3 ms·

How are you supposed to know ahead of time that a place is unsafe? Cabada should have been perfectly safe where they were, but at least one safety system failed

by jjk166 4y ago

How are you supposed to know ahead of time that a place is unsafe? Cabada should have been perfectly safe where they were, but at least one safety system failed. Ultimately you can never completely eliminate danger, at best you can reduce risk below some rational threshold for failure modes you are already aware of. And self flagellation after an accident does nothing to improve safety. Worse, it feels like you're doing something when you're not. Further, doing so right away leads to kneejerk reactions which might feel like an improvement but which are poorly suited for actually addressing the problem. The proper approach is to methodically investigate the issue, figure out what went wrong, and make appropriate, actionable changes. There is absolutely no reason to make a public announcement at any point in the process - safety is not a PR tactic.

masklinn 4y ago
> How are you supposed to know ahead of time that a place is unsafe? Cabada should have been perfectly safe where they were, but at least one safety system failed. Any potentially unsafe location should be behind a LOTO / safety interlock, and you should not be able to access it without locking it.
- jjk166 4y ago
  All locations are potentially unsafe locations. An interlock prevents people from being in a place they aren't supposed to be, it does nothing for when something goes wrong in a place you are supposed to be. You can take precautions to reduce the odds of something bad happening at the place you are supposed to be, but there's always something else that can go wrong.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > All locations are potentially unsafe locations. You’re not even going to pretend being honest about this uh? > An interlock prevents people from being in a place they aren't supposed to be, it does nothing for when something goes wrong in a place you are supposed to be. What sort of nonsense is that? The point of an interlock is to keep the place where you’re supposed to be safe for as long as you’re there. And stop you from being there if it’s unsafe. > there's always something else that can go wrong. Yeah sure a volcano could explode from below your desk. Whatever.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      > Yeah sure a volcano could explode from below your desk. Whatever. It seems you're the one not even pretending to be honest here. Obviously we are talking here about the sort of potentially dangerous work where there are serious risks to begin with. > The point of an interlock is to keep the place where you’re supposed to be safe for as long as you’re there. And stop you from being there if it’s unsafe. How would an interlock keep the place you are supposed to be safe? An interlock just stops something from running when its activated. When you shut down something to go inside for maintenance or whatever, an interlock stops someone from accidentally turning it on while you're inside. But when you're not inside and something is supposed to be running, the interlock is not going to do anything to contain a mechanical failure. Imagine someone photographing sharks. They're in a shark cage to protect them. Compared to outside of the cage, they are relatively safe. An interlock might ensure that they are indeed inside the cage before a bucket of chum is dumped to attract sharks. But an interlock does nothing to protect them from a failure of the cage - maybe due to poor maintenance part of it rusted, or perhaps there was a defect with some of the welding to begin with - as far as anyone is aware, the photographers are in a "safe" place but really they're not.
krisoft 4y ago
> How are you supposed to know ahead of time that a place is unsafe? I’m not even sure if you are asking this seriously. You make a safety assesment. People who do this kind of engineering task go through the systems methodically and they write up the dangers, hazards and the mitigations. This is not some kind of new unheard of physics. This is not Gordon Freeman pushing an unusual crystal into an anti-mass spectrometer which results in headcrabs eating everyone who doesn’t have a crowbar. High pressure systems, cryogenics, flamable gasses and liquids all have known hazards and with proper systems and procedures they all can be mitigated. > Cabada should have been perfectly safe where they were, but at least one safety system failed. I’m working from a very limited set of information but the article states he should not have been where he was during a test. If that is true we have processes to mitigate that risk. (Lockout-tagout) That is pretty standard really. > The proper approach is to methodically investigate the issue, figure out what went wrong, and make appropriate, actionable changes. I agree with that. > There is absolutely no reason to make a public announcement at any point in the process - safety is not a PR tactic. Sure. But not talking about incidents is a PR tactic. Asking the grieving family to remove a picture of the hurt worker which depicts him in context of his work is a PR tactic.
- jjk166 4y ago
  > I’m not even sure if you are asking this seriously. You make a safety assesment. People who do this kind of engineering task go through the systems methodically and they write up the dangers, hazards and the mitigations. There is a fundamental difference between "we have assessed the risk and here it is below some threshold where we are confident that no further safety measures are required" and "this place is safe, no accidents can happen here." > Cabada, a ten-year veteran at the company, shouldn’t have been near the valve when it hit maximum pressure, according to people with knowledge of the accident, *but it ramped up faster than expected, blowing a shield off the valve* and knocking him unconscious. A lockout would have done nothing. The test didn't start early, the test went wrong, and a place that was supposed to be safe at the time suddenly wasn't. The fact a safety shield blew off means they recognized that they went through the effort of identifying potential safety issues and implementing safeguards, but those safeguards were inadequate. > Asking the grieving family to remove a picture of the hurt worker which depicts him in context of his work is a PR tactic. The article doesn't say that the picture change was requested by spacex, only that it occured after the start of the family's legal proceedings against the company. > But not talking about incidents is a PR tactic. I mean in the sense that anything can influence public opinion, sure. But obviously what I am saying is that you're not supposed to take safety measures to improve your image in the public sphere, you take safety measures to ensure the wellbeing of your employees. A company that is serious about safety, instead of PR, will do what is effective (ie collecting evidence and making an informed, rational decision) instead of what is popular (doing something for the sake of being seen doing something which seems sensible to a person unfamiliar with the situation - like a lockout).

by jjk166 4y ago

masklinn 4y ago

> How are you supposed to know ahead of time that a place is unsafe? Cabada should have been perfectly safe where they were, but at least one safety system failed. Any potentially unsafe location should be behind a LOTO / safety interlock, and you should not be able to access it without locking it.

jjk166 4y ago
All locations are potentially unsafe locations. An interlock prevents people from being in a place they aren't supposed to be, it does nothing for when something goes wrong in a place you are supposed to be. You can take precautions to reduce the odds of something bad happening at the place you are supposed to be, but there's always something else that can go wrong.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > All locations are potentially unsafe locations. You’re not even going to pretend being honest about this uh? > An interlock prevents people from being in a place they aren't supposed to be, it does nothing for when something goes wrong in a place you are supposed to be. What sort of nonsense is that? The point of an interlock is to keep the place where you’re supposed to be safe for as long as you’re there. And stop you from being there if it’s unsafe. > there's always something else that can go wrong. Yeah sure a volcano could explode from below your desk. Whatever.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    > Yeah sure a volcano could explode from below your desk. Whatever. It seems you're the one not even pretending to be honest here. Obviously we are talking here about the sort of potentially dangerous work where there are serious risks to begin with. > The point of an interlock is to keep the place where you’re supposed to be safe for as long as you’re there. And stop you from being there if it’s unsafe. How would an interlock keep the place you are supposed to be safe? An interlock just stops something from running when its activated. When you shut down something to go inside for maintenance or whatever, an interlock stops someone from accidentally turning it on while you're inside. But when you're not inside and something is supposed to be running, the interlock is not going to do anything to contain a mechanical failure. Imagine someone photographing sharks. They're in a shark cage to protect them. Compared to outside of the cage, they are relatively safe. An interlock might ensure that they are indeed inside the cage before a bucket of chum is dumped to attract sharks. But an interlock does nothing to protect them from a failure of the cage - maybe due to poor maintenance part of it rusted, or perhaps there was a defect with some of the welding to begin with - as far as anyone is aware, the photographers are in a "safe" place but really they're not.

krisoft 4y ago

> How are you supposed to know ahead of time that a place is unsafe? I’m not even sure if you are asking this seriously. You make a safety assesment. People who do this kind of engineering task go through the systems methodically and they write up the dangers, hazards and the mitigations. This is not some kind of new unheard of physics. This is not Gordon Freeman pushing an unusual crystal into an anti-mass spectrometer which results in headcrabs eating everyone who doesn’t have a crowbar. High pressure systems, cryogenics, flamable gasses and liquids all have known hazards and with proper systems and procedures they all can be mitigated. > Cabada should have been perfectly safe where they were, but at least one safety system failed. I’m working from a very limited set of information but the article states he should not have been where he was during a test. If that is true we have processes to mitigate that risk. (Lockout-tagout) That is pretty standard really. > The proper approach is to methodically investigate the issue, figure out what went wrong, and make appropriate, actionable changes. I agree with that. > There is absolutely no reason to make a public announcement at any point in the process - safety is not a PR tactic. Sure. But not talking about incidents is a PR tactic. Asking the grieving family to remove a picture of the hurt worker which depicts him in context of his work is a PR tactic.

jjk166 4y ago
> I’m not even sure if you are asking this seriously. You make a safety assesment. People who do this kind of engineering task go through the systems methodically and they write up the dangers, hazards and the mitigations. There is a fundamental difference between "we have assessed the risk and here it is below some threshold where we are confident that no further safety measures are required" and "this place is safe, no accidents can happen here." > Cabada, a ten-year veteran at the company, shouldn’t have been near the valve when it hit maximum pressure, according to people with knowledge of the accident, *but it ramped up faster than expected, blowing a shield off the valve* and knocking him unconscious. A lockout would have done nothing. The test didn't start early, the test went wrong, and a place that was supposed to be safe at the time suddenly wasn't. The fact a safety shield blew off means they recognized that they went through the effort of identifying potential safety issues and implementing safeguards, but those safeguards were inadequate. > Asking the grieving family to remove a picture of the hurt worker which depicts him in context of his work is a PR tactic. The article doesn't say that the picture change was requested by spacex, only that it occured after the start of the family's legal proceedings against the company. > But not talking about incidents is a PR tactic. I mean in the sense that anything can influence public opinion, sure. But obviously what I am saying is that you're not supposed to take safety measures to improve your image in the public sphere, you take safety measures to ensure the wellbeing of your employees. A company that is serious about safety, instead of PR, will do what is effective (ie collecting evidence and making an informed, rational decision) instead of what is popular (doing something for the sake of being seen doing something which seems sensible to a person unfamiliar with the situation - like a lockout).