We've rebooted our Facebook Group. If groups are your thing, join up and let's make it as amazing and friendly as our forums!

Click here for HSfB's Facebook Group Image

Near miss????

Discuss all things health and safety.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Jonnie
Jnr Member
Jnr Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:05 pm
Occupation: Freelance HSE professional

Near miss????

Post by Jonnie » Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:33 am

Large project in the kick off stages.

Engineering consultants come in and do an inspection on a Vacuum lift. They find a broken hose. Vacuum lift was not in use and was not scheduled to be used. Procedure for use includes a start up inspection.

Engineering consultants have categorized this as a near miss which I am a tad annoyed about.

Any input please

Thank-you

gfsw
Member
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:33 am

Re: Near miss????

Post by gfsw » Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:03 am

If the lift had been isolated by mechanical /engineering method supported by human controls to revent use then not a near miss.
If it was barred from use by procedure or written/verbal control only then I would have it as a near miss because theese controls frequently and un expectable fail.
garry

User avatar
kevlarion
Blue Sky Moderator
Blue Sky Moderator
Posts: 1964
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:20 pm
Occupation: QHSE Manager
Location: Glasgow
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 31 times
Contact:

Re: Near miss????

Post by kevlarion » Wed Jun 10, 2015 11:45 am

When did faulty equipment become a near miss ?

A near miss is an event which could have resulted in injury, but didn't.

This is a fault report, a maintenance issue.

Would it be a near miss if when it was inspected before use, it was found faulty, isolated and reported ?

Still it's a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things... dodgy stats are annoying but you now know about the problem and can act on that, so it's not all in vain.
If it isn't broken, that doesn't mean you can't improve it. (Do three negatives make a positive ?)

User avatar
dave247
Dangerous Dave
Dangerous Dave
Posts: 5350
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:07 pm
Industry Sector: Waste
Occupation: Health and Safety Manager
Location: Staffordshire
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Near miss????

Post by dave247 » Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:29 pm

First of all I'm on the side of them being called near miss/hazards as hazards are far more common than near misses and you get a better quality of reports as there is a far wider scope to get people looking for.
when inspected was there evidence that this fault had been there for a period of time and gone unnoticed? If so I think it's justified based on the fact that the pre use checks may not be getting carried out properly or maybe this part is not part of the regime? If this was the case then you can use this report to look at any weaknesses or deficiencies.

In an area where we want more people to report near misses/hazards better safe than sorry?
For brilliance and, at the same time, for consistency of achievement, for activity in philanthropic enterprise, for astuteness of management and for general alertness, the superiors of Aston Villa cannot be found

Jonnie
Jnr Member
Jnr Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:05 pm
Occupation: Freelance HSE professional

Re: Near miss????

Post by Jonnie » Wed Jun 10, 2015 7:51 pm

The item would have been broken on last use indeed the breakage must have occurred when being transported to storage as it would not function with the broken part ie it would not have been able to lift anything which makes it worse.

Surely it would be better to give positive recognition for finding a fault then a negative KPI in an area you trying to encourage reporting from?

Post Reply

 

Follow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook Find us on on LinkedIn

Terms of Use Privacy Policy