Manswers proves Jomoco wrong

[TreeClimber57]

Fatal Cases Involving Mobile Wood Chippers

Approximately one third of the events occurred in July or August.

Gee.. maybe if they legislate no use of chippers in July or August they could cut down this by 1/3 easily!! Duh..


Of course nobody ever thought of reading the manual, a bit of safety or common sense.. enough legislation!

Had enough, I am running out to get some last minute pre-Christmas stuff done.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Training and enforced SOP are what has to be done. The majority of the incidents I have read involve some sort of stupidity.

Shall not stand in infeed
Shall not reach into infeed
Shall have supervised operation by low skilled personnel

Every once and a while you read of the worker with several years under his belt being found splattered around inside the chip box.

I do not think is is a non issue, I fall on the side of "you can't regulate stupidity" worker or management.

 

[jomoco]

I suppose you guys think mandating inertia chain brakes on chainsaws was a mistake?

How many lives/injuries have inertia chain brakes saved?

The principle is the same, and you boys need to accept that everyone makes mistakes at some point in their careers, even climbers. Steel cored lanyards were developed for mistake prone climbers.

The next time you make a mistake will it cost you your life?

jomoco

 

[treeseer]

when my chain brakes break i don't replace em.

never had a wirecored lanyard.

not sure we need safer chippers, just better operation.

this rant is old. :monkey:

 

[jomoco]

when my chain brakes break i don't replace em.

never had a wirecored lanyard.

not sure we need safer chippers, just better operation.

this rant is old. :monkey:

The point I'm making is that the TCIA/ISA never actively sought to prevent the mandating of inertia chainbrakes on chainsaws the way they have with two man minimums/inchute pull cords on WTC's.

Whose safety does TCIA lobby for? Treeworkers or WTC MFR's wallets?

This is no trivial issue, it's a life and death issue for treeworkers being betrayed by their own industry associations.

jomoco

 

[outofmytree]

Training and enforced SOP are what has to be done. The majority of the incidents I have read involve some sort of stupidity.

Shall not stand in infeed
Shall not reach into infeed
Shall have supervised operation by low skilled personnel

Every once and a while you read of the worker with several years under his belt being found splattered around inside the chip box.

I do not think is is a non issue, I fall on the side of "you can't regulate stupidity" worker or management.

This has also been my experience.

Making a machine safe does not make an operator safe. Working as a team at least allows your "buddy" to see what you miss. Look at other hazardous industries and see how many you can think of that use cross checking to avoid user error. Two men on a chipper DOES reduce accidents. Adding another "safety" device that will be disabled by the operator in the first week DOES NOT.

 

[outofmytree]

two man minimums/inchute pull cords on WTC's.

You must use different chippers in Socal.

Every Bandit, Morbark, Vermeer and Woodsman chipper sold in Australia has "last chance cords" inside the chute and the manual recommends 2 man operations as does the DVD which comes with each machine. Every member of my team has read the manual, watched the dvd and laughed at each others efforts to grab those "waste of time cords" when we run simulated chipper accidents.

It is operators who control site safety not machines. No faceless government agency will make my boys safer than they make themselves.

 

[jomoco]

Logic might dictate that no-one dying using a last chance inchute pull cord equipped WTC indicates they may be safer than WTC's without them, in which over 35 fatalities have occurred?

The fact that I have witnessed 3 separate close calls on my own jobs where a second WTC operator got to the reverse bar quick enough to save a trapped/incapacitated operator from sure death is a sure indication that a mandated two man minimum on WTC's will indeed save treeworker lives.

That TCIA actively lobbies to prevent mandating even a simple two man minimum rule on large chippers is going to change, it's just a matter of how much longer it takes them to take action before state and federal officials do their jobs for them.

jomoco

At the risk of repeating myself, I direct this post to your attention, again.

Rebutt it logically if you can?

TV, Treeco, anybody?

jomoco

 

[tree MDS]

Could you define WTC for me please?? exactly how big does a chipper have to be to be considered a whole tree chipper?

If I missed where that was discussed, I apologize.

 

[jomoco]

Could you define WTC for me please?? exactly how big does a chipper have to be to be considered a whole tree chipper?

If I missed where that was discussed, I apologize.

I would consider any hydraulicly fed chipper over a 12 inch capacity a WTC, BC 1400's and up.

I know of no fatalities involving BC 1000's.

jomoco

 

[tree MDS]

I would consider any hydraulicly fed chipper over a 12 inch capacity a WTC, BC 1400's and up.

I know of no fatalities involving BC 1000's.

jomoco

See thats where it gets a little foggy... my 250 with the supersized infeed is still considered a 12" chipper, I think its 12"x24". I would fit in there quite nicely. Also the feed rate is another thing to consider, mine feeds at 120 fpm, where the 15" chippers are mostly 100 fpm (dont quote me on that, its been a while sinse I've researched chippers). So by your theory I suppose mine could be considered a non WTC, when in reality its probably more, or just as dangerous. Just some thoughts.

 

[jomoco]

The smart and prudent owner of a WTC will establish his own company two man minimum to operate that machine, out of simple common sense and his own self interest, and peace of mind in my opinion.

It's certainly worked well for me to date, knocking on wood the way I do.

jomoco

 

[treevet]

I agree, you are not likely going to legislate away the ubiquitous 2 man crew. You may legislate on it but imo it will not go away. Not enough $ in this biz.

One guy upstairs and one guy downstairs (on the chipper).

 

[jomoco]

I agree, you are not likely going to legislate away the ubiquitous 2 man crew. You may legislate on it but imo it will not go away. Not enough $ in this biz.

One guy upstairs and one guy downstairs (on the chipper).

Sure, manning a 12 inch chipper, not a BC 1800.

jomoco

 

[treevet]

What's the dif? Either machine you can pretty much put in what you want to but with the big one (I have bc2000) you HAVE to have an assistant (to feed more than 1 man can handle) that may even make it more dangerous. My bc 1250A will swallow anything a grown man can wrestle into it.

Beyond that on the big one we feed with the dingo or the crane. Very little danger there unless you are :monkey: and get involved with the branching when it is not necessary.

What is your opinion on AMA documenting only 13 deaths in 16 years and another source (posted in this thread) listing only 13 deaths in 11 years. Sounds like you (alone) are blustering as a tempest in a teapot.

 

[jomoco]

Logic might dictate that no-one dying using a last chance inchute pull cord equipped WTC indicates they may be safer than WTC's without them, in which over 35 fatalities have occurred?

The fact that I have witnessed 3 separate close calls on my own jobs where a second WTC operator got to the reverse bar quick enough to save a trapped/incapacitated operator from sure death is a sure indication that a mandated two man minimum on WTC's will indeed save treeworker lives.

That TCIA actively lobbies to prevent mandating even a simple two man minimum rule on large chippers is going to change, it's just a matter of how much longer it takes them to take action before state and federal officials do their jobs for them.

jomoco

None of you have given a logical rebuttal to this pertinent post.

Not TV, Treeco or Peter Gerstenberger?

Is this how we dispose of mistake prone groundies/illegal immigrants in the 21st century?

jomoco

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

Take a look at any of Dr. John Ball's articles on injuries in the arboriculture industry (several have been published in Arborist News and Tree Care Industry). His research shows that, on average, someone goes through a chipper up to once every two weeks in the U.S.

That's hard to believe. Do the math. 26 per year? That's 260 in the same time period that the CDC reports 31. That's too big a discrepancy. Somebody is WAY wrong.

Not that I have much confidence in the CDC, but I think 26 per year would make some news.

 

[jomoco]

That's hard to believe. Do the math. 26 per year? That's 260 in the same time period that the CDC reports 31. That's too big a discrepancy. Somebody is WAY wrong.

Not that I have much confidence in the CDC, but I think 26 per year would make some news.

That you or TCIA are trying to gloss over an embarrassing truth is all too obvious BRM.


jomoco

 

[treevet]

This is likely the source of some of the John Ball input.....

http://www.treecareindustry.org/articles/magazine/TCI0309_p8.htm

 

[BlueRidgeMark]

This is likely the source of some of the John Ball input.....

http://www.treecareindustry.org/articles/magazine/TCI0309_p8.htm

Oh, no. don't cite that source! I mean, what would Jomoco say about a line like this:

we are deceiving ourselves if we blame the tool for the tragic results of our own behavior.

Okay, on a serious note, I see he references "An ongoing research project on tree worker safety being conducted by South Dakota State University (SDSU)". Based on that, he makes some rather vague claims about numbers of fatalities (no totals per year, no totals period!). But he never says one word about the source of their information, nor does he link to a source of the study where more specifics could be found. He doesn't even cite it properly. He doesn't give a formal name for the study, nor does he mention an author's name.

Lacking more specific information about the source of the data, it's hard to put much credence in this monograph.

Unless, of course, it fits someone's agenda.


I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I know how research information should be presented. If there's solid evidence behind Ball's numbers, he's done a good job of camouflaging it. Maybe he's just not a good communicator, or maybe he's fudging something.

I don't know which.