Posted By Robert K Lewis Jason From your email address this suggests a factory accident. In which case there is potentially a weakness in the Pressure Systems management going on here. The system definition will depend on what your competent person has decided and some of these people do include the flexible hoses up to the tool. If they have not done so it is covered under PUWER and the person inspecting the Pressure systems should be ablke to assist in defining the checks and their periodicity. I would be looking for a weekly recorded check by operative as a start and possibly monthly or six monthly, depending on service use for a more detailed look - but a scheme is urgently required. The wording of most regs of this type use the phrase "adequately maintained" or words to that effect. This actually is a strict liability - if something fails it, de facto, is not adequately maintained. Bob

Posted By anon1234 What on earth has this to do with 'ergonomic risk analysis' The question was about what inspections are done and how on hand held tools.

Posted By DavidHaddon Making workers responsible for reporting defective kit is a great idea, getting them to perform visual inspections on basic equipment is no problem. What about more complicated kit? i.e. with moving parts Are they competent to make those kind of decisions on air-drills/spanners ?

Posted By Nick Higginson Jason If the damage was cumulative, was it not evident over a period of time? What reporting procedures are in place for defective equipment? If operatives are responsible for a pre-use check of equipment (not necessarily documented) and are instructed in who to report defects to, the problem couldn't result in an accident? Kind regards Nick

Posted By Adrian Watson Dear Jason, There appears to be a number of issues here! From past experience I would suggest that you have a two tier approach. Firstly: Train users so that they know how to check their equipment properly. Then, instruct them to check their equipment before first use or at the start of the shift if they work on a fixed station. Users should also be instructed to report any faults immediately to the supervisor. Then instruct supervisors to ask all users when they first see them "have you any faults to report". The supervisor then has to log the check and any faults in a day book. The supervisor also has to get any defective equipment repaired or replaced. If necessary the supervisor should relocate the worker to another task if the tool cannot be repaired or replaced. Supervisors should carry out checks when they do their rounds. If the supervisor finds any defective equipment, then (s)he should investigate the reason and take appropriate disciplinary action against the user, where necessary. Managers should also carry out checks when they do their rounds. If the manager finds any defective equipment, then (s)he should investigate the reason and take appropriate disciplinary action against the supervisor, where necessary. Secondly: Critical items should be identified and inspection sheets should be produced. Routine documented checks should be carried out on these items at suitable intervals. The inspection sheets should require measurements and readings to be recorded. This prevents tick box mania. It also ensures proper checks are carried out and allows trends to be evaluated. Trends should be plotted on a chart and presented to management at appropriate intervals. This serves two purposes; it allows proper monitoring of the equipment and ensures measurements are carried out at the proper time. This system ensures that critical checks are recorded and that users, supervisors and managers are involved. It also minimises paperwork but allows trends to be identified. For example, if chisels are being routinely damaged, you can investigate why and either find a better tool or ensure that users are better trained. Hope this helps. Regards Adrian Watson

Posted By Nick Higginson Bob Not sure how you saw my posting as harsh? It certainly wasn't my intention. I am trying to point out that not every tool and piece of equipment needs a formal documented inspection - this is impractical and counter-productive. There is a huge difference in the level of risk presented by a hand tool and a lift winding mechanism! Kind regards Nick