Another RNLI Boat Out of Use

[Daydream believer]

Thank the Lord that those present on the 6th June 1944 were all clearly retired desk jockeys.

Richard

I was not there so have no first hand experience. But even then it was though necessary to give the tropps some training. Think what might have been if training had been omitted altogether
one might also make the point that cleaning birdshit off prominent places was possibly considered an important part of the training as it impressed the need for discipline and pride in one's unit as a group. Something which would still apply today on a lifeboat perhaps

 

[RichardS]

I think you're right. Without checking, when the HASAW Act appeared in 1974, ISTR there were 20 people a week being killed at work. Still three people a week being killed in the construction industry. Anyone think that's acceptable in the 21st century?

34 people a week killed on the roads in the UK last year .... and that's not engaging in paid work in a risky industry .... it's just going to work. :ambivalence:

Richard

 

[RichardS]

I was not there so have no first hand experience. But even then it was though necessary to give the tropps some training. Think what might have been if training had been omitted alltogether

I was not there either but I suspect that those brave men running up those beaches into enemy machine gun fire were doing something somewhat more dangerous than using a step-ladder.

Richard

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I think you're right. Without checking, when the HASAW Act appeared in 1974, ISTR there were 20 people a week being killed at work. Still three people a week being killed in the construction industry. Anyone think that's acceptable in the 21st century?

Is it acceptable, morally no, but economically it might very well be. Unfortunately safety comes at a cost and it is not at any cost. This is a hard fact. There is a shift in safety right now away from "all accidents are preventable" to accepting that prevention of all accidents is impossible but managing to minimise the consequences are.

If interested, https://www.amazon.com/Workplace-Fatalities-Failure-Todd-Conklin-ebook/dp/B071FPY48H

Many organizations tell us that work has never been as safe as it is today. They will show the lowest injury figures ever, and the rosiest incident counts in years. They want to be proud of these accomplishments, and perhaps they should be. But behind these results hides complexity and contradiction—a messiness that Todd Conklin takes us into with this book. For one, it is pretty obvious by now that trying to lower our incident and injury rates leaves the risk of process safety disasters and fatalities pretty much unaffected. Getting better at managing injuries and incidents doesn’t help us prevent fatalities and accidents—we’ve known that for a long time (Salminen, Saari, Saarela, & Rasanen, 1992). The number of fatalities in, say, construction, or the energy industry, has remained relatively stable over the past decades (Amalberti, 2013; National-Safety-Council, 2004), even when many organizations proudly report entire years (or more) without injury. Lowering the injury or non- serious incident rate can actually put an organization at greater risk of accidents and fatalities. In shipping, for example, injury counts were halved over a recent decade, but the number of shipping accidents tripled (Storkersen, Antonsen, & Kongsvik, 2016). In construction, most workers lost their lives precisely in the years with the lowest injury counts (Saloniemi & Oksanen, 1998). And in aviation, airlines with the fewest incidents have the highest passenger mortality risk (Barnett & Wang, 2000).

What lies behind these fatalities? Do they really happen because some people don’t wear their personal protective equipment; that some don’t wear gloves when rules say they should?


WorkPlace Fatalities: Failure to Predict is the first book for the industry professional that speaks directly to this important challenge: If your organization is so safe - Why do we have fatal and serious events?

 

[Fr J Hackett]

Is it acceptable, morally no, but economically it might very well be. Unfortunately safety comes at a cost and it is not at any cost. This is a hard fact. There is a shift in safety right now away from "all accidents are preventable" to accepting that prevention of all accidents is impossible but managing to minimise the consequences are.

If interested, https://www.amazon.com/Workplace-Fatalities-Failure-Todd-Conklin-ebook/dp/B071FPY48H

In terms of H&S it has always been a part of the decision making process " As far as is reasonably practicable" and reasonably practicable includes a financial consideration.

 

[Tomahawk]

34 people a week killed on the roads in the UK last year .... and that's not engaging in paid work in a risky industry .... it's just going to work. :ambivalence:

Richard

And they were killed on property owned and managed by various governmental bodies.
Often the roads in question are overloaded beyond their design parameters... (by up to ten times designed capacity). Yet the people who manage and operate the roads seem to walk away from any responsibility under the HASWA. No one else could get away with such a death/injury rate.

 

[JumbleDuck]

The crews of lifeboats go to sea when all others are safely ashore or have run for cover. It takes a special type of person to do that. The mentality to take to sea in the face of certain danger and possible death does not get worried about standing on a cabin roof without a safety harness and anti drop line suspended from above just inncase you slip or fall over.

Which is why someone has to do the worrying for them. The crew at Les Sables d'Olonne went to sea in an old lifeboat which had been replaced some years ago with a much bigger and more modern design which was alas out of service. Does their willingness to take that additional risk means that there was no need to develop better lifeboats?

 

[Bru]

34 people a week killed on the roads in the UK last year .... and that's not engaging in paid work in a risky industry .... it's just going to work. :ambivalence:

Richard

Er, some of us ARE at work when we're driving!

 

[JumbleDuck]

I was not there either but I suspect that those brave men running up those beaches into enemy machine gun fire were doing something somewhat more dangerous than using a step-ladder.

And so ... there is no need for any health and safety measures in any work situation less hazardous than a battlefield? Can't quite see where you're going with this one.

 

[RichardS]

And so ... there is no need for any health and safety measures in any work situation less hazardous than a battlefield? Can't quite see where you're going with this one.

I don't need to go anywhere with it. The absurdity of some H & S requirements is self-evident, surely?

Richard

 

[RichardS]

Er, some of us ARE at work when we're driving!

Indeed .... but if I were to list all the possibly scenarios which might result in one being killed on the roads, I would probably be extinct before I finished my task.

Richard

 

[Deleted member 36384]

........ The absurdity of some H & S requirements is self-evident, surely? .......

That depends, some people really can't carry a box of A4 paper up the stairs without making a hash of it, or use a step ladder.

 

[Motor_Sailor]

I don't need to go anywhere with it. The absurdity of some H & S requirements is self-evident, surely? Richard

Such as?

Go on - real life examples of H&S Executive rulings here in the UK, not newspaper or hearsay examples of insurance company dummy throwing.

 

[penberth3]

Er, some of us ARE at work when we're driving!

This had been a bit of grey area, falling between the Police and the HSE. Now it's
interesting to see the trend for employers assessing their drivers, providing extra training, and treating time on the road as they would any other work activity.

 

[Balbas]

What idiot builds so much design cost into a boat that you can't clean it's roof FFS...

Babcock built it at Devonport IIRC.

I was not there either but I suspect that those brave men running up those beaches into enemy machine gun fire were doing something somewhat more dangerous than using a step-ladder.

Richard

I can assure you that military training is now conducted under H&S regs. There is simply no reason to hurt people when safe alternatives are available. And thats a good thing, because training soldiers is expensive and takes time. Its much better not to break the ones you already have.

 

[Blue Sunray]

I can assure you that military training is now conducted under H&S regs. There is simply no reason to hurt people when safe alternatives are available. And thats a good thing, because training soldiers is expensive and takes time. Its much better not to break the ones you already have.

Very true and it's also quite distressing having to explain their deaths or LCIs to their NoK, but some that possibly haven't done much with their own lives seem very free with those of others.

 

[chanelyacht]

Babcock built it at Devonport IIRC.

Maybe, but Poole designed and approved the Tamar. Just shows how zero operational crew input goes into such designs, Frank Smith at Salcombe would have had a fit if he couldn't take seagull sh1t off his boat!

 

[penberth3]

Maybe, but Poole designed and approved the Tamar. Just shows how zero operational crew input goes into such designs, Frank Smith at Salcombe would have had a fit if he couldn't take seagull sh1t off his boat!

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

[Blue Sunray]

Sorry, I don't believe that.

Unsurprisingly, given his posting record, it is not true.

 

[RichardS]

That depends, some people really can't carry a box of A4 paper up the stairs without making a hash of it, or use a step ladder.

God help the human race. :ambivalence:

Richard