Ken,

I agree with your scenario and thoughts on this matter.  Having used lifts up to 180 feet, we know the precariousness of the machine.  There are certainly many quirky things about the machines, but if anything, the safety overrides that limit movements are necessarily redundant.  By the way, called all over, and could not find a 180 foot machine a couple of weeks ago.   What’s up with that?

Best,

Leland

 

 

[log in to unmask] wrote:

Christopher,

That is difficult to answer. And the newspaper reporting will be coming from speculation by a whole lot of people who have no clue what they are talking about.

The operator should not have been able to move the lift if it was extended. The article says it is an older model of lift... but it looks a lot like the current new models to me. That can be verified, the supplier's name is on the boom. I don't buy the older model scenario, and I don't buy that the operator moved the lift when it was fully extended. The JLG that we used at Park Ave. (125' reach) you could not move it if the basket was more than 10' in the air (and David drove it from Park down 53rd across Madison to 5th, down 5th to 52nd then back across Madison to Park -- in the middle of the day with a swarm of cops all over the place). These things also have a whole host of bells & whistles & deadman switches -- the machine pretty much won't let you do stupid stuff with operating it... in the air.

What I think is a whole lot more possible is that the lift was moved over the utility cover when the boom was lower, without anyone thinking much about it, and that when it was extended the operator probably pushed it out to the envelope that they were accustomed to going, may have wanted to get a few more feet before moving it again, and that the weight was imbalanced enough that the utility cover failed, which tipped the machine just enough to cause it to continue to fall over. Think... why would it not stay in position with 3 wheels on the ground? Or were two wheels compromised? The machine that we had was 44,000 pounds... one would have to suddenly be outside of the operation envelope for the entire machine to fall over.

I am a little bit concerned that the guy that died was reported to be outside of the machine. If he was, as per OSHA reg, wearing a full body harness and laynard connected to the machine he should not have got far. And there is an open question as to just how much weight they had up there... the baskets generally are rated for 500 lbs... like, not two 275 lb guys.

As I discussed w/ David this morning, we have both seen more than enough rusted out vault steel that we are extremely cautious about using a machine on a sidewalk, and certainly not one of this size and weight. So, honestly, I think the operator error was in 1. using the machine on the sidewalk -- which could have been initiated by them not having a permit and worried about getting hit by cars if they were in the street that they were not supposed to block, and 2. parking on a utility cover (we simply would never park on crap like that for any reason, not even a sewer grate). The article says the ground person walked around the corner to check on the other lift. Why not two ground persons? The operator of the lift and the ground person have a shared responsibility to watch, always watch what is going on with the lift and the environment. Which goes to my conjecture about how safety fails when people begin to feel comfortable with the technology. And why is the other lift still up in the air in the video still? You would think they would have stopped and brought it down, no?

I have met folks from Masonry Preservation Group and they seemed like very up-front and sincere people -- they also acted just a bit too proud like they were a gift to the industry, but there is nothing untoward in that as everyone is a gift to the industry. Though I kind of bet that they won't be giving too many design professionals any inspection rides in the near future. It was the structural engineer that we gave the ride-around at Park Ave. that sent us the news. As that goes, I figure that they probably saved the church $2,000 in not getting permits and in trying to do the inspection quickly over the Columbus Day weekend... when the anticipation may have been for lighter vehicular and pedestrian traffic in Philly. Right there it begs the question as to company attitudes toward safety when pressured by the necessity of low bid competition. Then one has to look at what the end client, the church may have thought was going on. Just recently on a visit to a church in Harlem that the DOB is threatening to tear down (and a whole lot of it is already gone) it was told me by the councilperson's staff member that they were upset that engineers and contractors had not been particularly honest with them... as they were finding out it seems after the fact. If there was an inspection in progress then I wonder how that came about and who was driving and guiding the effort, and reviewing, if reviewed at all, the contractor's proposal, cost, insurance and permits.

In NYC what is required for a lift operator is to have a certificate of fitness for use of a hanging rig (which has nothing to do with operating an aerial lift, and getting a certificate of fitness for a hanging rig is something of a joke). You get a permit from DOT for being in the street with the equipment, for blocking the sidewalk, and for crossing over the sidewalk. What they mostly seem to care about in the permit process is that you are bonded to fix the street, curb, sidewalk if you screw it up. It is really pretty loose, lots of gray area, and just a little bit insane.

][<en

-- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html