Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By andy bee
We have an old pillar drill on site, it has no chuck guard fitted. It is fitted with an Insta brake which stops the machine instantly. My question is must the machine be fitted with a guard as most drilling machine guards are a waste of time and not used by the operators. Would a risk assessment stating that safety glasses must be worn when operating the equipment be sufficient. your opinions would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Guderian
In my view no - uner Reg 11 PUWER, guarding has a higher legal test 'so far as is practicable'.
This means if something is technically possible, then it is practicable.
SFAIRP is a lower legal standard.
As a chuck/spindle guard is technically possible then it follows you must have one fitted and operators must use it.
If its dirty/broken then it's the employers duty to keep it in good repair.
Basically you have to follow recognised practice - a chuck/spindle guard is recognised practice for pillar drill.
Remember also -
Eye protection as stated
Mandatory eye protection sign (usually on wall behind the drill)
Bolt the drill to the bench/floor - so that it remains stable if a job snatches.
Also where possible use a holding vice/jig (part of PUWER guarding hierarchy)
Control of loose clothing/long hair
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
Andy,
Easier and cheaper to fit chuck guard than RA safety glasses. Also a much easier solution to manage. it's there it can bu used no excuses!
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Guderian
Forgot to point out, a spindle/chuck guard is better because (if used properly) will prevent the hand/finders entering the danger zone and potentiallycontacting the dangerous part of the machine.
A DC injection brake system, relies on the dangerous part being contacted/sensing a slow down of the spindle, before stopping the machine.
Likewise a trip rod, as fitted on radial type drill is a lower level safety device.
Hence why a physical guard has a higher status - it prevents access to the dangerous part in the first place.
In summary, legally, so far as is practicable you must follow the 4-step hierarchy set out in Reg 11 - adopting guarding methods from each hierarchy level, so far as is practicable, before going to the next lower level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
A typical chuck guard does not negate the need for safety glasses.
The chuck guard provides:
Prevention of entanglement (hair; ties; fingers)
Protection against bursts (drill bit breaking; chuck jaws breaking after contact with jig / workpiece)
*Some* Protection against flying swarf.
But please note - the angle at which swarf flies from a drilling operation is conditional on drill bit condition, lubrication, materials being drilled, pressure of cut, etc.
Some swarf will probably fly off under the chuck guard.
A full height (from above spindle to below table) guard would probably negate the need for eye protection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
HSE will PN (prohibit) the use of an unguarded pillar drill - not always but can and will.
Safety glasses don't prevent entanglement with rotating chuck.
If employees don't use the guard that is a management issue where disciplinary action should be taken if necessary for persistent offenders.
Harsh but true!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Philip Beale
As an engineer i find chuck guards more problematic than the increase in safety they offer. ifn making positioning job difficult obscuring the view of the work and when changing drills.
With a pillar drill you are normally stood back operating at arms length so can't see where an entanglement issue comes from when compared to hand drills as they are held close the body.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By ClaireL
Phil,
I'm sorry that you find guards on pillar drills problematic, it's not an uncommon complaint. However, the HSE disagree and if you try and argue it with them they will just compel you to fit a guard if you want to continue using it. If you've got a correctly adjusted guard in goo condition then it really shouldn't cause problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
I've got to say, as an engineer, (well fabby actually) I would not use a pedestal drill without a chuck guard. Agree with last comment on correct guard, correctly fitted, correctly maintained, no problem. Though I was probably influenced at an early age as a craft apprentice seeing 1 colleague catch a rigger type glove on a large drill bit and another removing the top of his scalp, he's still bald on to p to this day!
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
The horror photos shown during my apprenticeship of scalpings (and the whelps of those lads who chose to ignore the foreman teaching us) were enough to convince me to use the guard every time.
I never found it an obstacle to drilling at all. They were always in place in the main tool room too.
I guess the scalpings happened when leaning in for "precise" work or looking at depth (not all have the guide bar for depth setting).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mitch
The scalping probably had something to with me sticking to the skinhead/rude boy fashion!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David John Harris
Quote:
--------------------------------------------
Though I was probably influenced at an early age as a craft apprentice seeing 1 colleague catch a rigger type glove on a large drill bit
Mitch
Gloves should not be worn when using a pedestal drillers for that very reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.