Your inability to substantiate jack speaks for itself BB.
jomoco
jomoco
Safety and liability
- Thread starter TMW
- Start date
- Location
- North of Boston
you're trying to tell me you didn't say those lies about Mathers invention!? you went so far as to say it has been proven in AUS chippers and american chipper companies should be put out of business because of it!
Please JO I am being sincere, answer the questions you have dodged for almost a week now so that we may further our industry!
with a calm logical approach, and all the great minds involved we can definitely make the major makers listen and make changes.
you dodging questions isn't helping!
Please JO I am being sincere, answer the questions you have dodged for almost a week now so that we may further our industry!
with a calm logical approach, and all the great minds involved we can definitely make the major makers listen and make changes.
you dodging questions isn't helping!
[ QUOTE ]
you're trying to tell me you didn't say those lies about Mathers invention!? you went so far as to say it has been proven in AUS chippers and american chipper companies should be put out of business because of it!
Please JO I am being sincere, answer the questions you have dodged for almost a week now so that we may further our industry!
with a calm logical approach, and all the great minds involved we can definitely make the major makers listen and make changes.
you dodging questions isn't helping!
[/ QUOTE ]
Your inability to substantiate jack speaks for itself BB.
jomoco
you're trying to tell me you didn't say those lies about Mathers invention!? you went so far as to say it has been proven in AUS chippers and american chipper companies should be put out of business because of it!
Please JO I am being sincere, answer the questions you have dodged for almost a week now so that we may further our industry!
with a calm logical approach, and all the great minds involved we can definitely make the major makers listen and make changes.
you dodging questions isn't helping!
[/ QUOTE ]
Your inability to substantiate jack speaks for itself BB.
jomoco
- Location
- North of Boston
there you go again with persoanl attacks again.
why is it so hard for you to answer questions directly asked to you?
answer the questions that everyone is asking you, get this thread back on track, we'll all start fresh and work towards chipper safety, and getting manufacturers to have an open ear on making changes.
I am excited to work with you and others on this very important matter! I hope you can answer the questions posed to you so we can get to working on the future and make our industry safer!
why is it so hard for you to answer questions directly asked to you?
answer the questions that everyone is asking you, get this thread back on track, we'll all start fresh and work towards chipper safety, and getting manufacturers to have an open ear on making changes.
I am excited to work with you and others on this very important matter! I hope you can answer the questions posed to you so we can get to working on the future and make our industry safer!
- Location
- North of Boston
here are some points that need clarification Jomoco
It's readily apparent to any fool that the manufacturer built that reinforced enclosed operators cab on their big WTC's to protect that operator from something, and its in front of the bloody feed table! Not to the side, not behind it, like every operator.
youre saying that a WTC with an operators cab, has the same dnagers as a WTC without one? I havent seen any WTC that have cabs, that also offer a handfed design of the same size/design. Can you show me one?
You need to ask yourself why this patented simple chipper failsafe last chance device is not standard mandated equipment on every dang WTC sold today, much less a decade ago when he patented it?
can you please prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Moreys design is in fact a failsafe device?
here is the definitioon of "failsafe" from thefreedictionary.com #3 best fits your example.
fail-safe (flsf)
adj.
1. Capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure, as of a mechanism or power source.
2. Acting to discontinue a military attack on the occurrence of any of various predetermined conditions.
3. Guaranteed not to fail: "There is no fail-safe mechanism guaranteed either to contain or to restore presidential authority" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
n.
A fail-safe mechanism.
v. fail-safed, fail-saf·ing, fail-safes
v.intr.
To compensate automatically for failure.
v.tr.
To render fail-safe: fail-safed the computer against power outages.
Just ask yourself whether any WTC model of morbark or vermeer are for sale that can be hand fed, also come equipped with a loader arm and cab/screen? 2400's or 1800's for example? I think you'll find the answer is yes for both companies and others.
now a few posts later, your story changes from an enclosed operators cab, to a simple screen. The screen is there because the door swing all the way open so the operator may look into the hopper while using the grapple. Thescreen protects him from debris coming back out of the hopper while chipping.
The pertinent question is why it isn't a mandated requirement for every WTC specifically to save trapped operator's who are trapped conscious and scared treeworkers?
I would love for you to work on this issue. You should call TCI/ISA/etc and get the ball rolling. You can also use all of your contacts @ the big 3 to help move this issue forward!
I'm growing a bit fed up with your moronic advocacy for shooting down even the simplest of safety devices to keep your fellow treeworkers from a grisly death BB.
If the dang handles and cables get worn like a friggin chipper blade or bolt, you replace them!
It's called equipment maintenance BB, ever hear of it pal?
later on in that thread you reveal that Morey's invention isnt really a failsafe, more of an extrta last chance safety device that operates when properly maintained
I'm after bigger fish in this thread than you now my friend.
the truth comes out near the end. You are doing all this to make a point, and try to ruin American chipper makers, the TCIA, and ISA, along with certain employees at those companies who have been named numerous times in this thread. This also explains why you are using legal terms such as lethal, failsafe, absolute, etc
It's a blight on our entire industry in my opinion, and I don't see how Peter Gerstenberger sleeps at night while this status quo continues to take it's grisly toll almost every other month.this comment says alot about your main goal here too
I hope an American manufacturer with real morals and ethics comes along and puts everyone of these poor little frightened US manufacturers that can't quite figure out how to stop these barbaric dis-memberment fatalities, out of business, they've certainly earned such a fate in my opinionthis one too!
All these so called safety officials are apparently unable to support two man minimums to reduce these deaths, mandatory simple inhopper failsafes to reduce these deaths, or spending a red cent on real 21st century safety devices capable of saving the life of an incapacitated worker on the friggin job.is there any place in the world that has a policy such as this? or is it just the big bad mean americans?
What you and every safety official are failing to understand TH, is that thousands of small, medium and even some large tree companies use unqualified untrained men to feed these WTC on a regular basis, and the death toll will continue escalating until strict laws and regulations are in force to deal with WTC manufacturers basic safety device standards, the grisly death tolls will continue to escalate.
training would surely solve this problem!
The facts are that there are indeed WTC's with grapples and operator's cabs of the same horse power and capacities as those sold for hand fed applications by various manufacturers.really? which?
It's readily apparent to any fool that the manufacturer built that reinforced enclosed operators cab on their big WTC's to protect that operator from something, and its in front of the bloody feed table! Not to the side, not behind it, like every operator.
youre saying that a WTC with an operators cab, has the same dnagers as a WTC without one? I havent seen any WTC that have cabs, that also offer a handfed design of the same size/design. Can you show me one?
You need to ask yourself why this patented simple chipper failsafe last chance device is not standard mandated equipment on every dang WTC sold today, much less a decade ago when he patented it?
can you please prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Moreys design is in fact a failsafe device?
here is the definitioon of "failsafe" from thefreedictionary.com #3 best fits your example.
fail-safe (flsf)
adj.
1. Capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure, as of a mechanism or power source.
2. Acting to discontinue a military attack on the occurrence of any of various predetermined conditions.
3. Guaranteed not to fail: "There is no fail-safe mechanism guaranteed either to contain or to restore presidential authority" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
n.
A fail-safe mechanism.
v. fail-safed, fail-saf·ing, fail-safes
v.intr.
To compensate automatically for failure.
v.tr.
To render fail-safe: fail-safed the computer against power outages.
Just ask yourself whether any WTC model of morbark or vermeer are for sale that can be hand fed, also come equipped with a loader arm and cab/screen? 2400's or 1800's for example? I think you'll find the answer is yes for both companies and others.
now a few posts later, your story changes from an enclosed operators cab, to a simple screen. The screen is there because the door swing all the way open so the operator may look into the hopper while using the grapple. Thescreen protects him from debris coming back out of the hopper while chipping.
The pertinent question is why it isn't a mandated requirement for every WTC specifically to save trapped operator's who are trapped conscious and scared treeworkers?
I would love for you to work on this issue. You should call TCI/ISA/etc and get the ball rolling. You can also use all of your contacts @ the big 3 to help move this issue forward!
I'm growing a bit fed up with your moronic advocacy for shooting down even the simplest of safety devices to keep your fellow treeworkers from a grisly death BB.
If the dang handles and cables get worn like a friggin chipper blade or bolt, you replace them!
It's called equipment maintenance BB, ever hear of it pal?
later on in that thread you reveal that Morey's invention isnt really a failsafe, more of an extrta last chance safety device that operates when properly maintained
I'm after bigger fish in this thread than you now my friend.
the truth comes out near the end. You are doing all this to make a point, and try to ruin American chipper makers, the TCIA, and ISA, along with certain employees at those companies who have been named numerous times in this thread. This also explains why you are using legal terms such as lethal, failsafe, absolute, etc
It's a blight on our entire industry in my opinion, and I don't see how Peter Gerstenberger sleeps at night while this status quo continues to take it's grisly toll almost every other month.this comment says alot about your main goal here too
I hope an American manufacturer with real morals and ethics comes along and puts everyone of these poor little frightened US manufacturers that can't quite figure out how to stop these barbaric dis-memberment fatalities, out of business, they've certainly earned such a fate in my opinionthis one too!
All these so called safety officials are apparently unable to support two man minimums to reduce these deaths, mandatory simple inhopper failsafes to reduce these deaths, or spending a red cent on real 21st century safety devices capable of saving the life of an incapacitated worker on the friggin job.is there any place in the world that has a policy such as this? or is it just the big bad mean americans?
What you and every safety official are failing to understand TH, is that thousands of small, medium and even some large tree companies use unqualified untrained men to feed these WTC on a regular basis, and the death toll will continue escalating until strict laws and regulations are in force to deal with WTC manufacturers basic safety device standards, the grisly death tolls will continue to escalate.
training would surely solve this problem!
The facts are that there are indeed WTC's with grapples and operator's cabs of the same horse power and capacities as those sold for hand fed applications by various manufacturers.really? which?
- Location
- Penticton, British Columbia
ummm...check mate??
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
[ QUOTE ]
ummm...check mate??
[/ QUOTE ]
It was checkmate somewhere near the beginning of the thread. It's really annoying when thick headed people keep going long after their position is defeated.
ummm...check mate??
[/ QUOTE ]
It was checkmate somewhere near the beginning of the thread. It's really annoying when thick headed people keep going long after their position is defeated.
- Location
- Penticton, British Columbia
i know...i just thought id throw it out there in the hopes that mr know it all poo slinger would just stay away, but this probably wont happen, and this probably will get quoted...and ill probably end up painted as some sort of callous, stupid man who thinks proper training is second hand to 'failsafes.'
Let's compare current industry efforts to benefit climber's who make mistakes in the field to WTC operators who make mistakes shall we?
Aerial rescue proficiency is a mandated requirement to obtain a certified tree worker number from the ISA currently.
Considering that it's highly unlikely that you'll find a crew at work with certified tree workers in the tree, and not have wood chippers being operated on the work site. One could reasonably conclude that the ISA itself puts a higher value on training for the rescue of climbers who make mistakes than it does chipper operators who make them, simply because there is no mandated requirement for safe chipper operation skills training, much less a certification program to ensure workers are truly qualified to perform their jobs safely.
The ISA has mandated minimum skills training and certification programs to reduce climber injuries/fatalities numbers, while mandating zip/nada/nothing to reduce chipper operator injuries/fatalities on the job.
Does anyone other than me note the disparity in the current ISA's certification programs to ensure minimum levels of worker safety on the job?
jomoco
Aerial rescue proficiency is a mandated requirement to obtain a certified tree worker number from the ISA currently.
Considering that it's highly unlikely that you'll find a crew at work with certified tree workers in the tree, and not have wood chippers being operated on the work site. One could reasonably conclude that the ISA itself puts a higher value on training for the rescue of climbers who make mistakes than it does chipper operators who make them, simply because there is no mandated requirement for safe chipper operation skills training, much less a certification program to ensure workers are truly qualified to perform their jobs safely.
The ISA has mandated minimum skills training and certification programs to reduce climber injuries/fatalities numbers, while mandating zip/nada/nothing to reduce chipper operator injuries/fatalities on the job.
Does anyone other than me note the disparity in the current ISA's certification programs to ensure minimum levels of worker safety on the job?
jomoco
- Location
- sunny Madison, WI
I'd agree with what you have said here. I think this is what we have been talking about, a lack of training on potentially lethal equipment is a problem.
It goes beyond a simple lack of training in my opinion Zac.
The ISA actively recommends additional hardware and ropes be used by climbers in the tree to help facilitate their rescue if they make a mistake. Compliance with these recommendations for enhanced climber safety costs time and therefore money for every company that complies with them.
However no such recommendations have been forthcoming from the ISA or anyone else to enhance WTC operator safety by getting the manufacturers to install simple 200 dollar failsafe devices on their WTC's, but rather the opposite is true. The ISA/TCIA have actively sought to prevent these potentially life saving devices being mandated on WTC's because of their close ties with manufacturers apparently trumping any enhanced safety concerns for treeworkers operating these inherently dangerous WTC's.
The ISA/TCIA has some serious explaining to do in my opinion to explain this obvious disparity between climbers and WTC operators in terms of enhancing their safety on the job.
It's a glaringly biased attitude against WTC operators in my opinion.
jomoco
The ISA actively recommends additional hardware and ropes be used by climbers in the tree to help facilitate their rescue if they make a mistake. Compliance with these recommendations for enhanced climber safety costs time and therefore money for every company that complies with them.
However no such recommendations have been forthcoming from the ISA or anyone else to enhance WTC operator safety by getting the manufacturers to install simple 200 dollar failsafe devices on their WTC's, but rather the opposite is true. The ISA/TCIA have actively sought to prevent these potentially life saving devices being mandated on WTC's because of their close ties with manufacturers apparently trumping any enhanced safety concerns for treeworkers operating these inherently dangerous WTC's.
The ISA/TCIA has some serious explaining to do in my opinion to explain this obvious disparity between climbers and WTC operators in terms of enhancing their safety on the job.
It's a glaringly biased attitude against WTC operators in my opinion.
jomoco
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
What? Jomo is talking training now? I thought RFID was going to save all those poor stupid, un-trainable groundies.
- Location
- North of Boston
hey JOJO
You still calling simple small cords that rust, become brittle, and need maintenance failsafes?
You question dodging old dog you!
You arent up for fixing this problem, you want to make money off the lawsuits is all, and thats very clear!
nice work on dodging my entire last post, I knew you would do it, I had to prove it though!
You still calling simple small cords that rust, become brittle, and need maintenance failsafes?
You question dodging old dog you!
You arent up for fixing this problem, you want to make money off the lawsuits is all, and thats very clear!
nice work on dodging my entire last post, I knew you would do it, I had to prove it though!
- Location
- North of Boston
here is the definitioon of "failsafe" from thefreedictionary.com #3 best fits your example.
fail-safe (flsf)
adj.
1. Capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure, as of a mechanism or power source.
2. Acting to discontinue a military attack on the occurrence of any of various predetermined conditions.
3. Guaranteed not to fail: "There is no fail-safe mechanism guaranteed either to contain or to restore presidential authority" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
n.
A fail-safe mechanism.
v. fail-safed, fail-saf·ing, fail-safes
v.intr.
To compensate automatically for failure.
v.tr.
To render fail-safe: fail-safed the computer against power outages.
fail-safe (flsf)
adj.
1. Capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure, as of a mechanism or power source.
2. Acting to discontinue a military attack on the occurrence of any of various predetermined conditions.
3. Guaranteed not to fail: "There is no fail-safe mechanism guaranteed either to contain or to restore presidential authority" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
n.
A fail-safe mechanism.
v. fail-safed, fail-saf·ing, fail-safes
v.intr.
To compensate automatically for failure.
v.tr.
To render fail-safe: fail-safed the computer against power outages.
WTF do you think an ejector seat in an F14 Tomcat fighter jet is BB?
And yes, they've mal-functioned a few times with lethal results for the pilot. No failsafe system is perfect.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2009/07/02/opinion/today/14966279.txt
jomoco
And yes, they've mal-functioned a few times with lethal results for the pilot. No failsafe system is perfect.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2009/07/02/opinion/today/14966279.txt
jomoco
- Location
- North of Boston
[ QUOTE ]
WTF do you think an ejector seat in an F14 Tomcat fighter jet is BB?
And yes, they've mal-functioned a few times with lethal results for the pilot. No failsafe system is perfect.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2009/07/02/opinion/today/14966279.txt
jomoco
[/ QUOTE ]
Isnt that the same example I used? you unoriginal !
An ejector seat requires almost zero maintenance, just like an airbag.
anything can fail, its the odds that it will fail, and the maintenance it requires.
answer the questions, and clarify your positions, or go home.
I have been trying to work with you, after you can answer questions and clarify positions, but you refuse.
WTF do you think an ejector seat in an F14 Tomcat fighter jet is BB?
And yes, they've mal-functioned a few times with lethal results for the pilot. No failsafe system is perfect.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2009/07/02/opinion/today/14966279.txt
jomoco
[/ QUOTE ]
Isnt that the same example I used? you unoriginal !
An ejector seat requires almost zero maintenance, just like an airbag.
anything can fail, its the odds that it will fail, and the maintenance it requires.
answer the questions, and clarify your positions, or go home.
I have been trying to work with you, after you can answer questions and clarify positions, but you refuse.
The only way to increase reaction time to a hazardous situation is to slow it down. If you slow the fed rate down you'll increase the time it takes to be pulled in. Production will suffer. My opinion is that it's a dangerous machine, learn how to run it and respect it. This whole damn business is a liability.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WTF do you think an ejector seat in an F14 Tomcat fighter jet is BB?
And yes, they've mal-functioned a few times with lethal results for the pilot. No failsafe system is perfect.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2009/07/02/opinion/today/14966279.txt
jomoco
[/ QUOTE ]
Isnt that the same example I used? you unoriginal !
An ejector seat requires almost zero maintenance, just like an airbag.
anything can fail, its the odds that it will fail, and the maintenance it requires.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you're lamely trying to say an F14 pilot doesn't pull a handle or flick a switch to blow the canopy and eject to save his life?
Isn't that the same thing Morey's failsafe accomplishes when the man being sucked into a bandit WTC does by pulling the handle to save his life?
In both situations the failsafe device being activated by the operator is the only thing that can save their lives.
I assume you think failsafe's in F14 Tomcat's are a good and worthwhile thing?
So why would a failsafe on a WTC be any different?
The both save operator lives!
Why support one and not the other unless you value the life of a WTC operator less than the life of an F14 pilot?
Explain the disparity there BB.
jomoco
[ QUOTE ]
WTF do you think an ejector seat in an F14 Tomcat fighter jet is BB?
And yes, they've mal-functioned a few times with lethal results for the pilot. No failsafe system is perfect.
http://www.poststar.com/articles/2009/07/02/opinion/today/14966279.txt
jomoco
[/ QUOTE ]
Isnt that the same example I used? you unoriginal !
An ejector seat requires almost zero maintenance, just like an airbag.
anything can fail, its the odds that it will fail, and the maintenance it requires.
[/ QUOTE ]
So you're lamely trying to say an F14 pilot doesn't pull a handle or flick a switch to blow the canopy and eject to save his life?
Isn't that the same thing Morey's failsafe accomplishes when the man being sucked into a bandit WTC does by pulling the handle to save his life?
In both situations the failsafe device being activated by the operator is the only thing that can save their lives.
I assume you think failsafe's in F14 Tomcat's are a good and worthwhile thing?
So why would a failsafe on a WTC be any different?
The both save operator lives!
Why support one and not the other unless you value the life of a WTC operator less than the life of an F14 pilot?
Explain the disparity there BB.
jomoco
- Location
- North of Boston
Youre joking right? Seriously, you MUSt be joking. No one is this.......
I ahve explained this a couple times now, we'll try once more. Maybe if you read entire posts, responded to them, clarified things and answered questions, we wouodnt be going over this. Youre lucky I am a patient man, sir.
An ejector seat is operated via a switch, handle, pull cord, whatever! That seat works every single time, NO MATTER WHAT, with NO maintenance. You dont go in after every flight and adjust the seat.
Moreys device is a safety system, just like Vermeers lower bump bar.
See if the feed bar that mr. moreys little cords are attached to becomes bent, out of alignment, rusted, ball joints become frozen, or theres a stick stuck up between the feedbar and body of the machine, his device is USELESS, not really a failsafe now is it?
I ahve explained this a couple times now, we'll try once more. Maybe if you read entire posts, responded to them, clarified things and answered questions, we wouodnt be going over this. Youre lucky I am a patient man, sir.
An ejector seat is operated via a switch, handle, pull cord, whatever! That seat works every single time, NO MATTER WHAT, with NO maintenance. You dont go in after every flight and adjust the seat.
Moreys device is a safety system, just like Vermeers lower bump bar.
See if the feed bar that mr. moreys little cords are attached to becomes bent, out of alignment, rusted, ball joints become frozen, or theres a stick stuck up between the feedbar and body of the machine, his device is USELESS, not really a failsafe now is it?
- Location
- North of Boston
did you really miss this?
here are some points that need clarification Jomoco
It's readily apparent to any fool that the manufacturer built that reinforced enclosed operators cab on their big WTC's to protect that operator from something, and its in front of the bloody feed table! Not to the side, not behind it, like every operator.
youre saying that a WTC with an operators cab, has the same dnagers as a WTC without one? I havent seen any WTC that have cabs, that also offer a handfed design of the same size/design. Can you show me one?
You need to ask yourself why this patented simple chipper failsafe last chance device is not standard mandated equipment on every dang WTC sold today, much less a decade ago when he patented it?
can you please prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Moreys design is in fact a failsafe device?
here is the definitioon of "failsafe" from thefreedictionary.com #3 best fits your example.
fail-safe (flsf)
adj.
1. Capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure, as of a mechanism or power source.
2. Acting to discontinue a military attack on the occurrence of any of various predetermined conditions.
3. Guaranteed not to fail: "There is no fail-safe mechanism guaranteed either to contain or to restore presidential authority" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
n.
A fail-safe mechanism.
v. fail-safed, fail-saf·ing, fail-safes
v.intr.
To compensate automatically for failure.
v.tr.
To render fail-safe: fail-safed the computer against power outages.
Just ask yourself whether any WTC model of morbark or vermeer are for sale that can be hand fed, also come equipped with a loader arm and cab/screen? 2400's or 1800's for example? I think you'll find the answer is yes for both companies and others.
now a few posts later, your story changes from an enclosed operators cab, to a simple screen. The screen is there because the door swing all the way open so the operator may look into the hopper while using the grapple. Thescreen protects him from debris coming back out of the hopper while chipping.
The pertinent question is why it isn't a mandated requirement for every WTC specifically to save trapped operator's who are trapped conscious and scared treeworkers?
I would love for you to work on this issue. You should call TCI/ISA/etc and get the ball rolling. You can also use all of your contacts @ the big 3 to help move this issue forward!
I'm growing a bit fed up with your moronic advocacy for shooting down even the simplest of safety devices to keep your fellow treeworkers from a grisly death BB.
If the dang handles and cables get worn like a friggin chipper blade or bolt, you replace them!
It's called equipment maintenance BB, ever hear of it pal?
later on in that thread you reveal that Morey's invention isnt really a failsafe, more of an extrta last chance safety device that operates when properly maintained
I'm after bigger fish in this thread than you now my friend.
the truth comes out near the end. You are doing all this to make a point, and try to ruin American chipper makers, the TCIA, and ISA, along with certain employees at those companies who have been named numerous times in this thread. This also explains why you are using legal terms such as lethal, failsafe, absolute, etc
It's a blight on our entire industry in my opinion, and I don't see how Peter Gerstenberger sleeps at night while this status quo continues to take it's grisly toll almost every other month.this comment says alot about your main goal here too
I hope an American manufacturer with real morals and ethics comes along and puts everyone of these poor little frightened US manufacturers that can't quite figure out how to stop these barbaric dis-memberment fatalities, out of business, they've certainly earned such a fate in my opinionthis one too!
All these so called safety officials are apparently unable to support two man minimums to reduce these deaths, mandatory simple inhopper failsafes to reduce these deaths, or spending a red cent on real 21st century safety devices capable of saving the life of an incapacitated worker on the friggin job.is there any place in the world that has a policy such as this? or is it just the big bad mean americans?
What you and every safety official are failing to understand TH, is that thousands of small, medium and even some large tree companies use unqualified untrained men to feed these WTC on a regular basis, and the death toll will continue escalating until strict laws and regulations are in force to deal with WTC manufacturers basic safety device standards, the grisly death tolls will continue to escalate.
training would surely solve this problem!
The facts are that there are indeed WTC's with grapples and operator's cabs of the same horse power and capacities as those sold for hand fed applications by various manufacturers.really? which?
here are some points that need clarification Jomoco
It's readily apparent to any fool that the manufacturer built that reinforced enclosed operators cab on their big WTC's to protect that operator from something, and its in front of the bloody feed table! Not to the side, not behind it, like every operator.
youre saying that a WTC with an operators cab, has the same dnagers as a WTC without one? I havent seen any WTC that have cabs, that also offer a handfed design of the same size/design. Can you show me one?
You need to ask yourself why this patented simple chipper failsafe last chance device is not standard mandated equipment on every dang WTC sold today, much less a decade ago when he patented it?
can you please prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Moreys design is in fact a failsafe device?
here is the definitioon of "failsafe" from thefreedictionary.com #3 best fits your example.
fail-safe (flsf)
adj.
1. Capable of compensating automatically and safely for a failure, as of a mechanism or power source.
2. Acting to discontinue a military attack on the occurrence of any of various predetermined conditions.
3. Guaranteed not to fail: "There is no fail-safe mechanism guaranteed either to contain or to restore presidential authority" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)
n.
A fail-safe mechanism.
v. fail-safed, fail-saf·ing, fail-safes
v.intr.
To compensate automatically for failure.
v.tr.
To render fail-safe: fail-safed the computer against power outages.
Just ask yourself whether any WTC model of morbark or vermeer are for sale that can be hand fed, also come equipped with a loader arm and cab/screen? 2400's or 1800's for example? I think you'll find the answer is yes for both companies and others.
now a few posts later, your story changes from an enclosed operators cab, to a simple screen. The screen is there because the door swing all the way open so the operator may look into the hopper while using the grapple. Thescreen protects him from debris coming back out of the hopper while chipping.
The pertinent question is why it isn't a mandated requirement for every WTC specifically to save trapped operator's who are trapped conscious and scared treeworkers?
I would love for you to work on this issue. You should call TCI/ISA/etc and get the ball rolling. You can also use all of your contacts @ the big 3 to help move this issue forward!
I'm growing a bit fed up with your moronic advocacy for shooting down even the simplest of safety devices to keep your fellow treeworkers from a grisly death BB.
If the dang handles and cables get worn like a friggin chipper blade or bolt, you replace them!
It's called equipment maintenance BB, ever hear of it pal?
later on in that thread you reveal that Morey's invention isnt really a failsafe, more of an extrta last chance safety device that operates when properly maintained
I'm after bigger fish in this thread than you now my friend.
the truth comes out near the end. You are doing all this to make a point, and try to ruin American chipper makers, the TCIA, and ISA, along with certain employees at those companies who have been named numerous times in this thread. This also explains why you are using legal terms such as lethal, failsafe, absolute, etc
It's a blight on our entire industry in my opinion, and I don't see how Peter Gerstenberger sleeps at night while this status quo continues to take it's grisly toll almost every other month.this comment says alot about your main goal here too
I hope an American manufacturer with real morals and ethics comes along and puts everyone of these poor little frightened US manufacturers that can't quite figure out how to stop these barbaric dis-memberment fatalities, out of business, they've certainly earned such a fate in my opinionthis one too!
All these so called safety officials are apparently unable to support two man minimums to reduce these deaths, mandatory simple inhopper failsafes to reduce these deaths, or spending a red cent on real 21st century safety devices capable of saving the life of an incapacitated worker on the friggin job.is there any place in the world that has a policy such as this? or is it just the big bad mean americans?
What you and every safety official are failing to understand TH, is that thousands of small, medium and even some large tree companies use unqualified untrained men to feed these WTC on a regular basis, and the death toll will continue escalating until strict laws and regulations are in force to deal with WTC manufacturers basic safety device standards, the grisly death tolls will continue to escalate.
training would surely solve this problem!
The facts are that there are indeed WTC's with grapples and operator's cabs of the same horse power and capacities as those sold for hand fed applications by various manufacturers.really? which?
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
KBNest -Midline Attachable SRS Canopy Anchor.
- Started by TreeSteward
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
