms and AFI Uplift as being very quick to respond to its original Alert and offer support.

It adds that the intention of the Alert was initially to ensure site teams were checking their current on site equipment. But their challenge is always to suppliers to demonstrate that there is no realistic likelihood of the type of incident referred to in the Alert happening again. We understand that subsequent to our initial discussions after publication of the original report, it did issue site staff with some clarification .

As to sharing the information more widely the company said that its immediate and necessary concern always lies with its site based workforce after workplace accidents and incidents occur and that its safety alerts are intended to immediately communicate details of an incident, contributory causes and what needs to be done within the next 48 hours of issue. It adds that they are publicly available documents and are also circulated within the wider Balfour Beatty group, and its supply chain.

The originator of the Alert – HSE director Allan Shanks, said that neither he nor his team were asked for a copy of the document and that he sees no logical value in keeping ‘safety secrets’. He also agreed to undertake an immediate internal review as to why any formal requests to the Balfour Beatty Group were left unanswered.

Background:

We received information on this Alert verbally shortly after it was issued and approached Balfour Beatty through its Press Office as we are ‘obliged’ or always told we should. After no response or call back we chased it again and this time did receive an acknowledgement that our request was being looked into. We never received any information through the formal channels. Eventually managed to obtain a copy of the Alert from a supplier and finally published our report, which we feel was very balanced.

Since then Shanks made contact with us directly and has been very open and very clear. He told us that the Alert was not meant to be prescriptive at all and acknowledged that local interpretations were possibly causing some problems and that as a result he was issuing a new Alert with some clarification.

Following a suggestion from us he also provided a letter which at his request we have written up as an addition to the original report, rather than publishing verbatim. It clearly states his and the company’s position on this and all safety issues and their enthusiasm to share information to the industry as a whole, which we applaud.