Posted By Gerry Wilson Working for a local authority museums service we have a rural life museum. From time to time they carry out demonstrations of farm activities from years gone by. This involves the use of some very ancient powered equipment such as wheat threshers etc. Recently we had an accident during one of these demos. My question is, does this equipment have to meet PUWER or it it sufficient to risk assess? The HSE have given some mixed messages. The equipment is being used by people at work and volunteers whilst being viewed by members of the public. The casualty from this accident was a 13 year old boy who was acting as a volunteer helper. Any views would be welcome as we do a lot of this kind of work and I am concerned at the level of equipment safety and the standard of risk assessment.

Posted By Hilary Charlton I think I understand why the child was involved, presumably he was a volunteer from the audience and it is, therefore, relatively normal to choose an older "child". However, you have not said whether the accident was as a result of machine failure or some other cause - this will probably make a difference. Certainly, there should be risk assessments undertaken even if just to demonstrate what protective equipment is required for the volunteers and workers but as for PUWER - recommend that you comply with guarding as far as possible without ruining the authenticity - perhaps you could have your rotating parts surrounded by a perspex cage so that everyone can see what is happening but no one is likely to be injured. There is not really enough information on the type of injury, whether the machine was running but stationary or running and moving - detail is required to give a sensible answer. Hilary

Posted By Gerry Wilson Martin Not sure I agree with you. The original PUWER regs gave a lead in period for existing equipment to be upgraded by 1st Jan 1997. Therefore it does not matter how old it is it should, in my view comply. Good point about trying a club or assocaition I will follow that up.

Posted By Neil Pearson I guess you're particularly concerned with Reg 11 of PUWER, and the key question is the interpretation of "practicable". For your purposes, slapping modern guarding all over an antique machine would not be practicable because the machine would no longer be an antique! Precedent for this interpretation comes from such cases as the Aspinall case, in which his zoo keepers kept getting eaten by the exhibits, but he showed that it was in the nature of his business to need extra contact between keepers and animals. Just be very careful that you can show you have applied all other controls as far as practicable. This means a very clear and detailed risk assessment. If you get mixed messages, follow the advice of your LOCAL inspector, but I'm confident that he/she will confirm what I've said.