开云体育

mini laths (and OH&S)

born4something All Messages By This Member #18414 Hi Ian, I don't want to knock your training and comments, but I suspect you've been out of the industry and legislative requirements for a while. Over the last decade or two there's been a bureaucrat takeover of industrial safety. I'm sure the drive comes from insurers covering compensation liability. That in itself is not a bad thing. They measure risk by payouts. However, they value a life at $X - an obvious underestimate for the individual. They value an injury at the payout including ongoing aids, etc. Most significantly, they don't measure the relative costs of implimenting various alternate risk management measures, only the savings on payouts. That cannot achieve a fully balanced outcome. Yet the legislators are on side and that's resulted in enforcement of a bureaucratic top-down safety system which often over-rides safety practices developed over the recent two centuries of industrialisation. They'd claim consultation. However, the safety legislation enforces a structure aimed at unskilled workers. Not surprising. The structure was devised by unskilled administrators forming committees advising bureaucrats. Maybe I'd best get off my hobby horse at this point and quote you the legislated hierarchy of controls as used in Australia (and elsewhere). From www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/Databases/OHSSolutions/hierarchy.htm <; .htm> : The Hierarchy of Controls = preferred order of control measures for OHS risks. 1. Elimination - controlling the hazard at source. 2. Substitution - eg. replacing one substance or activity with a less hazardous one. 3. Engineering - eg. installing guards on machinery 4. Administration - policies and procedures for safe work practices 5. Personal Protective Equipment - eg respirators, ear plugs. Training is seen as a means to help this all work. However, it is not a substitute for using the above list. That means an employer who teaches his employees about the hazards of the lathe chuck but fails to impliment the highest feasible solution in the list is subject to The Big Stick. Hence the chuck guard implimenting the Engineering Solution. Other international jurisdictions will differ in detail but it's pretty much a global movement. I have no problem with you training youngsters in the older safety practices. I do so myself. I also know they are going to live and work in a world governed by the above approach. When they jab themselves in the stomach because they stood in line with the unprotected tang of a file nobody will question their contribution. Only whether the employer identified the hazard and applied the above process to manage the risk. So that's the long story behind the chuck guard. And why I dare not remove it in my workplace. And why hobbiests and anyone else not beholden to worker's compensation insurance companies are free to remove it. But I still say SIEG STUFFED UP by putting a 6" chuck guard on a 7" lathe. In fact, by creating a strong inducement to its removal, Sieg or their distributors may yet be found liable for "foreseeable consequences". John --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "steam4ian" <fosterscons@...> wrote: G'day Mike et al. CHUCK GUARD. You have to seriously wonder at the value of the chuck guard. Somewhere in OH&S regs they say all rotsting pats must be guarded. On automatic machines its presence is justified but on manual machines it adds little to safety and may in itself create a hazard. It obscures you vision when sighting how close the tool is to the chuck and puts you at risk of crashing the tool into the chuck. My lathe has a guard, thankfully without a kill switch so it is always up; I only put it down if coolant is being flung about by the chuck. I have seen others in this group advocate leaving the change gear cover off. I do not endorse this because it would be easy to let your fingers stray towards the gears when using the lathe. The chuck guard is another matter. Let's do a JSA (Job Safety Analysis) First danger: leaving the key in chuck; this should be overcome by developing good habits; also starting slowly means the key drops out rather than is flung out (this is inherent with the speed control needing to be reset. Second danger: clothing being caught in the chuck dragging in the operator; overcome by wearing correct clothing, short sleeves, no ties ec. Third danger: ring finger getting caught, ripping off portion of finger; overcome by taking rings off. Forth danger: Swarf etc flung from chuck into eyes (it does happen); overcome by wearing safety glasses. The list goes on but each risk can be controlled by correct practices. IMHO, take off the chuck guard and bridge out the limit switch. As a professional I am safety focused, here is a very recent example. I had a family from our church over for a meal. The son is doing metal work at school and together we turned up a quicky widget on the lathe. The corners need rounding so I showed him how the file must be used left handed and stressed that your arms must not cross over the chuck and the file should be on a line passing outside the body. Next day he went to school and was using a lathe with a file. He apparently followed my instructions much to the surprise of his teacher who asked how he learned the correct way. Response, "The pastor of our church showed me!" My point. We must learn SAFE PRACTICES along with the skills we master and, using groups like this, we must pass them on. the chuck guard does little to enhance safe practice, it is appropriately named, chuck it away! One good turn deserves another. Regards, Ian --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "Mike Payson" mike@ wrote: I'm not sure if it's standard to all of the 7x's now, but the HF adds a chuck saftey shield that is only 3" from the center of the chuck, so without removing it, somehow moving your work 3" or so from the spindle, the largest work you can possibly turn is 6".
Marty N #18419 There is what is legal and mandated by law and then there is safe and reasonable. It isn't always a good match. There is one side that wants to "protect you for your own good" because it's considered your an idiot and wont and because money is always more important than "safety". This side wants to put you in a "bubble". Not one that insulates you from injury but one that insulates insurers, suppliers and employers from monetary losses. Then there is the other side. A parent, friend, priest, advisor, that knows that as sure as the sun shines that the best way to keep everything your born with in tact and in good shape is good use of properly trained skills and techniques taught by those that know and not those who think they know Those that have no axe to grind, no political agenda, no chance of worldly loss of tangibles. And good use of the gray matter God put in your noggin. I need less protection in the event of an accident and more education in accident avoidance. I wonder, how many individuals get hurt because their hand is opening or closing a guard (hand near the danger) when it ought not be. I can think of a few family members hurt in just this way. Seat belts, helmets, and guards protect you only after a stupid or ignorant act. My $0.02 worth Marty PS, No I don't wear a helmet at the dinner table :) toggle quoted message Show quoted text ----- Original Message ----- From: born4something To: 7x12minilathe@... Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:45 PM Subject: [7x12minilathe] Re: mini laths (and OH&S) Hi Ian, I don't want to knock your training and comments, but I suspect you've been out of the industry and legislative requirements for a while. Over the last decade or two there's been a bureaucrat takeover of industrial safety. I'm sure the drive comes from insurers covering compensation liability. That in itself is not a bad thing. They measure risk by payouts. However, they value a life at $X - an obvious underestimate for the individual. They value an injury at the payout including ongoing aids, etc. Most significantly, they don't measure the relative costs of implimenting various alternate risk management measures, only the savings on payouts. That cannot achieve a fully balanced outcome. Yet the legislators are on side and that's resulted in enforcement of a bureaucratic top-down safety system which often over-rides safety practices developed over the recent two centuries of industrialisation. They'd claim consultation. However, the safety legislation enforces a structure aimed at unskilled workers. Not surprising. The structure was devised by unskilled administrators forming committees advising bureaucrats. Maybe I'd best get off my hobby horse at this point and quote you the legislated hierarchy of controls as used in Australia (and elsewhere). From www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/Databases/OHSSolutions/hierarchy.htm <; .htm> : The Hierarchy of Controls = preferred order of control measures for OHS risks. 1. Elimination - controlling the hazard at source. 2. Substitution - eg. replacing one substance or activity with a less hazardous one. 3. Engineering - eg. installing guards on machinery 4. Administration - policies and procedures for safe work practices 5. Personal Protective Equipment - eg respirators, ear plugs. Training is seen as a means to help this all work. However, it is not a substitute for using the above list. That means an employer who teaches his employees about the hazards of the lathe chuck but fails to impliment the highest feasible solution in the list is subject to The Big Stick. Hence the chuck guard implimenting the Engineering Solution. Other international jurisdictions will differ in detail but it's pretty much a global movement. I have no problem with you training youngsters in the older safety practices. I do so myself. I also know they are going to live and work in a world governed by the above approach. When they jab themselves in the stomach because they stood in line with the unprotected tang of a file nobody will question their contribution. Only whether the employer identified the hazard and applied the above process to manage the risk. So that's the long story behind the chuck guard. And why I dare not remove it in my workplace. And why hobbiests and anyone else not beholden to worker's compensation insurance companies are free to remove it. But I still say SIEG STUFFED UP by putting a 6" chuck guard on a 7" lathe. In fact, by creating a strong inducement to its removal, Sieg or their distributors may yet be found liable for "foreseeable consequences". John --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "steam4ian" <fosterscons@...> wrote: > > G'day Mike et al. > CHUCK GUARD. > You have to seriously wonder at the value of the chuck guard. > Somewhere in OH&S regs they say all rotsting pats must be guarded. On > automatic machines its presence is justified but on manual machines > it adds little to safety and may in itself create a hazard. It > obscures you vision when sighting how close the tool is to the chuck > and puts you at risk of crashing the tool into the chuck. > > My lathe has a guard, thankfully without a kill switch so it is > always up; I only put it down if coolant is being flung about by the > chuck. > > I have seen others in this group advocate leaving the change gear > cover off. I do not endorse this because it would be easy to let your > fingers stray towards the gears when using the lathe. The chuck guard > is another matter. > Let's do a JSA (Job Safety Analysis) > First danger: leaving the key in chuck; this should be overcome by > developing good habits; also starting slowly means the key drops out > rather than is flung out (this is inherent with the speed control > needing to be reset. > Second danger: clothing being caught in the chuck dragging in the > operator; overcome by wearing correct clothing, short sleeves, no > ties ec. > Third danger: ring finger getting caught, ripping off portion of > finger; overcome by taking rings off. > Forth danger: Swarf etc flung from chuck into eyes (it does happen); > overcome by wearing safety glasses. > > The list goes on but each risk can be controlled by correct practices. > > IMHO, take off the chuck guard and bridge out the limit switch. > > As a professional I am safety focused, here is a very recent example. > I had a family from our church over for a meal. The son is doing > metal work at school and together we turned up a quicky widget on the > lathe. The corners need rounding so I showed him how the file must be > used left handed and stressed that your arms must not cross over the > chuck and the file should be on a line passing outside the body. Next > day he went to school and was using a lathe with a file. He > apparently followed my instructions much to the surprise of his > teacher who asked how he learned the correct way. Response, "The > pastor of our church showed me!" > > My point. We must learn SAFE PRACTICES along with the skills we > master and, using groups like this, we must pass them on. the chuck > guard does little to enhance safe practice, it is appropriately > named, chuck it away! > > One good turn deserves another. > Regards, > Ian > > > > > --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "Mike Payson" mike@ wrote: > > > I'm not sure if it's standard to all of the 7x's now, but the HF adds > > a chuck saftey shield that is only 3" from the center of the chuck, > so > > without removing it, somehow moving your work 3" or so from the > spindle, the > > largest work you can possibly turn is 6". >
steam4ian All Messages By This Member #18432 G'day John. Firstly, I am not retired and out of it, I have my own engineering consulting business of which I am both director and an enployee, it supports my other activities. My thoughts still stand with respect to the home machinist. If the machine is used by your employees then application of a guard or some similar "engineering" measure is esential. But, the ACTUAL hazard must be identifed. It is pointless guarding the chuck and leaving a rotating workpiece exposed. The hazad of the key being flung out is real but the guard is not necessarilly the solution. As an alternative the key could be set in a holder that de-energises the lathe when the key is not in the holder. The chuck guard is grandma engineering, reaction not application. Eventually we could have to fully enclose the lathe like a CNC machine. Did Sieg stuff up or those who ordered the machines from them? If the chuck guard is to be retained you either put up with the reduced swing or change the mounting of the guard as you suggested. Few users of the lathe will be swinging the full 7 inches but interference with the standard faceplate is a different matter. I don't know what it is about these lathes but they bring out a rash of complaints in some people. For me, I am just happy to have a lathe; even more so one that is not such a sacred cow that I am unwilling to tamper with it. It is amazing, if you stuff a part up it is just an email to someone like LMS and you are underway again at comparatively little cost, few other lathes offer that opportunity. Got that off my chest! One good turn deserves another. Regards to all, Ian Over the last decade or two there's been a bureaucrat takeover of industrial safety. I'm sure the drive comes from insurers covering compensation liability. > They'd claim consultation. However, the safety legislation enforces a structure aimed at unskilled workers. Not surprising. The structure was devised by unskilled administrators forming committees advising bureaucrats. Maybe I'd best get off my hobby horse at this point and quote you the legislated hierarchy of controls as used in Australia (and elsewhere). The Hierarchy of Controls = preferred order of control measures for OHS risks. 1. Elimination - controlling the hazard at source. 2. Substitution - eg. replacing one substance or activity with a less hazardous one. 3. Engineering - eg. installing guards on machinery 4. Administration - policies and procedures for safe work practices 5. Personal Protective Equipment - eg respirators, ear plugs. Training is seen as a means to help this all work. However, it is not a substitute for using the above list.
born4something All Messages By This Member #18434 Hi Ian, See my responses interspersed. --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "steam4ian" <fosterscons@...> wrote: G'day John. Firstly, I am not retired and out of it, I have my own engineering consulting business of which I am both director and an enployee, it supports my other activities. We do have a lot in common. That's my situation too. I haven't had much call for OH&S awareness thrust at me in this role. Pre 2003 I was middle managing in the public sector so awareness and compliance was really pushed. If you go through the current competency based national qualification scheme for any trade you'll get to do the OH&S ticket and learn all about it. I did a data cabling cert a while back and had to do it. My prior quals assumed it but when I wanted to add another ticket I got caught up in it. Similarly, a friend with a solar heating / plumbing company and a dozen employees gets tangled in it. Largely once you get involved with the construction industry at a hands on / employer level. My own company has only one employee (manager, secretary, director, tea maker - me) mostly doing design work so I haven't needed to worry much. Do you have other employees? My thoughts still stand with respect to the home machinist. If the machine is used by your employees then application of a guard or some similar "engineering" measure is esential. But, the ACTUAL hazard must be identifed. It is pointless guarding the chuck and leaving a rotating workpiece exposed. The hazad of the key being flung out is real but the guard is not necessarilly the solution. As an alternative the key could be set in a holder that de-energises the lathe when the key is not in the holder. Agreed. But shhh... Don't mention the rotating work as well! Interestingly, my machine was delivered with a light spring slipped over the chuck key. It was just strong enough to eject the key from the chuck if you weren't constantly holding it in. You could not let go when you regripped the key while adjusting the chuck without having to fetch the key back out of the chip tray! The chuck guard is grandma engineering, reaction not application. Eventually we could have to fully enclose the lathe like a CNC machine. Only reason we don't is historical precedence. The modern automobile could not be launched today unless fully computerised driving and crash avoidance were developed first. What's this human in control?! And then there's the hammer, chainsaw, ... Did Sieg stuff up or those who ordered the machines from them? Since others in various countries have reported the same 6" figure on the 7x12 machines I doubt it was just my distributor. It's looking pretty universal. If the chuck guard is to be retained you either put up with the reduced swing or change the mounting of the guard as you suggested. Few users of the lathe will be swinging the full 7 inches but interference with the standard faceplate is a different matter. Not having a full 7" didn't really worry me either. But I was mighty cheesed when I bought their faceplate and had to remove the supplied guard to fit it. After trueing the faceplate up I haven't used it again. I've made do with the 4-jaw a few times where the faceplate would have been the more logical choice. <G> I don't know what it is about these lathes but they bring out a rash of complaints in some people. For me, I am just happy to have a lathe; even more so one that is not such a sacred cow that I am unwilling to tamper with it. It is amazing, if you stuff a part up it is just an email to someone like LMS and you are underway again at comparatively little cost, few other lathes offer that opportunity. Got that off my chest! I hearty hear, hear! I'm in no doubt on that one. My budget was $1k and that's sorta where I ended up with some accessories. Ok, I cribbed a few more accessories than that. But no, I'm not complaining overall. I can live with having to lap my gibs, align the tailstock, clean up the odd burred thread, fitting an apron swarf guard, etc. But some things are harder to rectify properly. That guard is one of them. Yeah, I had to get that off my chest too! And yes, I love the spares situation too. I have and old ex Water Board aluminium runabout. Before I owned it I doubt it ever saw a boat ramp. Just a rocky hillside into a dam. It was a workboat and had a hard life. Very little paint left after 30 years. Gee I love that Ugly Duckling. I never worry about fenders to keep it from being scratched on barnacles. Or people scratching the paint with shoes. It's really laid back and comfortable. I'm feeling that way about my 7x12 after 4 months due largely to LMS being on standby! One good turn deserves another. Regards to all, Ian Keep on turnin', John
steam4ian All Messages By This Member #18441 G'donya John! Ian --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "born4something" <ajs@...> wrote: Hi Ian, See my responses interspersed. --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "steam4ian" <fosterscons@> wrote: G'day John. Firstly, I am not retired and out of it, I have my own engineering consulting business of which I am both director and an enployee, it supports my other activities. We do have a lot in common. That's my situation too. I haven't had much call for OH&S awareness thrust at me in this role. Pre 2003 I was middle managing in the public sector so awareness and compliance was really pushed. If you go through the current competency based national qualification scheme for any trade you'll get to do the OH&S ticket and learn all about it. I did a data cabling cert a while back and had to do it. My prior quals assumed it but when I wanted to add another ticket I got caught up in it. Similarly, a friend with a solar heating / plumbing company and a dozen employees gets tangled in it. Largely once you get involved with the construction industry at a hands on / employer level. My own company has only one employee (manager, secretary, director, tea maker - me) mostly doing design work so I haven't needed to worry much. Do you have other employees? My thoughts still stand with respect to the home machinist. If the machine is used by your employees then application of a guard or some similar "engineering" measure is esential. But, the ACTUAL hazard must be identifed. It is pointless guarding the chuck and leaving a rotating workpiece exposed. The hazad of the key being flung out is real but the guard is not necessarilly the solution. As an alternative the key could be set in a holder that de-energises the lathe when the key is not in the holder. Agreed. But shhh... Don't mention the rotating work as well! Interestingly, my machine was delivered with a light spring slipped over the chuck key. It was just strong enough to eject the key from the chuck if you weren't constantly holding it in. You could not let go when you regripped the key while adjusting the chuck without having to fetch the key back out of the chip tray! The chuck guard is grandma engineering, reaction not application. Eventually we could have to fully enclose the lathe like a CNC machine. Only reason we don't is historical precedence. The modern automobile could not be launched today unless fully computerised driving and crash avoidance were developed first. What's this human in control?! And then there's the hammer, chainsaw, ... Did Sieg stuff up or those who ordered the machines from them? Since others in various countries have reported the same 6" figure on the 7x12 machines I doubt it was just my distributor. It's looking pretty universal. If the chuck guard is to be retained you either put up with the reduced swing or change the mounting of the guard as you suggested. Few users of the lathe will be swinging the full 7 inches but interference with the standard faceplate is a different matter. Not having a full 7" didn't really worry me either. But I was mighty cheesed when I bought their faceplate and had to remove the supplied guard to fit it. After trueing the faceplate up I haven't used it again. I've made do with the 4-jaw a few times where the faceplate would have been the more logical choice. <G> I don't know what it is about these lathes but they bring out a rash of complaints in some people. For me, I am just happy to have a lathe; even more so one that is not such a sacred cow that I am unwilling to tamper with it. It is amazing, if you stuff a part up it is just an email to someone like LMS and you are underway again at comparatively little cost, few other lathes offer that opportunity. Got that off my chest! I hearty hear, hear! I'm in no doubt on that one. My budget was $1k and that's sorta where I ended up with some accessories. Ok, I cribbed a few more accessories than that. But no, I'm not complaining overall. I can live with having to lap my gibs, align the tailstock, clean up the odd burred thread, fitting an apron swarf guard, etc. But some things are harder to rectify properly. That guard is one of them. Yeah, I had to get that off my chest too! And yes, I love the spares situation too. I have and old ex Water Board aluminium runabout. Before I owned it I doubt it ever saw a boat ramp. Just a rocky hillside into a dam. It was a workboat and had a hard life. Very little paint left after 30 years. Gee I love that Ugly Duckling. I never worry about fenders to keep it from being scratched on barnacles. Or people scratching the paint with shoes. It's really laid back and comfortable. I'm feeling that way about my 7x12 after 4 months due largely to LMS being on standby! One good turn deserves another. Regards to all, Ian Keep on turnin', John

Previous Topic Next Topic