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

My reptilian cad brain is wondering what happens when man #2 happens to be re-tying his loose bootlace / grabbing a drink / getting a saw off the truck, etc, the exact moment man #1 becomes mangled via the Jomoco dragon tail-of-death. Which is when that dragon is gonna strike, of course.

Like many other ideas, the two man rule sounds fine in Theory. Just like the mountains of paperwork of SOPs and guidelines that Fire Departments come up with to ensure that all the I's are dotted and all the T's are crossed. And then everybody signs off, but all that due diligence means didley squat to the real-life dragon.

A single alert chipper operator is gonna be far safer than two tired semi-comatose workers going through the motions.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

[ QUOTE ]


In forming rules, efficiency vs. safety must be balanced.

Your way allows for the efficiency, but it suggests that a "best practices" would have 2 man operation of the machine...but short of legally requiring such operation.

Question: when does "best practices" become "always must" (i.e, "law")?

If it were to become an industry-wide best practice for 2 people to work the machine, anybody who had an injury or died by not observing the industry-wide best practice (2 man operation) might face very serious objections from their insurance. Liability might be put back onto the negligent user....

...just wondering how that line between best practices and law begins and forms...

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Ward.

The very pertinent point you make between should or best practices, and shall or ANSI mandate that ignored puts you at a liability risk, is the real crux of the issue here.

I personally think that I'm pretty much a minority voice in shouting the urgent need to get a WTC two man minimum rule as a best practice in this industry. The poll in this thread seems to confirm that. I seriously doubt you'll be reading any TCIA magazine articles extolling the wisdom of adopting an in house company rule for WTC two man minimums either.

There's a reason for that.

What do you think that reason is Ward?

Thanks for participating.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

[ QUOTE ]
My reptilian cad brain is wondering what happens when man #2 happens to be re-tying his loose bootlace / grabbing a drink / getting a saw off the truck, etc, the exact moment man #1 becomes mangled via the Jomoco dragon tail-of-death. Which is when that dragon is gonna strike, of course.

Like many other ideas, the two man rule sounds fine in Theory. Just like the mountains of paperwork of SOPs and guidelines that Fire Departments come up with to ensure that all the I's are dotted and all the T's are crossed. And then everybody signs off, but all that due diligence means didley squat to the real-life dragon.

A single alert chipper operator is gonna be far safer than two tired semi-comatose workers going through the motions.

[/ QUOTE ]

The incident I described where dude#1 required stitches to his knee took place in 7-10 seconds. Enough time for dude #2 to sprint over and save his 240 lb azz.

The very reptilian cad attitude you express so well, will be the exact reason OSHA stuffs a blanket two man minimum chipper rule down our collective throats mate.

Your naive assumption that all chipper operators are as adept as you think you are is an integral part of the problem. A BC 1800 is twice as aggressive in its power and capacity than a 1000, and therefor more likely to catch an exhausted operator feeding a long bent branch unaware of the dragon tail affect.

Thanks for participating.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Something for my peers in this industry, and in this thread to mull over while I'm out and about today.


No Man Is An Island

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
John Donne

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Let's pretend that inertia chain brakes never became accepted on the market.

That chains are still spinning on saws because dummies can't adjust their low speed screws correctly and folks are getting cut up.

Some dude presents Stihl, Husqvarna etc with the chain brake concept.
But Stihl and Husky say no thank you. Only adept pros who know how to adjust their carbs correctly and wield our saws correctly will prevent injuries in the field with our saws.

Their reasoning being that if they were to accept dude's concept and incorporate it into their saws, and the chain brake failed for whatever reason? Their liability for any resulting injury to the operator of their saw would be unacceptably high. So they turn dude down, and stubbornly insist that chain brakes are not the answer for helping prevent chainsaw cuts from happening on the job. That professional well trained chainsaw operators are the best means preventing chainsaw injuries, not silly chain brakes meant to protect fools operating chainsaws.

Am I safe in assuming all you nay sayers in this poll would back Stihl and Husky's rationale in my metaphoric comparison here?

Don't be shy now. Or I might think some of you lack the courage to voice your convictions.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

What is the point of making it an ANSI or OSHA regulation? I wont matter one bit. There are countless standards and regulations that you, me, and other people completely ignore.

We have all heard you rant on for hours on end on how you keep your chainsaw running in one hand in case you need to cut your lanyard when the tree fails underneath you. You know as well as anyone that one handed chainsaw use is a violation of the regulations. So you are going to try and make another rule that people wont follow? How are you going to react when someone is going on and on about how 'your' rule is so stupid and doesnt need to be followed?

Besides if you succeed, the company I work for will sell 90% of its 18" chippers, all our crews will move to 12" chippers... What will that do? Make me and other safe, trained, individuals load a crap-ton of wood.

While at the same time it will put a bunch of prime 18" chippers on the auction block, so people that dont give a crap about your stupid rules get them at a great deal and send them out with untrained unskilled hack workers.... ultimately whats gonna happen then? More people get sucked into chippers.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

But your not talking about adding a safety design or mechanical device to a chipper to make it safer. Which is a one time cost built into the equipment.

Your theory is to add another employee and all the additional costs and expense to that.

As previously stated I have no problem with safety bar, or a newer better way to prevent someone from getting chipped. As long as it doesn't limit the power, use, and efficiency of the equipment.

But I shouldn't have to add a employee to my company, just because I want a larger chipper than my 1230a. That is my whole problem with your vote and proposed regulation.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

[ QUOTE ]
But your not talking about adding a safety design or mechanical device to a chipper to make it safer. Which is a one time cost built into the equipment.

Your theory is to add another employee and all the additional costs and expense to that.

As previously stated I have no problem with safety bar, or a newer better way to prevent someone from getting chipped. As long as it doesn't limit the power, use, and efficiency of the equipment.

But I shouldn't have to add a employee to my company, just because I want a larger chipper than my 1230a. That is my whole problem with your vote and proposed regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would respectfully ask you to read this entire thread CHT.

I am dude. I invented and patented the Chipper Safety Gate in 1995, presented to the major chipper manufacturers, was politely turned down without an explanation. But was informed of their shockingly lame rationale for turning me down by a well respected tree industry insider who wished to remain anonymous.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parse...p;RS=PN/5667152

My metaphoric analogy is dead on accurate.

This all transpired years before my friend was eaten alive on the job in 1999.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

I had been reading, and following the thread. But I did somehow miss your post on your gate...I apologize for that.

But my statement still stands. You are not fighting/pushing this technology. You are insisting that another guy should be required to be by the chipper at all times. That is a big difference. One I would support, one I don't.

I think your patent, would be a step in the right direct. Though I am not sure how well it would work in a chipper. Did you create any working models? Would it with stand the abuse of branches and logs getting thrown around it (the non metal part)?
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Well we all know metal detectors don't work right?

They aren't used by any other industries right?

Portable metal detectors are unheard of right?

Rugged solid state electronics that can take high vibration environments, like say a chainsaw are just undoable right?

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

To the extent any of the four questions above truly is right?

Is the extent of the real depth of both the chipper manufacturers and TCIA's true concern for the well being and safety of chipper operators in this industry.

Sad but true.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

You wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Or get to trashed last night?

Did I question whether metal detectors work? Did I question whether they are used in other industries? Or portable metal detectors etc?

Have I belittle you in anyway...like you have to me and others?

Maybe you should re read my above post and actually try to answer my questions. You talk endlessly about the power or the dragon tail...about how it throw people, bends metal (think that was you earlier). And you want to put non metal parts into the feed area. But despite my concerns, I have acknowledged it would be a great safety feature. Especially, once kinks were worked out. You should pursue this with the same drive as you 2 man rule. Take apart a old chipper, and start getting some working models.

A metal detector at a saw mill is not subjected to that kind of force etc.

Ps- A added safety feature should have been a option on the poll. And I bet that would have won hands down.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

My last two posts were not addressed or directed to you CHT.

Calm down and be objective please.

Consider that each time a chpper operator gets eaten on the job, and a lawsuit results. The plaintiff's attorneys do in depth research on chipper safety devices. My name invariably pops up and they track me down to learn why my invention never made it to market, and the whole sordid saga comes out.

OSHA is now interested in my sad tale of corporate indifference to easily preventable fatalities on the job in this industry.

What do you suggest I do?

Adopt a reptilian indifference to my fellow treeworkers being eaten alive on the job because they're somehow uniquely mistake prone dummies?

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

There is such a negative thread of reptilianist bias running through here. Why are they getting a bad rap?

I wonder how attorneys or OSHA react when a worker is killed or maimed by any of the other myriad causes?

Electrocutions are a MUCH more likely cause of treeworker death and, as far as I know, there is no requirement for any worker to wear proximity alarms. They're not expensive and surely not cumbersome for any worker to wear. They'd save many more lives than requiring two chipper operators or adding on some sort of emergency stop mechanism.

During one of my EHAP presentations I picked up some code talk that a line clearance crew used between themselves. Everyone would watchout for everyone else. If anyone didn't pay attention, or turned their back on, the most dangerous part of their job, direct and indirect contact to an electrically charge line they would shout out, 'Watch the dragon!' or sometimes just, 'Dragon!' That was succinct and accepted on the crew to pay attention. Simple...and it saves lives.

Should climbers be required to wear cut resistant gloves like meat butchers wear to reduce the number of severe hand injuries from handsaws? When will there be a requirement to use two points of attachment to the tree when using a handsaw become part of Z133 [Sooner rather than later I think, I already do most of the time anyway]???
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

I would respectfully point out that this thread's about chipper fatalities on the job site. Its history.

Why the chipper manufacturers refuse to get with the program?

Why each time a chipper operator on the job gets eaten TCIA trots out Professor Ball professing two men on the chipper won't make that much difference?

All while my on the job firsthand experience proves the opposite is true, and three treeworker chipper operators are alive and well today to prove it.

Never mind the glaring irony in obtusely ignoring OSHA's number one recommendation to prevent these tragedies on the job site.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you should re read my above post and actually try to answer my questions. You talk endlessly about the power or the dragon tail...about how it throw people, bends metal (think that was you earlier). And you want to put non metal parts into the feed table area?

[/ QUOTE ]


Not the feed table itself CHT. Just a six inch deep section of the feed wheel housing in front of the feed wheels. This non metallic section would have the looped detection coil embedded into it and can be up to six inches thick inside a metal housing to insure outer structural integrity and rigidity.

Any number of engineered plastics will work just fine to embed the detection coil that only looks inward inside.

Rocket science it aint, either then or now.

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Maybe the 2 operator rule is trotted out because the addition of any sort of safety feature, yours or anyone else, is a non-started.

What all of this boils down to is inertia on the part of the owners and managers to adopt existing safety regs. We have all been witness to the blatant disregard of these rules by companies big and small, private and public, government and non-government. What needs to happen is enforcement of the existing regs. That will be the wake up call for all to play by the rules and the fines levied against the hacks will eventually force them out of business if they don't comply. Essentially a leveling of the playing field to the extent that we can price jobs with safety in mind not just production.

It was noted in another thread that dealing with a bee hive would add time and other expenses to the removal. Was that accounted for in the original bid? When it was discovered was the job price adjusted and the new cost accepted? Or will the company eat the cost? Will the workers be pressed to still get the the job done in the time originally estimated?

Let's get serious about the existing safety regs right across the board then we may have more common sense applied to the safe operations of all chippers.
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Suppose Stihl or Husqvarna took the same stance against developing and producing the inertia chain brake that Vermeer and Morbark have against the chipper safety gate?

Would TCIA support them at the risk of higher numbers of chainsaw injuries and fatalities to treeworkers as well?

What will it take to make these chipper manufacturers see the light?

Why are they resisting even bending a little bit and recommending a two operator minimum when operating their big chippers?

It's been over 16 years and who knows how many injuries and fatalities world wide?

jomoco
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

Is there a prototype for your patent ? Have you fabricated and developed this safety system to the point where we could see a demo?
 
Re: Whole Tree Chipper Two Man Minimum Rule Adopti

No Kelly.

But it would be an excellent way to embarrass them into action.

I designed a prototype that used an Eriez Magnetics 1200 series tramp metal detector on a BC 1800 Vermeer.

I even had my design evaluated by a professional engineering R&D firm in Texas called EG&G AstroPhysics who offered to build a prototype for me. Not having 150K to have them build it there in Dallas, I went begging a grant from the National Arborist Association to have the prototype built at EG&G, but they politely turned me down too. Just like Vermeer and Morbark had.

You see the chipper firms and the NAA were good buddies. Both deeply concerned about treeworker safety. Particularly chipper operators.

jomoco
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom