Spillard News

Friel Construction, a major West Midlands housebuilder, has standardised on the fitment of removable rear-view systems for its entire fleet of excavators and telehandlers.

            Supplied and installed by Spillard Safety Systems of Gailey in Staffordshire, the Optronics units chosen feature cab mounted LCD screens and a magnetically attached colour cameras.

            According to Friel’s plant manager Ron Walker: “We take on-site safety very seriously and it is now company policy to fit rear view systems on all our principal items of plant, along with immobilisers and tracker systems.” Mr. Walker continues, “we consider Spillard’s equipment to be the best currently available and its three year warranty gives us complete peace of mind.”

            Friel’s health and safety manager John Berks adds: “The second biggest killer on site after falls from height is traffic accidents and we are doing everything possible to ensure our sites remain accident free. We used to rely on rear-mounted convex mirrors but we now much prefer our operators to concentrate on forward vision with the strategically placed LCD screens giving an instant alert of anyone situated near the rear of the machines.

            The choice of quick-release systems enables Friel’s operators to easily unplug and remove both the screen and camera each evening for total security. “They wouldn’t be in place long if we left them on the machines overnight!” says Mr. Berks.

SED 2007 Awards for excellence – SPILLARD SAFETY SYSTEMS LTD – VCAS

The awards were given to the most innovative new products introduced to the UK market during the past year, judged by an independent panel of industry experts, the awards are an accolade to the very best in plant, construction machinery, support products and applications. All of which will be on display at SED 2007 Rockingham Motor Speedway, Corby Northamptonshire from 22nd – 24th May

Picture Caption From L to R
Back Row: Pete Spillard MD Spillard Safety Systems, Brian Martin MD Damar International, Steve Hadfield MD Ranger Equipment. Front Row: Chris Massey Director Beresford’s Flooring, Sean Heron MD Dig-A-Crusher

The winners were presented with their trophies at a celebration lunch held at the SED headquarters, in Sutton, Surrey hosted by Mark Bresnahan, exhibition director
In addition to the overall winners there were a number of companies who have been shortlisted and received a special commendation for their contribution to industry innovation. The shortlisted companies will be presented with a plaque in recognition of their exceptional efforts
The winners, commended and short listed companies in their winning categories are as follows:

Earthmoving equipment Overall Winner
Spillard Safety Systems for its Vehicle Collision Avoidance System – Earthmoving Commended
Neuson Ltd Mobile Excavator 9-10 ton (9503) -Cranes and Access Overall Winner
Ranger Equipment Ltd for its Teupen LEO50GT – Cranes and Access Shortlisted
Effer Cranes for its Hydraulic Lorry Loader Crane – Non-Operated Plant/ Support Products Overall Winner
Damar International Ltd for its Slide Sledge – Non-Operated Plant/ Support Products Commended
Rampco for its Aluminum Loading Ramps & Bridges
Vision Alert Automotive System for its Warning Safety Products – Reversing Alarm

Concrete Innovation Overall Winner
Beresford’s Flooring for its Instant Pipe Shutter

Concrete Innovation Shortlisted
Beresford’s Flooring for its Hole Cover

Recycling Overall Winner
Dig-A-Crusher for its Bucket Crusher

Recycling Shortlisted
Global Recycling Solutions Ltd for its Tana Shark Slow Speed Shredder

For the second year running we’re proud to be one of
the ‘Hydrex Honda’ sponsors

Statistics released by the Health and Safety Executive for 2005/06 show the rate of fatal and major injuries in the construction industry is continuing to fall. The Health and Safety Statistics 2005/06 report shows:

There has also been good progress towards the all industry Revitalising targets of 2000, although the industry is still falling short of its own ambitious targets set at the 2001 Construction Summit. For the first time the proportion of major injuries due to falls from height has been overtaken by those resulting from slips, trips and falls on the same level. Injuries due to slips and trips and manual handling have risen steadily over the past few years while those from falls from height and being struck by an object have been reduced substantially. The Health and Safety Statistics 2005/06 report shows:

May 06

November 06

June 07

December 07

Spillard have launched their third generation Roll Over Restraint seat and harness – on the face of it not earth shattering news, but when you realise that this is probably the first Roll Over Restraint that most operators would willingly wear, its Big News

The value of wearing a full harness in terms of safety has been well understood for many years, the problem however has always been the discomfort experienced by a plant operator whilst wearing one. It is all well and good pointing to an F1 driver belted up for a grand prix, but he does not need to wear it for eight hours a day whilst experiencing a ride similar to a bucking bronco.

Spillard’s motivation for such an improbable idea was a report published by the HSE called ‘Seatbelt performance in quarry vehicle incidents’. This became the catalyst for Spillard to develop a third generation Roll Over Restraint as the report challenges the industry to reduce effect on operators of roll over situations. As providing safety solutions is part of the Spillard ethos, the challenge was accepted.

Part of this very comprehensive report is a comparison of the relative effectiveness of restraint systems in constraining the operator within the cab survival space during a roll over. The harness (a Spillard/Sears 4065R 2nd generation seat) was found to be the most effective method or retaining the operator when tested against a lap or lap and diagonal system.

The harness restrained the manikin within the cab survival space. The lap belt did not restrain the manikin allowing it to make contact with the interior of the cab, whilst the lap and diagonal belt (designed for frontal collisions in automobiles) was ineffective when the roll over occurred in the opposite direction to the restrained shoulder.

The challenge now was how to make the most effective belt systems comfort level acceptable to operators when worn on a day in day out basis. After much consideration Spillard settled on a full harness secured at three points through three retractors and integrated into a Sears high back operator seat.

One of the design criterions was to offer a solution to a perceived problem, which occurred in a slow roll over situation when low momentum forces fail to activate the inertia reel allowing the belt to play out without constraining the operator. A solution was found by using reels, which reacted both to inertia and a tipping moment from the vertical plane.

Consideration was also given to preventing dirt ingress of the belt webbing by constraining it within the seat, the danger of dirt ingress had been also highlighted in the report.

A prototype was fitted into a customers articulated truck and Barry Robinson MBE was challenged to put it through its paces (Barry, to be fair was not a fan of the comfort afforded by the traditional harness). The design team were delighted with Barry’s report which indicated that with a couple of small changes it was fit for use commenting: “I noted at times that I could not feel any discomfort at all, you could not tell if the harness was being used.”

The next step was to test the complete ROR seat and harness at MIRA to SAE J2292 the standard for harness arrangements. To pass SAE J2292 the ROR needed to withstand a simultaneous pull of 9,000 Newtons on the lap webbing and 7,000 Newtons on the shoulder webbing for a period of ten seconds (this is the equivalent of hanging a family size car from the belt system) It’s a harrowing feeling seeing your hard work being subjected to destructive testing, but its great when it passes and at least you have a certificate and a video to prove it.

So with the SAE J2292 testing completed even more stringent testing began. A number of preproduction ROR seats were fitted into customer’s machines, in real work situations and most importantly with real operators.

The results were very encouraging, with operator comfort ratings of the new harness arrangement equal or better than that of the operators usual lap belt comfort. One predicted downside of the harness materialised when it was tested in applications, which required the operator to get in and out of the cab on a regular basis. The level of inconvenience of buckling up was however found to be less significant than previous harnesses as the three retractor system required much less adjustment.

As a result of the very positive operator acceptance during the preproduction trials Spillard are to start production, with the ROR Seat and Harness being available for sale towards the end of the summer.

Optronics Camera System meets ISO13766 Earlier this year Spillard Safety Systems submitted our flat-screen colour camera system – part number OPT5600 – to the respected and internationally recognised Mira testing facility in an attempt to obtain certification for the ISO13766 (Earthmoving Machinery – EMC1999)

• Radiated Immunity
  (How the system works when subjected to electrical interference such as that generated by electronic components)  

   

• Radiated Emissions
  (How the system prevents electrical interference emanating from it which may affect other electronic components)  

   

• Electrostatic Discharge
  (How the system works after being hit by a large static-electricity voltage)  

   

• Transient Immunity
  (How the system deals with massive voltages such as lightning strikes (either between clouds or to ground) from a kilometre, or more, away or the electrical switching of large inductive loads (such as motors, transformers and electrical drives)

The reason for Spillards attempting to obtain the ISO level is due to the safety aspect of today’s modern construction equipment. As construction machinery becomes more advanced the reliance on electronic systems becomes greater. Electronic braking systems, engine management computers, built-in diagnostic and testing equipment, and remote engine monitoring equipment are fast becoming standard fitment to machinery. However, the more electronic equipment that is fitted the greater the possibility of electro-magnetic emissions (or interference) from one system having a detrimental effect on another becomes a real possibility. Similarly, the possibility of an electronic system being affected by outside influences, such as power generating equipment and cables that may be located in the area that the machinery is working on, or even the usage of mobile phones – seemingly standard equipment on the modern building site – becomes higher.

EMC testing is a way of ensuring that any emissions generated by an electronic system are contained by that system in such a way as to have no effect on other electronic components. Similarly, the testing ensures that in turn the components being tested are not in any way affected by those outside influences that occur in everyday life.

Put simply, it is no use having a rear view camera system on your machine on which the image on the monitor disappears every time the site Foreman puts the kettle on in the rest room!

Many of the camera systems available to the construction industry today are based on equipment originally designed to be used in the leisure market – for example, on motor- homes. Whilst there may be an element of EMC protection built into these systems they are designed to meet much lower requirements and standards. As such, fitting these systems to a 40 tonne dump truck may see that vehicle fail the higher ISO13766 standard.

Some of our larger customers have begun to realise the implications that failing to meet the higher criteria designed for safety equipment may have and actively encouraged Spillard to put our camera system through the testing procedure. After all, the manufacturers spend hundreds of thousands of pounds ensuring their vehicles are meeting all the relevant requirements and are safe to use in all environments, both for the operators and the people around them; fitting a camera system that does not would seem to be a retrograde step. In the least, it would almost certainly prevent their equipment being sold in certain markets; at worst the camera system could fail at a critical time and result in the injury or death of a person on site.

Spillard submitted the camera system for testing back in February 2006. First reports were encouraging; we know how good our system is but even we were surprised how close the system came to passing the tests in its original configuration. However, fail it did and so Spillard utilised the expertise at Mira to find out how we could improve the system.

Mira analysed the areas where the system had failed to meet the specified requirements and suggested a small modification that could be made. This was done and the revised system was resubmitted for testing. This time, and to everyone’s delight, the system passed ISO13766 (Earthmoving Machinery – EMC1999).

The costs for obtaining the certification have been high, certainly in the five-figure category. Indeed, it may be the expense of the testing procedure that has stopped other well-known camera system companies from obtaining the required certification. However, Spillard Safety Systems feel that this is money well spent. The certification proves that our equipment is helping to ensure the safety of people working in and around the equipment to which our camera systems are fitted. It also makes our camera system relatively unique in the safety market; it is believed that we are currently the only company in the United Kingdom offering a reversing-camera system that has the ISO13766 certification for less than eight hundred pounds. Who says safety has to be expensive?

We are not resting on our laurels, though. Spillard Safety Systems are – in association with Mira – continuing to pursue even higher levels of certification for their camera system. As the old adage says, “Watch this Space”!

With help from Peter Welsh of Spillard Safety Systems, Andrew Pearce explores ways to see behind you.

REVERSING accidents kill and injure every year. The numbers are relatively small in farming compared to other industries but that’s no cue for complacency. On a much bigger scale and with far less tragic consequences, tractor drivers bang into things daily and combine operators still manage to find the only telegraph pole in the field… and presumably will continue to do so until evolution gets round to providing eyes in the backs of their heads.

Until that great day dawns, technology can help. In response to legislation there has been a mini-explosion in ways of seeing what’s going on behind you. Cameras, radar, ultrasonics and clever mirrors are on hand to cover blind spots or to monitor hidden areas, either working alone or together. Combined with safe working practices, they can cut accidents big and small. Here’s the lowdown on each, with examples taken from Spillard’s range. Other suppliers offer similar products.

Mirrors

Still the cheapest solution, convex mirrors come from the truck world in four types, cover up to 180° and are ideal for seeing down the sides of a combine or behind a materials handler. But note – they are designed simply to show whatever’s there, rather than for accurate machine positioning. Mounting is usually simple, the polycarbonate base material is tough and light surface scratching can be polished out. Heated versions are available. Cost is £55-£95 including bracket.

Bright spots
o Low cost
o Operators very familiar with mirrors
o Robust
o No power supply/wiring

Black holes
o Vision cut by rain and dust
o Can be knocked

Cameras

Farming’s use for cameras includes looking into remote sections of machinery as well as rear vision. Camera/monitor setups originated in the USA’s motorhome market, starting with small black-and-white TVs and evolving to today’s crisp colour LCD displays. Mini-TVs are still available but will soon be obsolete.

Quality and price go together. Bottom-end LCD systems cost around £200 but are not built to survive agriculture. At the other end of the spectrum is the £770 Optronics OPT5600: fitted as original equipment by major telehandler manufacturers and EMC shielded so it won’t interfere with tractor electronics or be blanked by mobile phone use, it takes up to four shock/vibration-proof cameras, has a quick-release display, night-vision capability to 10m, waterproof connectors and armoured cabling. Extra cameras are around £250.

Bright spots
o Can see into hidden/blind areas, even at night, with 120° field of view
o Ideal for trailers, combines, harvesting machinery
o LCD screen takes little cab space
o Relatively cheap to add cameras to multiple trailers

Black holes
o Must clean lens in damp/dusty conditions
o Field of view not as wide as convex mirrors
o Only top-quality monitors units give clear picture in strong sun
o Requires potentially vulnerable cabling

Radar

Often confused with ultrasonics, radar uses radio-frequency emission to detect objects rather than ultrasonics’ high-frequency sound. While cameras and mirrors show the driver a picture, radar simply generates a warning that an object is in the reversing vehicle’s path. Systems consist of a radar head and cab unit. The radar head sends and receives either a continuous or pulsed radio signal, the cab unit shows a detected object’s distance from the vehicle by sound, lights or a combination of the two. Pulsed radar gives the most reliable detection in reversing-alarm applications, with range up to 8m and a relatively narrow 3m wide field of view. Preco’s £500 Preview system is state of the art, built to industrial standards and can be programmed to ignore close-in objects, like parts of the host vehicle.

Bright spots
o ‘Sees’ through dust, rain and fog, so good for harvesting equipment
o Detects static and moving objects
o Can be integrated with a vehicle’s reversing bleeper so the latter sounds only when an obstruction is detected, rather than continuously

Black holes
o Driver can’t tell what the obstruction is, so may be tempted to continue reversing more slowly
o Detects only the closest object
o Expensive to buy extra radar heads for multiple trailers

Ultrasonics

Ultrasonic proximity sensors commonly turn up on cars as parking aids. They work by sending/receiving a stream of high-frequency sound, deducing object distance from sound wave reflection. Automotive-spec systems have limited range (3m maximum, 2m typical). The sensors themselves are relatively fragile and have a very narrow detection window, so multiple sensors are needed to cover the width of a vehicle. So far, professional systems are rare and expensive. DIY kits are available for under £100 from many sources, but aren’t designed for farming.

Bright spots
o Sensors’ narrow field of view allows very localised areas to be monitored
o Very cheap compared with radar

Black holes
o Can be triggered by high ambient noise and strong winds
o Picks up rain, sleet and snow
o Can’t ‘see’ through dust, performs poorly in strong sunlight
o Blocked by dirt and mud
o Narrow detection band of individual sensors mean that slim objects (like posts) can be missed

SPECIALIST HELP

Need advice on the best way to see what’s happening behind you? Staffs-based Spillard Safety Systems Ltd (0870 200 2310) has a background in industrial applications, tailor-makes setups for specific requirements and will carry out on-site vision assessments – which may be free where several machines are involved. Check out www.allroundvision.com for products, relevant legislation and a guide to carrying out your own assessments.

THE LAW SAYS

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 98) sets out to ensure that work equipment does not present health and safety risks. Regarding machinery, it states ‘Where the driver’s direct field of vision is inadequate to ensure safety, there (should be) adequate devices for improving vision so far as is reasonably practicable.’

The HSE’s best practice guidelines suggest that with agricultural equipment, an operator should be able to see an object 1.5m high at a distance of 1m, all round the vehicle. The choice of visibility aid is completely dependent on individual circumstances and could include mirrors, lenses and camera systems. Radar and ultrasonic units are other options which, while not aids to vision, do enhance safety while minimising distraction. Different types can be used together to eliminate blind spots.

Spillard Safety Systems of Gailey in Staffordshire has supplied and installed complete safety packages on £2.5M of new Caterpillar equipment recently purchased by Wolverhampton based Stokey Plant Hire. Each package comprises a convex mirror, rear view camera system, orange strobe light, fire extinguisher and seat belt linked to an external flashing green indicator light.

Stokey currently operates a fleet of nearly 40 large Cat machines, all of which are fitted with Spillard products, and its policy over almost four decades has always been one of ‘no compromise’ when it comes to operating safety.

Commenting on this high level of safety awareness, Stokey’s chairman Bob Collins said: “As I have the best interests of everybody at heart, I personally participate in the implementation of our strict safety policy which seeks to prevent anyone from sustaining an injury wherever our plant is working.”

For 14 years Spillard Safety Systems has specialised in the supply and installation of all round vision solutions, helping users of construction equipment comply with Health & Safety regulations. Part of these regulations require that devices be fitted on work place vehicles in order to remedy inadequate direct vision.

To assist operators of mobile plant, Spillard has undertaken a large number of detailed visibility studies to provide customers like Stokey Plant Hire with an independent viability risk assessment for their vehicles.  

Anyone involved in the use of construction equipment should be aware of the various regulations now controlling noise and vibration levels as well as general safety rules covering operators and site personnel.
           
However, many of these regulations are complex and it is all too easy to overlook the many details involved. For example, let’s take a closer look at the current legislation covering seat belts and their use.

The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER98) requires restraint systems to be fitted to all machines that have a risk of rolling over – provided a roll-over structure (ROPS) is fitted. These regulations also dictate that if a machine is equipped with a restraint system, management must ensure that it is used at all times and regularly maintained and inspected.
           
As you should all know, risk assessment plays a major role in the day to day running of any site and the selection of a suitable restraint system is very much a part of the process. There are three types of restraint system currently available :-

1. Over shoulder, lap and diagonal belts (L&D) – designed to restrain the upper torso in a full frontal collision.
2. Lap belts (LAP) – designed to restrain the thighs or pelvis in the event of a collision or roll-over.
3. Full harness (FH) – designed to secure the operator within the envelope of the seat in a roll-over situation.

If now we consider, say, a quarry environment there would need to be an assessment of the likely accidents to occur involving mobile plant such as dump trucks. If, for example, there was a head-on collision between a pair of 50 tonne trucks, none of the above restraint systems is likely to be of much help to the drivers. However, one of the same trucks with a full ROPS rolling off a haul road is a different matter as only a full harness would hold the driver safely within the seat envelope whilst both a L&D and LAP would allow the upper torso to move about considerably with a much greater risk of driver injury.

And remember, it is the responsibility of management to ensure whatever restraint system is fitted to a piece of mobile plant is correctly used – either by on-going training or by the use of a warning device such as a flashing beacon to signify if the restraint is being worn or not.

Fitting and correctly using an appropriate restraint is not the end of the story as they must also be regularly checked for any signs of wear or damage which, if not attended to, can seriously jeopardise operator safety. We recommend that these checks are undertaken as part of any general weekly maintenance schedule. When inspecting seat belt systems, close attention should be made for the following signs:-

1. Webbing with frayed edges.
2. Webbing with nicks, cuts or holes of any size.
3. Buckles which do not lock securely or are worn out or damaged in any way.
4. Retraction mechanisms which do not fully retract the belt or lock it securely into position.
If any of the above signs are noted, the belts should be changed immediately for new ones of the correct type.

Seat belts can become damaged at any stage of the life of the vehicle to which they are fitted and, for example, a small 4 mm long cut or hole can reduce belt strength by a staggering 70%. It goes without saying that under no circumstances should repaired or second hand belts ever be used.
 
In the event of an accident, a belt of any type has to absorb a huge amount of energy and stretches permanently by up to 13% in the process. If this belt is left in place and another accident occurs, it will no longer be able to absorb energy efficiently and could mean the difference between life and death for the unfortunate driver.