Posted By james2000
Dear All

Any body could help me in defining Direct Causes and Idirect causes if this accident

((During offloading beam by Fork lift.IP was in front of forklift waiting to receive the load ,suddenly the load stability was shifted and slipped from the fork ,caused two finger of IP right hand being cut when he was tyring to keep the load.)

Thank you in advance

james

Posted By Chris Jerman
James, direct causes are the factors that on the day, lead directly to the incident. Usually these include: poor training, poor supervision, defective equipment, adverse conditions etc.

Indirect causes are those factors, usually over a longer period that lead to those factors prevailing on the day.

So poor training is direct - as it lead directly, in part, to the event.

Each direct cause usually has an opposing indirect. For example, questions over the selection process and determination of competency of the original trainer and material.

The direct causes are usually pretty obvious and when correct should stop THAT accident from happening again. However, it will probably not influence any other circumstances. Whereas, if we uncover the TRUE indirect causes, we have an opportunity to prevent other completely different events. So if we examine our training system and find flaws in that, we can start to question all of the other training that we have done.

There is a pattern to direct and indirect, it's a bit like open and closed questions. Here's an example.

Was lighting an issue? - Direct. The answer doesn't matter at this point, because there is an indirect question to be asked. What is the system for detecting and reporting defective lighting? Now in this case the answer may be that lighting wasn't an issue - and so many investigators would then move on. Missing the indirect. On asking the indirect, we discover that we don't have a system for reporting defective lighting. Bingo, we hit the jackpot. We can do something about that and hopefully prevent future issues, because we now have a system in place - even though lighting was NOT an issue on this occasion.

Get the idea?

Employing an idiot, unfortunately is a direct cause. Not being competent would directly lead to someone getting it wrong.

What is your selection process for employment to ensure that only competent staff are appointed would be indirect.

Regards

Chris

Posted By Chris Jerman
You are both entitled to you opinion, of course, Gentlemen. But two points:

A.I don't think that the HSE Investigating Officer would share your conclusion

B.It's not actually very helpful as an answer to a perfectly sensible posting. Sure it gave me a giggle and I know where you're coming from. But I don't think that it was quite what James was after.

CJ

Posted By james2000
Dear All

Alot of Stupid Accident are happening aroud us and seems we can not do anything as safety perfessional just blame stuipid employess..

In my case ,IP calimed that forklift crossed on tip of timber on pathway ,thats why Load stability was shifted

Who is reponsible to check pathway. Forklift operator or IP as a banks man?

James

Posted By mark limon
Was the job risk assessed and a SWP in place and if the answer is yes were the recommendations followed,if they were then they need reviewing.If they were not followed then its a place to start.
The idiot comment was a bit glib but it was my first thought and I suspect more than a few others as well.

Posted By D smith
"I chuckled too!

Other things are...
Was the task planned, who assessed it, was the fact the load could shift taken into account, if so were measures to hold/support the load stable, correct placing.... all direct causes I'd say
Or a case of winging it... would only take a minute to complete the job?"


Does every time a foklift does a task does it need an assessment? wouldn't this cause a mountain of paperwork?

Posted By A Campbell
D Smith,

many thanks for pointing that out....

The forklift operator should ensure he has full control of the load and stability of that load, even in a team effort (e.g. banksman nominated) a discussion between them should determine who will look at the path for obstacles.

Have you considered writing such possibilities in a policy and take account in a risk assessment, generic possibly even?

was also mentioned too... if responsibilities are clearly defined then once it's done... it's done until some bright spark chooses to ignore it?

Posted By Merv Newman
Without going into all the details of this particular incident, our policy has always been : the pedestrian was wrong. You get hit by a FLT ? It's your fault. However, when you get a truckie and a pedestrian supposedly working together then it is usually the truckies fault.

I may get a lot of flack on this but that is where I usually start from.

Merv.

Now kick me.