High reach accident greeted with premature speculation and allegation.
Opinions are like belly buttons; everybody has one. So when the news broke earlier today about the latest incident involving the TUHD90 ultra high reach machine, it was only a matter of time until anyone and everyone had their say in an ongoing debate on Facebook.
But opinions are not facts. And it is important to note that no “blame” for the accident involving this machine that killed Ad Swanink has yet been appointed. Indeed, the health and safety investigation is ongoing and, as we have previously reported, it seems likely that the machine’s manufacturer – Rusch – will, in fact, be exonerated.
Unfortunately, this has not prevented some very public outbursts that seem determined to appoint blame based on hearsay and third-party conversations.
During the course of this debate, we (DemolitionNews) were accused of taking Rusch’s side because they’re a big advertiser. Well, that may be the case, but they’re not a big advertiser with us, nor have they ever been. Yes, I have enjoyed a beer or two in the company of Rusch’s Ruud Schreijer over the years, and I like the guy. But as a journalist, that would not prevent me from reporting upon his negligence if such negligence were proven.
It has been suggested that Rusch has had manufacturing problems in the past. Again, that may well be the case, but show me a manufacturer that has a 100% manufacturing record and I’ll show you a liar. Indeed, as costly product recalls from the likes of Microsoft and Toyota have proven, even the biggest names in the world are not impervious to manufacturing faults and defects.
It has been suggested that the European Demolition Association and the Institute of Demolition Engineers should take action over this latest incident and that the recently published NFDC High Reach Guidance “did not go far enough because it did not address design and manufacturing”. I will leave these august bodies to respond to these calls if and as they see fit but, as a co-author of the NFDC’s High Reach Guidance, I find such a comment laughable. The guidance was written by and for demolition people; not by metallurgists for design engineers. Surely that is why we have CE marking and a whole host of national and international accreditations?
The icing on the cake for me was the reports from a number of operators that had used Rusch machines previously and that had identified faults and problems. Again, this may well be the case (although what qualifies them as metallurgists or industrial engineers we don’t yet know). But we also know that the TUHD90 suffered some early book cracking problems that could be traced back directly to the way in which the machine was being operated. Let’s face it. If you were driving a £2 million plus machine and the stick snapped, you’re pretty unlikely to wave your hand in the air shouting “sorry, my bad” aren’t you?
It is important, at a time like this, that we stick to the known facts. And those facts are:
• The TUHD90 has been involved in two high profile incidents, one in which a popular industry figure was killed.
• Those accidents were totally unrelated (one involved the undercarriage and counterweight, the other the boom/stick configuration).
• As yet, no official blame has been appointed over the first accident and investigations have only just started on the second so no-one currently knows if these accidents were the fault of the designer, manufacturer, steel supplier, machine owner, the operator, or God for that matter.
The fact that Ad Swanink was a much-loved part of this industry unquestionably makes this latest accident all the more emotive, and we fully understand that people feel passionately about this issue.
But as a journalist, I believe it is imperative that we assemble and analyse all the facts before we speculate just who is to blame. And as a law-abiding citizen, I firmly believe in the “innocent till proven guilty” philosophy.
