Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adoption?

Start a fund drive

  • Sponsor the drive

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Don't sponsor the drive

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

We could save a whole lot more lives by requiring everyone to walk to work. We use an 1800 every day and I seriously doubt a a 2 man system would help at all. keeping a close eye on employees and covering the issue often in safety meetings has a way better effect Imho.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

So tell me Willy, do you see no disparity in our industry bending over backwards in a regulatory sense to keep poor mistake prone climbers safe by incorporating aerial rescue proficiency as a requirement to gain ISA certification status, but leaving WTC operators all alone to fend for themselves if they make a mistake?

I gather that strikes you as entirely reasonable and equitable concern for all treeworkers on the job?

In my objective view of the matter, it stinks of discrimination in no uncertain terms.

Please elaborate on your view of how I could possibly come to such a mistaken opinion on this life and death matter?

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sure Chris, I remember well.

But I'll ask you the same question I put to Peter Gerstenberger at TCIA.

Why must a certified treeworker prove his ability to perform an aerial rescue prior to being granted their certificate?

Is it because climbing trees is inherently dangerous and their ability to perform an aerial rescue for a fellow climber who makes a mistake aloft for whatever reason, incapacitation, heat exhaustion, muscle cramps, chainsaw kickback etc, will save lives?

What makes a WTC operator so magically immune to the same ailments or mistakes that affect climbers to the degree that the ability to rescue them is required to gain ISA certification?

Strikes me as glaringly discriminatory towards our fellow treeworkers who operate WTC's and their well being on the job.

How many more WTC operators must die harrowingly grisly headline making deaths before they gain equal treatment and status by our industry?

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

jomoco, I completely agree with you on the aerial rescue analogy.

Personally, I feel the same way about aerial rescues as I do about having a dedicated second person for a chipper. I feel that the climber is the one responsible for themselves and shouldn’t rely on others, thinking that they will be rescued by them in the event of an emergency. That is why as an SRT instructor, I do not preach the “great” benefit of being able to be lowered using a basal anchor tie. The climber (as well as a ground worker feeding the brush) is ultimately the one responsible for their own safety IMO.

Just last week, I was caught by a WTC, Bandit 1590, when I was feeding brush near the front side of the chute correctly and a stub caught me and started pulling me in. I did not even think about it, I just threw my arm up and hit the reverse bar and the safety on the chipper did its job. TCIA training and a healthy respect for the chipper knowing what to do to save myself is what I relied on. How could I have prevented this? Not by having a second person watching me, but by probably cutting a smaller size branch, so that I did not have to stay as long near the front side of the in feed table, trying to get it to the in feed rollers.

jomoco, you are a 40 year tree veteran and I respect what you have accomplished in the industry. I surely do not want to pick a fight with you, or anyone else. As they say, let’s just agree to disagree.
 
Kind of a callous almost reptilian attitude you got going there towards your fellow treeworkers Chris.

I thank my lucky stars that I was enough of a tyrannical foreman during my career to enforce a two man minimum rule that resulted in saving the lives of three separate treeworkers on three separate occasions.

I knock on wood and thank god that no one has ever died on any of my jobs period. Something like a fellow treeworker dying on one of my job sites would haunt me the rest of my life. I seriously doubt whoever my client was would appreciate having a fatality occur on their property one little bit either.

You guys voting no on this rule being adopted are a rough bunch. Too macho for me for sure. But it's been my experience that when blood gets spilled on the job, and seconds really count in terms of actually saving someone's life? It's the big tough talkin macho dudes who turn into jelly and actually impede rescue operations on the job.

Kinda funny ha ha how that works in reality.

jomoco
 
Again, not trying to pick a fight, but I will explain a little bit further, than this will be my last post on this subject.

My attitude may appear callous or even reptilian as you put it, but it has nothing to do with not caring about my fellow tree workers…just the opposite in fact. As a TCIA CTSP and small business owner/operator, my workers come first, before my own safety in fact, since they are my family members and close friends. No one has ever been seriously hurt or killed on one of my jobs and that is the way that I plan on keeping it. Like you say, if that happened, it would haunt me for the rest of my life.

In this industry we have such a large turnaround and so many new, green workers that I hate putting my life in anyone else’s hands except my own. (kind of the same reason why I hate flying in airplanes). This has nothing to do with being a macho dude or anything. In fact, IMO, if more people relied on just their own skills to stay safe, instead of relying on the fact that they have someone to perform an aerial rescue, I think that we may see less macho, cowboy tree workers.

Are my workers trained in aerial rescue? You bet they are. Do I rely on the fact that I know that if I’m injured, I will be rescued by them? You bet that I do not.

Outta here.
 
So I gather all you anti-regulation guys would prefer not to have mandates for hardhats, seatbelts, inertia chain brakes, chainsaw chaps, fire extinguishers or aerial rescue proficiency training requirements for ISA certification?

Sounds pretty macho to me!

Your logical processes seem kinda contorted when applied objectively across the board to any industry.

Are medkits optional on your crews as well?

jomoco
 
If I could step in here? . . . The analogy is not consistent. Nobody is against rescuing a chipper operator, if they happen upon a pair of feet hanging out of the feed wheels. Your analogy would require a second climber, in the tree at all times, to make sure the first climber doesn't get injured to begin with.
 
No. The second qualified climber is there for the expressed purpose of reacting once the climber has made a mistake and is in trouble to the point that without timely assistance?

The exact same principle applies a WTC who makes a mistake and needs quick timely assistance by a second man to prevent injury or death on the job site.

The principle is the same. But IMO applies more urgently in terms of timely assistance to the WTC operator in dire need.

No one is saying this rule adoption will prevent all WTC deaths or injuries. Only help to lessen their numbers. That's all.

But it's the exact same principle that applies to aerial rescue industry wide!

Will that second climber in the vicinity on the job site prevent the climbers in the trees from dying who make mistakes? No, only lessen the numbers of climbers dying who do make mistakes.

jomoco
 
I'm with ArchD...you're mixing metaphors.

A proper risk assessment procedure would/should show that having two operators for WTC chipper operations is proper. NOT following that RA is wrong.

More regulations aren't the answer. Educating operators about proper procedures will save more lives. Regulations protect employees from having employers that force them to work in unsafe conditions.

I'm all for two operators of WTC...but...they have to be defined. Otherwise EVERY chipper will fall under the regulation.

Can you share the stories about how you saved the three people from going through chippers? How did they put themselves in harm's way? Were you the second operator at the time?

You say:

"It's no coincidence that prior to 1989 no chipper operators got spit into the back of any chip trucks."

Can you site chapter and verse? I highly doubt this is a true statistic. I started my business in '79 after doing treework for a few years. I remember hearing of people going through chippers earlier than '89 but I don't have documentation so I'm not making a claim of the validity. Please document your claims, I'm curious not being argumentative.
 
Were hands, arms and feet chipped off prior to 1989?

Yes, undoubtedly. Were there fatalities? Again yes, most assuredly. Anyone with firsthand experience with the old V8 16 inch blade chuck n ducks is well aware of the fact they could slam any operator against their feed tables hard enough to crack your skull wide open.

But I've never once heard of any chuck n duck operators being dragged entirely through one and being spit into the back of a chiptruck. Could I be mistaken? Yes.

The problem is that record keeping in those days was sketchy at best.

What are your opinions on what constitutes the desired cut off point between chippers that can be operated solo by an experienced well trained operator, and WTC's that can't?

14 inch? 16 inch?

jomoco
 
All right. Let's start with the upper limit that Peter Gerstenberger has indicated should never have any operator in the vicinity of outside of the operator's control cab.

These are the WTC's used by loggers with articulating hydraulic feed arms.

Now there are 18 inch capacity WTC's that are towable that have articulating hydraulic feed arms complete with operator's shields that using Gerstenberger's own criteria, should only be operated from behind that shield and not be hand fed.

So, can we at least agree that the same capacity WTC's that have no feed arms that are designed and sold to be hand fed, be subject to the two man minimum rule?

jomoco
 
Since you're using peter's name you should be using direct quotes from him.

You have a way of playing fast and loose with details...like when I asked you about pre '89 deaths.

You still haven't shared your three rescues stories.
 
Funny, here I was thinking that I was doing Peter a favor by not copying and pasting his emails to me into this thread.

But if you want to start accusing me of playing playing fast and loose with the facts Tom?

I'm perfectly willing to document each claim I make in this thread with names and copies of the emails themselves.

I gather you don't believe either Vermeer or Morbark manufacture 18 inch capacity WTC's with articulating hydraulic feed arms complete with operator shields either?

I was not the second man who saved the WTC operators who got into trouble in the three incidents I spoke. However I was in the top of a euc and alerted that second man who saved the operator in trouble just in the nick of time. That operator still required stitches in his knee from where the feed wheels had grabbed him when the second man hit the reverse bar.

That particular operator who needed to be stitched up quit that very day and never came back. It was a very close call. I don't blame him one bit for quitting this biz entirely.

All three incidents I witnessed involved the dragon tail sweep affect that happens when a huge long branch actually meets the cutting mandrel and reorients itself despite being in the grasp of the feed wheels.

This notion that huge branches can be fed from the side of the feed table is a joke in reality. That notion only applies to small branches more suited to a BC 1000 chipper. Big long heavy branches requiring 2-3 men to feed into an 1800 must first have their butts set on the feed table. Then the men must back up to gain leverage enough to actually feed that branch into the feed wheels. It is at this point that the dragon tail affect can cause that branch to violently sweep to one side or the other. It is this action that can knock an unwary operator off his feet and on top of the very branch that upended him. The longer the branch, the wider the sweep.

A truly experienced operator knows that the bent dog leg in the butt portion inside the feed wheels orienting itself on the cutter mandrel causes the tail sweep to occur, and can predict that violent sweep happening. But it takes a very savvy operator to know that and react fast enough to avoid getting whacked.

So bent butts deserve special caution when fed into an 1800 WTC. The three guys that I witnessed being saved by a second operator were not on their toes when that tail sweep clocked them and up ended them. One of them was just a long bent log hanging off the back of the feed table that jumped up when it oriented itself and clocked poor Frank in the head knocking his hard hat off and chipping it. Fortunately a second man hit the reverse bar before Frank himself went through too.

Those of you unfamiliar with the feed characteristics of a BC 1800 Vermeer probably don't understand what the heck I'm talking about? But those of you that actually have experience feeding them should know exactly what I'm saying here.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

From my experience with the vermeer chippers with vertical feed wheels is that the feed wheels kick logs rather unpredictably to one side or the other. Similar to the way disc chippers always kick material to the drivers side. Vermeers are violent chippers I agree with you on that note but with the current models you are basically forced to press the green button to keep it feeding.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Yeah I noticed that too TJ.

The newer models with the bump bars pretty much demand two men to get any real production out of them because one man has to stay on the over-ride button constantly while the other feeds the brush into it.

Which is safer!

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

I'm undecided. I wholly believe in adhering to safety regs as set out in OSHA and ANSI. While your proposed reg has merit I would want to see some study done on various options to achieve the goal of reduced risk of injury or fatality while operating WTC and for that matter chippers used in the industry.

Regs don't make it safer, enforcement of those regs does. This needs to be done by the company, managers, supervisors, crew leaders and the individuals themselves long before OSHA does.

Chris, of course it is up to the individual in any role to be responsible for their own safety first and foremost. I haven't met a climber who thinks that aerial rescue training allows them to rely on that and work without regard to their own responsibility. Cowboy climbers have always existed. I've met many who didn't were any PPE for a whole raft of excuses, flaunt other safety rules as being too restrictive, etc... Sure there is risk but it is our job as individuals and as an industry to minimize them. More importantly to continue to strive to eliminate them as we become aware of them. Not to shrug our shoulders and accept some sort of "natural" level of danger that makes a certain number of accidents acceptable.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

I believe in 2 people running larger chippers...regs, not so much. However there is one thing I would like to point out Jomoco, you keep refering to AR as a requirement for the ISA, but the ISA is not regulation, its voluntary, people who choose to hold themselves to a higher standard join the ISA, how many of the people killed by WTC in the last 24 years were also ISA Certified?
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Good point CT.

But you must admit that you can't get an ISA treeworker certification without proving your ability to perform an aerial rescue in a tree satisfactorily to the examiners.

Further that the industry at large both nationally and internationally views that ability as an unquestioned safety standard norm for climbers.

It's not the TCC's it was developed for. It was developed to increase safety on the job sites for everyday working climbers.

The whole object of this thread is to get the very same industry to do the exact same thing for WTC operators as well, voluntarily.

I can guarantee you that if we don't? OSHA and its affiliates in each state will force us to at the rate treeworkers keep getting eaten alive on the job.

What I really don't understand is why the WTC manufacturers themselves don't do it first out of pure self interest to limit their own liability in a court of law?

Must they lose a multimillion dollar court decision before they realize that treeworkers getting chipped alive on the job through their products is unacceptable to the public at large, and our courts in particular?

jomoco
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom