Archive for the ‘OSH News’ Category

Accident Alert from Singapore

Thursday, May 28th, 2009

The latest accident alerts from Singapore had been improving in its usefulness. The case studies are relatively prompt and have pictures to help readers understand the cases better.  The most recent alert can be found here.

Some possible improvements include providing a set of indexes on the case (like what Chemical Safety Board does for its accident reports) to facilitate classification of the lessons learned. A database should be developed to allow public to search for past cases. Perhaps a forum can be created to allow safety professionals to discuss the cases to derive other useful lessons.

Prosecution damages flight safety

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Take a look at this: http://aviation-safety.net/news/newsitem.php?id=2134

Interesting doctoral thesis that indicates that criminal actions against pilots or air traffic controllers can be damaging to flight safety as a whole. According to the article, deterence effect of prosecution is minimal and prosecution might even have detrimental effects on flight safety! My take is that it is not possible to remove prosecution totally, but the approach to prosecution should be better thought through to prevent negative effects highlighted in the article.

Personal vs. catastrophic accidents

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Safet at work blog (a very useful and active safety blog) reported a list of recent BHP fatalities. One quick observation of the BHP fatalities is that they are primarily personal accidents, not catastrophic accidents (e.g. Beaconsfield rock fall fatality).

A recent special issue of Safety Science (Vol. 47) discusses the confusion about process safety indicators and personal safety indicators. I think some of the discussions are relevant to the mining industry or other geotechnical industry (e.g. construction of tunnels). Process safety indicators are essentially major hazard indicators, which may not correlate with personal safety indicators (e.g. LTI, MTI). In Beaconsfield there appears to be a lack of attention on major hazard indicators. There were rock falls in October 2005, March 2006 and days before the day of the accident (26 April 2006), but the response appears to be  inadequate.

One possibility is to require mines to report such major hazard indicators to relevant safety regulators (e.g. Workplace Standards Tasmania) periodically so that the mines will pay more attention to these indicators and the regulators can step in when necessary.

“Human error root cause of nuke accidents”

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2009

A Straits Times (Singapore; 3 March 2009) article has the above title. The article reports on a roundtable discussion on the possibility of nuclear energy in South East Asia. Experts were reported to advise that, “investment in a safety culture among human operators is just as important as physical infrastructure to prevent catastrophes”.

Seeing human error as the source of safety problem is futile. Like what a famous safety professor, T. Kletz once said, seeing human error as the problem is like blaming gravity for falls. It is true but does nothing to help prevent.

I hope it is the reporters that have misinterpreted the experts…

Train Incident in Singapore

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008

 

Location of accident (Country, State, Address): Singapore

Company: SMRT

Date and time of accident: 21 January 2008, 3.10am

Industry Type: Transportation (train)

Severity: No injury; 7 hours of delay

Type of Accident: Vehicle collision

Description of accident: Based on Straits Times (23 September 2008), two maintenance vehicles collided on the track on 21 January 2008. It was reported that the parking brake of a maintenance train was not engaged resulting in the train rolling back and colliding into its locomotive. The failure to engage the brakes was termed a “breach of operating procedures”. The company was fined $390,000 for the 7 hours disruption. SMRT decided to sack a maintenance worker and suspend 2 other workers. The Straits Times reported that there had been similar incidents in the past, but none resulted in disruptions to train service.

Discussion: The cause of the incident based on the report can be summarized as below:

Maintenance train rolled back <– Failure to engage brakes (breach procedure) <– Why?

            |

Collide with locomotive

            |

7 hours disruption; property loss; Fine of $390,000

 

Some key questions that should be asked are: (1) Was the breach of procedure a violation (intentional) or a human error? (2) If the breach is a human error, what caused/contributed to the error? Fatigue? Poor lighting? Rushed work? (3) Since there had been previous incidents, what was done after those incidents to improve safety? Could some fail-safe controls be implemented?

 

Relevant Links

·         See this article on a major train incident with direct cause (failure to apply break)