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
Near miss????
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Near miss????
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
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
-
kevlarion
- Blue Sky Moderator
- Posts: 1968
- Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 3:20 pm
- 14
- Occupation: QHSE Manager
- Location: Glasgow
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 34 times
- Contact:
Re: Near miss????
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.
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 ?)
-
dave247
- Dangerous Dave
- Posts: 5354
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:07 pm
- 18
- Industry Sector: Waste
- Occupation: Health and Safety Manager
- Location: Staffordshire
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Near miss????
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?
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
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:05 pm
- 13
- Occupation: Freelance HSE professional
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Near miss????
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?
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?
