Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 13 November 2001 10:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Brede Recently there was an accident on one of my firms worksites where a operative using a high pressure water jetting machine was struck by the flow of water and material dislodged by it. The incident turned on a failure to create effective communications between the operative at the jet end and another controlling the pumping machine some distance away. I have researched this and so far have not come across a system of hand signals a la crane operations that controls this activity. Has anyone else got a system of signals that they could share with me as a best practice? Thanks
Admin  
#2 Posted : 13 November 2001 14:59:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Robert Woods David, Would it not be possible to use radio's to communicate between the workers. I know this presents some problems if operatives are in sewers [Intrinsic safety etc]. Robert Woods.
Admin  
#3 Posted : 13 November 2001 15:19:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Ashley Williams The radio idea is a good one from Bob, and the addition of head sets so the workers hands are frre would also help in this situation. Ashley
Admin  
#4 Posted : 13 November 2001 16:14:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Brede Thanks Robert and Ashley for your response. This is essentially a Plan B situation as normally the operatives use hand held remote controls for specialised custom made pumping machines. So the situation is when they are using hired in plant and a radio solution (though with head sets potentially ideal for a noisy environment) is not immediately available.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 13 November 2001 17:39:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Judas Smith I don't understand how someone using a HP water jet gun, with all the associated PPE, Noise protection, Visor, etc, and the operation necessitating both hands on the gun. Is expected to communicate using hand signals or a radio? Except maybe if the dead man handle fails to danger, there should no reason why he would need to communicate with the pump man while the gun is live. The pump man has no business going into the area of the gun as this area should be barriered off. If he needs to go in, all he has to do is switch the pump off and go in with the gun dead. Communication problem? Are you sure?
Admin  
#6 Posted : 16 November 2001 17:57:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By STEVE Hi David I have just read the other respondants views and thought I would give my views to see if I could help you. 1=You dont tell us what sort of pressures you are Jetting at 2=Why are people Jetting when the communication plays one of the biggest parts in this area of work. What Judas is saying is quite correct to a degree The noise generated from a H/P Jetting Unit makes it quite impossible for head-phones also these give little protection against the noise. If they are using H/Pressures then also what Judas tells you is quite correct both hands need to be on the gun. All guns either have a safety trigger on them or a dump to ground if they are using big Jetting Machines. The dump to ground means that when the jet is not going out of thee nozzle and the trigger is realised then the water comes out of the dump valve but not under pressure. Where Judas tells you that the Jetter does not need to be in touch with the machine operative is where he is wrong The jetter needs to be constantly watched as whilst he has control of the gun he has no control of the bagging(hoses) should they blow near him and at high pressures this is very dangerous. Why cant they use a third man just for communication if the machine is so far away? Why if the Machine operative needs to get the attention of the Jetter cant he wait until the PSI gauge is reading zero then turn off the machine and enter the place of work. Never-ever should the Machine operative turn the machine off whist it is under pressure as this will cause the Jetter to lose his balance. Visa-versa why if the Jetter needs to gain the attention of the Machine OP cant he just let go of the trigger of the gun as previously staed this then dumps the water to the ground without pressure. Hand signals dead easy,why complicate: Thumb up= More pressure Thumb down= Lower pressure Shut machine down= Both hands crossed at chest height then pushed outwards I cannot see any reason for other signals. I have a concern when you say person was hit with water and material which he was jetting and then the conclusions is that there was poor communication Have the Jetters been on any courses,are they aware that to prevent splash-back whist Jetting the angle of the jet of water is all important I could go on and on but if you need any further help please feel free to e-mail me or ask me on this web-site. Steve (SafetyTrainer/TeamLeader for H/Pressure Jetting Team) are
Admin  
#7 Posted : 20 November 2001 09:44:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By David Brede What I did not say was that this was an unusual operation for a jetting machine. It was being used to jet water to the bottom of sheet piles being installed by a 'silent' piling rig. So the operative at the pile had his hands free to do his work at the pile. He became aware that their was a blockage of the jet by the lack of water coming to the surface from the pile. He instructed by hand signals to the pump operator some 50 metres away to shut down the jet but for some reason the pressure remained. The pump operator had difficulty in using the valve to release the pressure but before he could complete this task the operative had removed the jet from the pile and this action freed the blockage causing the water and material to go into his face. That was why I needed to know about signal systems as what seemed lacking to me was a) A standard system of signals that covered all eventualities b) A requirement to acknowledge that signalled instructions had been carried out. Thanks for all your held so far.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.