18.12.2013
UK government responds to IPAF
IPAF has received a letter from Mike Penning, member of parliament and UK minister of state for disabled people, in response to a letter from IPAF chief executive Tim Whiteman.
The IPAF letter sent in November called for an urgent review of the time taken by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) to respond to a fatal accident involving a mobile elevating work platform (MEWP) in June 2013.
Penning's letter said: "HSE investigates incidents of this nature for a number of reasons, including to identify, what went wrong; to take action to prevent future incidents; to determine if the law has been broken and decide whether enforcement action is appropriate. In this case HSE's Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) began their examination of the MEWP on 17 July 2013 in the presence of a representative of its manufacturer. Their initial findings were that it appeared that the machine in question may not have been calibrated correctly. This may have allowed the basket to be extended to a position in which the MEWP became unstable."
"The HSL is now carrying out a detailed technical examination of the control system to substantiate these findings. As this examination forms part of the HSE's investigation, their work must be independently verified before the HSL can produce its report. In the event that the HSL's work identifies an issue affecting the safety of people using this type of machine, the HSE would release this information immediately. The HSE uses safety alerts to inform industry and the workforce whenever new safety concerns emerge. These are posted on the HSE website and distributed widely through bodies such as IPAF, the Strategic Forum for Construction and other industry organisations."
"No safety alert has been issued on this occasion for the reasons explained above, the HSE has no evidence at present which would suggest that these machines are unsafe when properly calibrated and used. I have passed on to HSE your kind offer of continuing support for its work, and know that it greatly values all that IPAF does in the interests of safety."
Welcoming the minister's letter Whiteman said: "We appreciate the minister's response and will consult with our members and the IPAF UK Country Council on the next steps."
See IPAF takes HSE to task
See HSE responds to IPAF
Vertikal Comment
This letter while welcome ignores the fact that the way the UK government handles such accidents desperately needs changing. The minister is also clearly hiding behind technology excuses in a good old dismissive way.
To anyone with an ounce of knowledge and understanding of the subject it does not take more than a few weeks to get to the bottom of a technical issue like this.
Why or how the machine managed to be miss-calibrated is another issue, as is how how it could be possible. Neither of these however need hold up the publication of a full, comprehensive and open report.
How can it be that an interim report/preliminary release on a complex helicopter crash is issued within a week and yet it has taken more than six months to confirm if and how an aerial lift was incorrectly calibrated or not?
How can OSHA issue a full and detailed report on what caused the failure of a highly complex tower crane foundation in Seattle in six months or the Canadian authorities issue a multi-page highly detailed report on the cause of a telehandler fatality at a Formula One Grand Prix within three months and yet six months is not enough time for the HSL to let us all know how it is possible to miss-calibrate of an aerial lift?
The plain fact is that this is a dismissive letter and misses the fact that the real reason behind this delay is that the UK government policy is more interested in blame and prosecution, than being open about what caused an incident and how we can all learn from it.
HSE inspectors we have spoken to in the past would far rather work with the industry in an open and productive manner on issues like this, but knowing that government policy prefers 'cards to be held close to the chest' in order to help a possible future prosecution succeed in our adversarial legal system are obliged to withhold information until after a prosecution.
It is time for government policy to change, and perhaps this dreadful example might help get the ball rolling? IPAF and the CPA can help by demanding change.
Tristam you have a real point with the HSE but we really should not get involved in investigations I have been involved with a few both from consultancy and other and believe me the HSE has a lot of red tape that prevents certain things when the construction sector is involved.
No case is ever the same and we should really just mind our own business
Tmayes
Confused that's not the measure of me at all, what it does show tho is there's a very large percentage of people in the industry that thinks your comments are very much like the HSE, not popular and out dated.
Roger Dean
No wonder you are confused, with a comment like that pathetic and unwarranted
I agree with Tristram the HSE is too secretive and more interested in trying to make a criminal case against someone. Why can't they do what the air accident investigators do and publish their information as they go? they are bound to know exactly what happened to that machine and to suggest otherwise is stupid. Its not the HSE people that we meet that is the problem it is the political appointments at the top.
Throw them out and recruit someone from air safety investigation the CAA? we might then see some progress
And that I think folks is the measure of Tristam!
Someone lost a husband, father and son in this accident and Tristam is counting likes and dislikes!!
Hopefully we can now leave this to the HSE. Fast or slow it is their job.
Tmayes
Well I did enjoy our little debate it was fun,
I know it's childish but counting the likes on my posts and the dislikes on your posts guys I WIN lol.
Well said confused people always seem more interested with everybody else's life rather than their own.
A little knowledge is very dangerous ....
Tristam. Whilst I agree that things could go quicker. The HSE also has to be very careful not to release confidential information that could result in an unfair trial should there be the need for prosecution. Sometimes the best policy is to say nothing something that this website could do with doing at times.
There is having an opinion and then there is sticking your nose in something that has nothing to do with you.
This is my last comment on this as I am losing the will to live over the sheer arrogance displayed.
As I stated I am not an expert of safety. But as I typed in "black box" I wondered two things. 1: How long would it be before someone corrected me on detail, rather than accept the principal. 2: How long before someone recommended their fitment to a MEWP. Imagine the "bleep" button getting worn out if you are going to record operators!!
There seem to be a lot of people who know a lot more than the HSE on this subject. Why are they not working for the HSE. Or freely giving their time to the HSE to help them with this problem?
Why is there thought to be a conspiracy just because they have not released a report on the date that some of you want it? Imagine if the HSE released a report just to keep you all happy, then had to change it because they realised through further investigation they had it wrong.
Once you have the report what are you going to do with it? I bet it will take minutes after Vertikal post the report here for someone who does not know all the facts to disagree with it!!
Gideon: This was a police helicopter I believe. I think you will find they record everything that goes on in the cockpit etc. That's the point of it being up there!!
Tmayes
Spot on Gideon this is my point exactly the HSE are more worried about bringing charges to somebody rather than making people aware of problems and issues.
Gideon
Small aircraft, including the Clutha Bar helicopter, do not have 'blackbox' recorders, however there is often data stored in GPS receivers, etc. It would be easy to add similar recording to crane and mewp control systems, even just to aid maintenance regimes. HSEs first priority should be to prevent further similar accidents, not to withhold information for prosecution. If a similar accident were to occur and HSE were found to have withheld the information that could have prevented it, they would be ripe for being taken to court.
Tristam: I was not involved in either the MEWP accident or the helicopter crash so how can I accurately agree of disagree with you. I do not know all the facts.
Do you actually know enough of the facts to make the judgement on the HSE that you have. I mean actual facts, not just what you think of the HSE.
I don't, so I am leaving things to the judgement of the HSE (as imperfect as they are) who are doing what they can to establish the facts.
The suggestion that because there has been an interim report on the helicopter crash very quickly means the HSE are remiss in not issuing a report yet on the MEWP incident is absolutely ridiculous.
I am not an expert nor do I know all the facts. But what I do know is that a helicopter along with all types of aircraft have a "black box" recorder. This will give full details of what happened before and during the flight. It will tell what was happening to the engine, rotors etc. Additionally it records the conversations in the cockpit before and during the accident. Therefore establishing what happened for an interim report is relatively easy. So the recorder shows the pilot saying: "the engine has stopped, we are going to crash." It would be really easy to write a quick report stating that the crash happened because the engine stopped (over simplification I know). The investigation into the helicopter crash has not finished, it is still on-going.
Does a MEWP do this? Has the HSE got a recording of the operator before and during the accident? No, so it takes time to make an accurate report.
The HSE are in a no win situation. People are moaning the report is not out, when it is out they will moan about the report. There will be loads who know better.
Tmayes
I know we have had this argument before but I'm 100% with IPAF and Vertikal on this subject, how comes it takes so long to issue a report on this or any other incident when the AAIB (Air Accident Investigation board) have already issued a report about the tragic helicopter crash in Glasgow??
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S9-2013%20G-SPAO%20v2.pdf
As you once stated Confused I'm no safety expert but I do have common sense, now would you not aggre that the helicopter incident is a lot more complex?? But only in a few weeks they are issuing reports of the investigation to stop another accident happening again.
My personal opinion is the HSE could learn a lot from these guys and stop with all the red tape.
Paul, I entirely agree with you. But don't waste your time. So far all the comments about this issue here and on other forums show people in the main think they know more about the issue than the HSE. They are not helping the industry, the hire company involved, or more importantly the poor family involved.
All that seems to be wanted is any old report so that it can be disagreed with.
How much do you actually know about this incident.? Surely the experts at the uk HSE are better placed to judge and issue statements on accidents like these. The length of time is irrelevant look at the hills borough disaster the report came out quickly and missed important facts.
Why don't you let these people get on with their jobs