A question of stability continued...
Timber haulage operators, already bogged down by red tape and under financial pressure, could find themselves wide open to criticism or even prosecution, should an accident occur involving a vehicle rolling over while its lorry loader is being used. Mike Forbes* discusses the issues involved and their implications.
Roundwood timber hauliers could relax in the knowledge that their operations have been recognised as a special case by the Health and Safety Executive, because of the different nature of the work involved, loading on rough ground in the woods. The HSE might have decided that its application of regulations concerning stability, requiring lorry loaders to be fitted with interlocks on stabilisers, should not be applied with respect to vehicles used on timber haulage, but this should not be a cause for complacency.
It is a well-known fact within the timber industry that loading vehicles using an hydraulic loader with a grapple is an acquired skill. Doing so safely, especially at the speed which the economics of the job demand of drivers, is not something which can be learned in a classroom. Timber crane operators tend to learn the job from their peers - it’s very much an ‘on-the-job’ learning process. The industry has a good track record. There have been few serious accidents, so it would be easy to ask: ‘What’s the problem?’

The safety issue, in the forestry business as in any other, is never going to go away. Proof of periodic testing of equipment and training of personnel in its use will go a long way towards answering any criticisms. But how should we go about setting up a system which provides suitable training?
Somebody needs to take on the responsibility. This will also need to go hand-in-hand with keeping a close watch on any relevant regulations and their possible applications.
Stabiliser interlocks
The current situation basically dates back to a fatal accident in June 2000, when a lorry driver was transferring steel bars from his vehicle to an adjacent trailer. He had not extended the stabilisers on his lorry loader, so as he reduced the load on his vehicle, it became unstable and toppled over on top of him. The HSE investigation concluded that the accident would not have happened with the stabilisers out. The driver’s employer, Meynell Plant, was prosecuted in 2001 for breaching the 1998 LOLER - Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations - Part 8. This poses the question of how many timber operators will have read this document, however little relevance it might have for the timber industry.

The HSE did not issue the expected improvement notice following this accident, but took the extraordinary step of issuing a press release. The resulting press coverage was the first anyone in the timber industry had heard or read about the matter. They stated that all new lorry loader cranes would have to be fitted with stabilisers with interlocking systems or equivalent systems, with reference to the 1998 regulations. This resulted in confusion as to whether interlocks were to be mandatory or not.
ALLMI, the Association of Lorry Loaders Manufacturers and Importers, became somewhat belatedly involved and questioned the investigations leading to the press release. The declaration was in fact retracted by the HSE, since it appeared to have been misled on the facts, based on ill-advised comments from some suppliers, while many in the industry sought clarification of what was meant, owing to the underlying technical difficulties.

A bigger issue was that if a machine was supplied from one European Union state to another, properly ‘CE’ plated, this should show it to be suitable for use. A national body should not be able to impose different rules. The European Commission took up this point, registering the complaint that the HSE had acted improperly.
It would appear the HSE asked for meetings with the industry as a direct result. The ensuing dialogue with technical people from individual manufacturers like Palfinger, who are represented on a committee, including timber crane manufacturers like Loglift and Jonsered, with their wide experience of loader operation throughout Europe, suggested that interlocking of stabilisers was not the way forward for log handling.

Their conclusion was that, although stabiliser interlocking is, in principle, a good idea, at present it is impracticable. It could take up to six years to fully develop and cost at least £1000 per crane. However, a target of 2006 for incorporation was agreed by the manufacturers for hook cranes. Since the HSE had agreed that timber loaders would be exempt, the objection was withdrawn. However, stability is going to remain an issue for the timber industry.

The HSE, represented by Phil Papard, head of product safety and Ian Patterson, specialist inspector for mechanical engineering, met an ALLMI delegation in Manchester, in December 2001. Among those present were Wilson Paton, managing director of Outreach plc, and John Scott of JST. John, who runs 30 timber haulage vehicles, plus a number of independent loaders, is the Haulage Industry Representative on the FCA Round Timber Haulage Working Party (see also left and Logbook p5). He was able to express constructively the practical issues and the backdown by the HSE over interlocks was largely a result of his credibility as a representative of the users.

The question of stabiliser interlocks might be gone for the foreseeable future, but the question of unsafe practices in timber haulage has not gone with it. There will be problems to be addressed and pressure to improve safety provisions - and it won’t be sufficient to claim ‘We work in the forests, this is not for us’.
If equipment is developed by the manufacturers which can compensate for the full range of operating conditions applicable to the particular crane, this will pose further questions. Flexing of chassis often results in stabiliser legs leaving the ground during operations - in direct contrast with the typical mobile crane.
Cranes used with grabs or clam-shell buckets for handling scrap or spoil involve very similar issues to those of timber cranes. They work where there are unmade roads on sites. These might not be as extreme or diverse as those facing timber operators, but how will the industry differentiate between them?
Training
One way of satisfying the HSE and others would be to show evidence that roundwood timber operators are doing all they can, by developing training programmes for new drivers in conjunction with the manufacturers. There is an on-going shortage of drivers in the transport industry as a whole, so there are bound to be new entrants to timber haulage as time passes.

A number of training courses are already available, but these tend to be aimed at hook cranes. There are a number of additional issues with timber operations, not least the speed with which operations need to be carried out economically. At present, the functions of the crane will be explained by the supplier on delivery but, after that, the operator tends to be on his own, relying on his own experience.
For new operators and, indeed, as a refresher course, a system could be devised, where some formal teaching in the yard is followed by practical on-the-job training, alongside a skilled operator, leading to a ‘Certificate of Competence’.
As Wilson Paton of Outreach says, ‘The operation of a timber crane could be likened to playing the piano. You first learn which keys play which notes; some way down the line, you can play a tune, but becoming a concert pianist takes considerable experience.’
The Construction Industry Training Board has worked on such a certificate of competence for crane operators, although the definitions are still blurred. It is one thing for a lorry driver to unload his own vehicle on site, but quite another if he is to be asked to place material onto scaffolding or into its final position. He is then deemed to be a crane operator and should be certified as such.

ALLMI has developed a thorough training programme for lorry loader operators. Depending on what capacity loader has been used for the training, the operator will be allowed to use any type of loader up to a maximum of that capacity, whether it is 10 tonne/metres or 30 tonne/metres. Such a system is not infallible, but re-testing after five years under the ALLMI system helps to keep people up to scratch.
As vehicles and cranes get bigger and become ever more complex, operators increasingly need to understand the rules of physics involved. They also need to fully understand the new electronic safety systems, which are an integral part of the CE certification. Both the theory and practice of turning moments about a fulcrum need to be appreciated - certainly in a practical sense.
The situation where an operator goes out and attempts to lift too large a grab-full of logs at maximum outreach with the loader on an empty vehicle is unlikely to occur. Experience and common sense are wonderful things. But there are always risks involved, which must be minimised. Training could help - plus regular testing, of both operators and equipment.
Testing
Recommendations for testing of loaders are contained in British Standard BS7121: 1997, Part 4,
Section 13. These might only be recommendations, but if they are in a British Standard, they cannot be ignored. If something goes wrong, other regulations which stipulate a duty of care, indirectly require this testing.
The recommendations include a full test before use and after repairs or alterations. A certificate is required, which records any repairs, including welding. The grapples should be marked with their rated capacity. Instructions and test certificates should be carried on the vehicle at all times.

The initial tests should include an overload test. If the loader is fitted by the operator, it ought to go back to the supplier for full testing. Remember, the manufacturer’s CE mark refers to the equipment. Its installation also needs to be ‘fit for the purpose’, with somebody being considered responsible for this.
How many operators actually comply with all this? Periodic testing is also recommended: annually, with a proof load at the limit of the loader’s capacity; after four years, with the same 25% overload test as when fitted; and, after eight, a strip-down and x-ray of all welds. If the vehicle has been double-shifted, presumably, these times should be halved.

The BS recommendations include examination by a ‘competent person’, including visual and non-destructive testing, i.e. x-rays and so on, having been dismantled. It all sounds complicated - and expensive - but it could save a lot of problems in the long run.
There could be an issue here, as to who is considered a competent person. The LOLER Approved Code of Practice states: ‘you should ensure that the person carrying out a thorough examination has such appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the lifting equipment to be examined as will enable him to detect defects and weaknesses and to assess their importance in relation to the safety and continued use of the lifting equipment’. This could also be an issue for insurance companies to address.

Operators will need to do sufficient to be seen as safety conscious. If nothing else, this would show up those in the industry who are prepared to cut corners and take risks. They could then be forced to clean up their act, too. The timber haulage industry needs to show that it is looking at training and testing.
Perhaps the FCA should appoint somebody from the operating side as a trainer and examiner. This would certainly show the HSE and any other interested parties that the industry is taking appropriate steps to ensure safe operations.
Wilson Paton says he realises that he could be seen as having an axe to grind, in that he wants to sell equipment, but he does not want to see anybody hurt. He suggests that somebody from the industry needs to get together with the FCA, ALLMI and HSE to discuss the issues involved and work towards solutions.
Companies like Outreach and T H White can influence what is offered, but the manufacturers, whose equipment is covered by CE marking are going to want to sell it as it is, not modified to meet any additional, regionally-imposed regulations. There is a difference between the manufacturer’s, dealer’s and industry’s responses to the problems.

Whatever safety systems are the outcome, Jim Cairney, chief engineer at Outreach and a member of the ALLMI Technical Sub-committee, says they should be understandable and workable, otherwise they could be no more than a paper exercise.
The need for training is part of a requirement to operate professionally. As ever, good operators will be burdened by the costs of doing things correctly, while others could gain an unfair advantage. There is a parallel with past issues, like cross-loading. Some operators will not accept the argument, complaining about interference and the cost.
The CITB demanded certificates of competence before operators were allowed onto building sites.
In this case, Forest Enterprise for example, as the direct or indirect employers of the drivers, could insist on competence before allowing them into the forest. In parallel with the construction industry, proof of competence would be proof equipment was properly installed and maintained and operators properly trained.
This is the case for training and testing to prove to any interested parties that timber haulage operators take safety seriously and are doing all they can to ensure it. The industry has a good record, especially taking into account the extreme conditions under which operations are carried out for so much of the time. It is important not only to keep it that way, but also to show that everything is being done to keep it that way