Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By simon anderson
I was discussing the permit to work system with a colleague the other day, and a problem arose that we were hoping someone could resolve. Basically we inspect theme park rides. However not all, if any parks have permit systems. I am of the opinion that if we lock the rides of with our own locks then we are leaving our selves open to prosecution if something was to go wrong. I feel it should be the parks responsibility to issue locks etc, and we should have nothing to do with it, other than going along with the sites system.
An answer to this would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Leadbetter
Simon
I would have expected the theme park to have a permit-to-work system to control close access to the rides. As part of that system, I would expect both them and you to lock off the power systems. They want to be sure that you cannot start the ride until they are happy that it is safe to start; you want to be sure that the ride cannot be started while you are in harm's way.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Turner
Simon,
what you must remember is that you must work to a safe system of work. A permit could be "part" of a safe system. A "permit" should be a strictly controlled procedure which is adopted to ensure that a protocol has been followed and the effects of that protocol communicated.If the park does not have such an arrangement, using your "competency" I cannot see what is wrong in you completing a "document" that identifies what procedure you have followed to ensure safe isolation and the methods used to achieve and communicate this. Whatever route you take a risk assessment is required, which must be site/equipment specific, and communicated to all affected.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stephen Ashton
Simon,
If it was my neck on the line (literally!), and I had a choice of protective locks - one provided by me with the only available key securely in my pocket, or one provided by the ride operator, with who knows how many spare keys issued to potentially untrained temporary or casual employees - I know which I would prefer to rely on!
What is the problem with providing your own locks? In fact, why aren't you insisting on it? At the end of the day, a robust lock, fitted by yourself, is likely to provide more protection than any amount of permit paper!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By simon anderson
The problem I have with me locking a ride off is that it is to spurious. If a problem was to occur then the park can turn around and point out that it is our responsibility for the system, which it clearly isnt being a contractor. In my opinion any contractor going on another persons site implementing unwritten procedures must be breaking some sort of law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Sean Fraser
Simon,
It is my impression that you have less of a legal issue and more of a customer relationship issue at the heart of this.
Legally, the employer has a duty to provide and maintain safe systems of work and a duty towards the safety of everyone on thier premises, including those not in their employ. That means both your employer and the customer have legal duties towards your safety - and you (as with all of us), as an employee, have similar obligations towards safety or ourselves and others. These duties are not in doubt - it is their interpretation that causes problems.
Good safety systems don't just come from one direction - they need to be consensual and mutually agreed. If I believe that I have a safety concern, then first I assess the nature and extent of the problem. I determine who has explicit and implicit responsibilities. I explore the possibilities to make the activity safer and concentrate on what I can do since I have the greater control over what I do - I can only really influence the actions of my customers and suppliers, I cannot reasonably have control over them (nor should I want to). I would make what I do the safest possible, and if I really felt the environment I was working in was unacceptably unsafe, I would work to improve it and if that didn't happen, simply refuse to work there.
Risk assessment allows me to understand the hazards involved and to act appropriately - it will also provide justification for my actions and reinforce the principles involved.
The upshot is - if you feel that the operating environment you work in is unsafe, approach from the area where you have the greatest control to improve it - and that is yourself. Taking that step will act as an example to others and hopefully it will encourage them to do the same. Let your customers know you work to firm procedures and apply best practice to all you do - if they want you to help them improve then you have the basis of a mutually beneficial relationship through open and honest communication. Talk, listen, act - but be prepared to take the lead as you cannot rely on others to do it on your behalf. In the end, who is most responsible for safety?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Stuart Nagle
I have been reading this thread with interest in respect of differing opinions on PTW systems.
Firstly I would say this;
1. a PTW is NOT a safe system of work, all it is, is a permission to work, and
2. any PTW system should encompass, by examination or test that all the required and defined safety precautions have been taken before it is signed/authorised to permit work to commence.
The above should include risk assessment and method statements where applicable (e.g. sequence of operations for making safe/isolation etc, and if necessary persons observing/standing by to ensure safety of those involved.
The employer/owner of the site/machinery etc is principally responsible for ensuring the safety of persons employed to work on/inspect the equipment in their workplace (beit funfare or factory), and this would include following safety requirements and best practice...e.g. PTW systems if appropriate, as seems the case.
I would suggest that the use of 'personal locks' in addition to any locks put on by the PTW operator is normal best practice and should, if possible, be implemented and followed.
The same would apply to removing isolations/lock-offs in respect of sequence and procedures to reinstate the equipment/machinery.
PTW systems fail when they are treated as 'the' safe system of work (i.e. no other procedures are involved such as risk assessment, safety method statements, ensuring competence and correct tools and safety equipment etc) when enacted without suitable control measures being in place.
I would suggest that application of your own lock, as stated above, is an enhancement of the system, and could not be to your detriment. Personally I would want to be assured that in addition to any PTW issued, all the necessary preceeding requirements were considered as well....
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.