Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi there
Bit of debate on an incident at work, looking for some input please.
Main contractor pulled our men for throwing debris from scaffold (not acceptable)
This was then logged as a near miss.
After investigating the event with my men the reply i got was, "someone was keeping watch below and no one could enter the drop zone, therefore no-one ever at risk of injury". I should add the men are fairly new and obviously thought this would be ok...
Whilst I accept this is clearly not the way to remove debris from site, and the men have been given formal warnings, I have to argue that this was not a near miss, as no one could have been injured due to the "control measure " (poor one) being in place and makes it an event as opposed to an incident.
Main contractor is insisting that it stays as a near miss
In no way do I condone the events that took place
Thoughts please..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I suppose this depends on the amount of detail you are looking to provide as evidence?
Was the area physically secure or by proxy e.g. the person watching? Is this the poor control measure?
The fact you are inferring it is not acceptable what is the reason (why not)? If it is because of just the practice or the fact that the risk of debris striking someone?
At the end of the day history tells me that the PC will decide and the PC will also decide if it stays or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Just because someone was watching out does not make it right, i would gracefully accept the near miss report and be glad one of your guys has not been put off site!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Have to agree with posters so far, whether the incident was a 'near miss' or not makes little difference. The method employed for removing debris was poor practice. You could argue whether it was an incident or not, although no one was injured - it's just semantics.
Presumably you had a SSoW ie method statement, why did your operatives not follow it? I suggest you take the near miss on the chin and make sure your operatives are aware of a SSoW for all tasks in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not working in construction but if that incident had happened on our site then if it was not agreed in the SSoW as how debris would be downloaded then it would have been logged as "unacceptable practice" which comes under our near miss designation.
As you say it is not acceptable practice then I don't see your objection to the near miss report.
Then I don't know the implications of such a report or the definition of a near miss in your circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Agreed, the near miss is on your part, by the sounds of things you narrowly missed being thrown off site
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Why do you say so strongly that you disagree with the practice and suggest formal warnings of those involved unless you believe it to be wrong on safety grounds?
If it is wrong and was done deliberately or inadvertently, would there be a difference?
If I found it happening and those doing it were unaware of the hazards and risks, I would put it down as a near miss - not sure I can differentiate it from intended actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yep, near miss, poor supervision, instruction, training, anyone read the RA and method statement? Was one done? I would have had them removed from site.
Zimmy the grumpy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
It sounds like an unsafe act - isn't an unsafe act without injury usually considered to be a near miss?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Kate says it all. Nuff siad!
Z
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry for that...The magic word is, of course..said...
Z (after spelling sorted)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I must ask, what was the agreed method for removing rubbish and material from the scaffold in the first place?
As said previous, take it on the chin, learn by the mistakes made and move forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I must ask, what was the agreed method for removing rubbish and material from the scaffold in the first place?
As said previous, take it on the chin, learn by the mistakes made and move forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Well certainly got some conversation going here...
Ok guys I hear what you are saying but I hate the generalisation of the term near miss.
A near miss as we know is the wrong term to start with as a near miss is a hit (but i won't go there)
So. an near miss is an accident that did not happen but could of
An accident is an UNPLANNED event that could have resulted in injury loss etc..
The throwing of materials was PLANNED and CONTROLLED and no one was ever at risk of being injured
I am mearly dealing here with ther term near miss (not risk assessment or SSow)
In response to Kate, An unsafe act can LEAD to an accident or near miss as is clearly denoted in any domino theory and are NOT the same thing
Guys, I accept this was not the way to go about this task. Only looking for a bit of debate on the term near miss
All comments appreciated but I think my point may have been missed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If it was planned and controlled and no one was ever at risk of injury, why is it a problem at all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Blueroost
If this way of doing the work was in the method statement then that's one thing. If the method statement indicates a method such as chutes etc. then this is a clear breach of health and safety site rules.
It is a dangerous practice and I does not matter if anyone was hurt or not. Just as connecting up live cables that could be switched off, a breach is a breach is it not? As stated, I for one would have removed them from the site and called the foreman, the safety person, the contractor and the author of any Ra's if necessary into the office to explain the actions.
There is another post here regarding cscs cards and training. Do these workers have a cscs card?
Zimmy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
So as I take it the acceptance of logged as a near miss may be better to be taken on the chin and you can deal with the non complience of SSOW etc internaly.
On the other side of the coin not working to a pre defined SSOW has led to an unsafe act. That being the case as you know it's not uncommon for individuals to be thrown off site for such behaviour... what is worse for the individuals and for the company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Gis a job...I can do this...honest...jeez here is poor me out of work and...nuff said
Z
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Blueroost
With respect, you have been provided with an answer to your question on several occasions, albeit with some ad hoc comments, I certainly did not misunderstand your query. There is no unequivocal definition of a 'near miss' as far as I'm aware - it does what it says on the tin!
Some years ago I attended a safety conference where the speaker described a recent train derailment as a near miss. Why? Due to the grace of God no one was seriously injured or killed. No one queried the term because we all knew what the Director of Safety was alluding to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Well said Ray. My apologies for my somewhat odd replies but I try and keep a smile on my face. And Blue, this is not a personal attack on you or anyone else.
But, there is a serious problem here and it needs to be nipped in the bud.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I take it then that the guys supervising the "fall area" are all physicists who have a full understanding of defraction/bounce off/skelfs...etc...etc..
Honestly how can it be controlled when no-one will know the final position ofwhatever is thrown off??
I think you are lucky to be still working with the PC as I'd have you off site asap & then consider a complaint to the HSE re stupid/bad practices.
Oh and a near miss is merely a term coined to help our practices and the domino theory is exactly that - a theory. I can give you many examples that don't fit the theory so academia can't always provide the answer.
Was the practice dangerous / hazardous / stupid / cost cutting...the list goes on and yes is the answer to each one.
Suck it up, learn from it & move on. None of us are perfect...although I have been known to claim to be (usually at 2am when the hydraulic refreshment has hit home!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Nicely put Triblim ... not 1 to mince words I see!
Ray you put it well into perspective... carefull with the cliche's or Lord Sugar may be frowning upon you!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
agree with kate's comments...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Did the debris include dust? If what type? Cement, hardwood dust? Sweepings from the floor? If so I would love to know how that was controlled.
Zimmy (again)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
LOL, geez guys, you are missing the point here.
It was a debate about the term near miss.
So, to round this off
It was an empty site, the guys dropped foam cuttings from scaffold into large skip
No one on site to be injured, no dust, no offshoots of other things from the debris or anything else.......
Please remember this was only a debate about this definition of the phrase, no more no less....
Thank you for responses
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Blueroost if that was my project I would be a near miss , but I would not get hung up on the wording near miss or not , I would put all my energy in to finding out how ,why, it occurred and how to avoid a future occurrence , to many people miss the point and get hung up on words ,
chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
OK lets just call it an unsafe act which has poor supervision at the root of it
I do have problems with near miss definition as perhaps near hit might be nearer to most people's use of the term. But perhaps we should be looking at those situations that reduce the level of safety in some way in an area.
By the way Bombing, or gravity lowering as some call it, has been frowned on by the HSE for many years - even before I enterd the sector and that is many decades ago.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
And Regulation 10(3) of WAHR is the specific reference for those frowning inspectors.
Out of interest, what was the nature of the material being "bombed" from the scaffold?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I'd have rephrased the original question then because it is structured to ask the reader about the actual occurance. Nowhere does it say "so what do we think about the definition of near miss" or words to that effect.
Still I think you are more concerned re the activity again. And to put simply if bombing of (however light it might be) material is condoned then it is only a matter of time & human nature for heavier things to be flung off the scaffold.
The debate on near miss / near hit is a bit old hat. If I was nearly hit by a falling rock I also by default was nearly missed by it if it were in close proximity to me at the time if fell - as in "phew that only nearly missed me" however we tend to say "phew that nearly hit me".
Off to lie down now....
Phew I nearly missed the bed then as I chucked my self at it and also nearly hit the significant other too!!!
Discuss.......:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Would you like to call it a near prosecution then? If it had been an inspector rather than the main contractor then it would more than likely been a prosecution.
The term may not be correct but the inference within the statement can be construed correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.