Worker pulled into wood chipper

Prove you wrong? Anyone who's run an 1800 vermeer knows the reverse bar has three positions looking from behind, forward is reverse, the mid position is neutral, and if you pull, it feeds.

You somehow disagree with this truth BB?

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah!

And you haven't answered my question either jojo!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry Jim, did you have a question about WTC fatality prevention methods worthy of our industry?

jomoco
 
[ QUOTE ]
Prove you wrong? Anyone who's run an 1800 vermeer knows the reverse bar has three positions looking from behind, forward is reverse, the mid position is neutral, and if you pull, it feeds.

You somehow disagree with this truth BB?

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Vermeer 1800 chipper brochure: (bolding is mine)

Operator safety.
Combined with the patented Bottom Feed
Stop Bar is a four-position upper-feed
control bar with dual stop and forward /
reverse feed positions. Mounted over the
feed table, this control enables the operator
to stop the feed rollers and select forward or
reverse operations. Dual reset / hold- to-run
buttons allow the operator to readily reset
both bars.
 
I heard from Mr. Mather in Australia, apparently, they never produced a commercial product. It has never been tested in the field.

Since this thread has brought up so many unsubstantiated claims, I have contacted the largest manufacturers of chippers in the U.S. to get more information All of them are very interested in safety. They are also very interested in these threads, as are their legal counsels, I imagine.

The NIOSH FACE publications, NIOSH Publication No. 99-145, and California FACE Report #00CA010, in which, one of the recommendations is to have two workers in close contact while chipping, were not written by people who chip for a living. This recommendation was based, primarily, on one of the chipper manufacturers training videos. OSHA has since tried, unsuccessfully thanks in part to TCIA, to cite companies who did not have a second “Safety watch” person whose sole responsibility was to stand at the back of the chipper with their hands on the reverse bar while someone else chipped (this is what can happen when people who don’t do the work try to regulate it.)

Other than the one recommendation, I think the FACE program is great, which is why I suggested that it be listed in Annex D (Informative) Additional Resources of the 2006 revision of the ANSI Z133.1 standard.

FYI to all, NIOSH was created at the same time that OSHA was created, by the OSHact of 1970. The role of NIOSH was to provide research and make recommendations to OSHA. Their recommendations are not always taken and are not law.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Prove you wrong? Anyone who's run an 1800 vermeer knows the reverse bar has three positions looking from behind, forward is reverse, the mid position is neutral, and if you pull, it feeds.

You somehow disagree with this truth BB?

jomoco

[/ QUOTE ]

Wholeheartedly! You are speaking of the bar design on the machines produced over 10 years ago! i.e. the 1800A and 1800C

The 1800Xl, and the brand new 1800XL, as well as every other model have Reverse, neutral, forward, neutral.

Ill grab a pic at work today for you.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I heard from Mr. Mather in Australia, apparently, they never produced a commercial product. It has never been tested in the field.

Since this thread has brought up so many unsubstantiated claims, I have contacted the largest manufacturers of chippers in the U.S. to get more information All of them are very interested in safety. They are also very interested in these threads, as are their legal counsels, I imagine.

The NIOSH FACE publications, NIOSH Publication No. 99-145, and California FACE Report #00CA010, in which, one of the recommendations is to have two workers in close contact while chipping, were not written by people who chip for a living. This recommendation was based, primarily, on one of the chipper manufacturers training videos. OSHA has since tried, unsuccessfully thanks in part to TCIA, to cite companies who did not have a second “Safety watch” person whose sole responsibility was to stand at the back of the chipper with their hands on the reverse bar while someone else chipped (this is what can happen when people who don’t do the work try to regulate it.)

Other than the one recommendation, I think the FACE program is great, which is why I suggested that it be listed in Annex D (Informative) Additional Resources of the 2006 revision of the ANSI Z133.1 standard.

FYI to all, NIOSH was created at the same time that OSHA was created, by the OSHact of 1970. The role of NIOSH was to provide research and make recommendations to OSHA. Their recommendations are not always taken and are not law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great info TMW!

never field tested you say!? Never a commercial unit produced you say!? WOW, I am just blown away! Jomoco based his whole argument as an expert witness on Mr. Mather's great invention. He also claimed that it would save/prevent deaths in our industry!

I ask then, is Mr Mather's blowing hot air and lieing about his invention?
 
jojo,

you old DOG you!
tongue.gif
 
Seems like TMW has simply confirmed the same point that I've been hammering this whole thread, that the manufacturers can tell everyone to pound sand as this slaughter continues with the active aid of TCIA and the ISA.

The big losers here are WTC operators, their friends, and their families.

Great job TMW.

America at it's best?

jomoco
 
Come out of the shadows Mr Morey and introduce yourself to everyone, and state your twisted safety rationale for us please.

jomoco
 
I am confused as to how TMW is being blamed for chipper deaths?

Mr Mathers hasn't even developed a commercial machine to test, nevermind sell. you based your whole argument and reputation on technology that doesn't exist. why would you lie? and then blame others?

I have proven to you that 7 out of your 11 chipper deaths were misuse of the machine, and yet you still continue on this tangent.

I know I can speak for myself here, and I am sure plenty of others will agree, I am all for improving safety! until a proven device comes out though we have to rely on training, safety cultures, and common sense.

Be Well!

P.S. who's Mr Morey?
 
But just like the manufacturers, you just can't quite seem to find these skyrocketing gruesome fatality rates sufficient cause to recommend a two man minimum WTC policy, much less mandate it in the instructions or warning stickers on the machine?

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.

You don't recommend mechanical redundancy failsafes to reduce deaths, nor can you support human redundancy failsafes to do it either.

This is your idea of treeworker safety in the 21st century?

Get out the whips and instruction manuals then guys, because it aint workin out well at all at all.

jomoco
 
Mr. Morey is a gentleman who filed for a patent on an inside the feed hopper panic handle that a trapped treeworker about to be eaten alive could pull to avoid meeting his maker.

I wonder why Mr. Morey filed such a patent?

One might conclude Mr. Morey is well aware of a treeworkers's need for such a failsafe, indeed to the degree that he filed a patent for it to commercialize in this industry.

Did you really do that Mr. Morey?

jomoco
 
you have a sick and twisted mind! you're comparing the enclosed cabs of whole tree chippers, 36"+ with 800hp engines, to 18" chippers!? those units have NO reverse bars, or safety mechanisms that is why the operator is in a cab!


If we put all our heart and soul into every bloody patent in the world, and made regulations to appease them we would be Nowhere!

why do you refuse to train your guys?

Is there a proven chipper failsafe available to our industry at this time?

you went from Mathers patent, to your patent, to now Moreys.......when will it end. until someone comes out with a proven design training is our best tool!

More companies should design their machines with the safety devices Vermeer uses, even a moron would have to work real hard and have help to be chipped alive!
 
That's the crux of the issue here BB, Morey's, Mather's and my own designs will all work to reduce WTC fatalities, but only two of the three can keep an incapacitated operator from death in a whole tree chipper.

jomoco
 
the crux of the issue here is that you lied to prove a point and you are caught! noone has been chipped or mamed due to being incompacitated, Mathers design isn't even off the floor, Moreys design never left the patent room, and your design was never picked up. I am sure we will soon find out why that was.

I will ask again and again until you answer this question that you have been dodging for 4 pages and 3 days......

Is there a proven chipper failsafe available to our industry at this time?
 
[ QUOTE ]


Is there a proven chipper failsafe available to our industry at this time?



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Mr. Morey's patent was issued to him in the late 90's, and I believe I've seen functiong inside the hopper failsafe handles that work on a few models of his company's chippers.

Strange that they aren't standard equipment on all WTC since they're so simple and effective, provided you're conscious of course.

jomoco
 
do you have the facts to prove your claim about Mr Morey? im a little hesitant about believing you after the whole Mather debacle. was his design ever proven in the field under real working conditions on WTC?


how many cases have the been of a worker being knocked unconscious and chipped, or even maimed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom