Originally Posted by: MEden380

I don't call over riding safety devices human error. If machine of any description stops due to a safety device activating, shouldn't the whole machine be checked for faults before re-starting the machine. Merlin are very lucky there were no fatalities on this incident and that no one was charged with manslaughter.

Every single accident is ultimately down to human error somewhere along the chain of events, even if it was the computer programme that was at fault, a human had a hand in writing it.

But the whole aim is to make the as unlikely as possible that the inevitable human error will result in catastrophic failure.

Graham

Also every day without an accident is down to human success!

Deliberately over-riding safety devices/warnings....hardly "human error"...almost certainly human incompetence of the criminal variety/

The aim of this sort of ride is to give the illusion of danger without creating any unacceptable risk and it will push the boundaries of technology to achieve this. The latest rides use electromagnetic induction motors to accelerate the carriages rather than the traditional drive chains which can of suffer from the various well-known failure modes. This tech is so advanced that the US Navy wants to use it for launching aircraft from their next generation aircraft carriers.

But it is down to the designers to come up with appropriate designs and to test and refine them so that they are certain they work. Remember we design, airplanes, chemical plants giant cranes etc. all of which have potential to cause real dangers.

One thing I have noticed is that often accidents happen when unqualified people modify a piece of equipment or a procedure. This is down to the tendency in this country to refer to anyone with a screw driver as an engineer. Engineers should be professionals who understand fully the ramifications of everything they do.  

Originally Posted by: chas

I see in the press today that Merlin are seeking to link executive bonuses to safety performance, subject to shareholder apporval. I'd like to see how that is formulated and how it works in practice. Maybe the way forward for all companies. 

Well if  its anything like the way businesses massage their financial figures a la Tesco it will lead to more coverups and general fiddling of numbers. it will also lead to an increase in questions about RIDDORs onthis forum(as if we don't get enough already!)

Wildavsky claims that system failures are only foreseeable with the benefit of hindsight bias. I think that is true in many incidents but perhaps not all of them.

It has been suggested on these forums that 'human error' is symptom and not a cause. However I like the notion of 'human  error, or last line of defence?' Smith D.   

Can someone explain this fine in context to the recent announcement the company that broke the actor Harrison Ford's leg have been fined £1.6M?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37637453

According to this article the HSE contended that the incident involving Mr Ford was very serious. The risk assessment was completely inadequate and did not reflect the true risk-HSE think that Harrison Ford could have been killed by the accident. If that is the case and based on current sentencing guidelines the fine is probably fair. If there is any indication that the fine was “bumped up” because of Mr Ford’s high profile, then we can expect that the film company will appeal it. Ironically, one of the effects of increasing H&S fines is likely to be more businesses appealing what they see as excessive fines.

When I started out in H&S (only about 15 years ago) fines were derogatory. At that time a local authority, pleaded guilty to H&S breaches when they allowed  a member of their staff to use a ride on mower on a steep bank (below some city walls-guess the city). The magistrate wanted a higher fine impose so he referred the case to the Crown Court but the judge only imposed a fine of £21,000 just above what was the maximum fine that could be imposed by the magistrates court (Then set at £20000).  

Round, if you look at what Andy says about culpabilty, and slot that into the published guidelines for a very large company you get very high culpability and harm category 2 or 3. At harm category 2 the indicated penalty starts at 2,000,000; for harm category 3 it's 1,000,000. Either way a fine of £1.6 million is definitely on par,

John

Fair points Ray, but as for your second one, maybe the new guidelines might push people to be better at assessing risk?

John

Originally Posted by: Invictus

It was fined because they didn't share the assessment with Ford.

A risk assessment is a management tool to allow them to decide what controls are required. It is only incumbent upon the management to ensure their staff comply with all the controls they (the management) deem are required.

Employees do not need to see the risk assessment, good practice to share it with them but I very much doubt Mr Ford would have read such a document, he has other things on his mind, and he didn’t have control over what the set was doing anyway.  His job was to run through the door and say the words the script writer had written.

Originally Posted by: walker

In the Harrison Ford case, didn't I read that the H&S bloke had previously told the company this door was dangerous, but was ignored.

That alone ought to have incurred at least a million

Cut & paste from HSE website:

The risk of the door causing a serious injury or death had been highlighted by one of the health and safety officers for the production company.