Sunday, 29 January 2012
precaution in hot days
PRECAUTION
ON HOT DAYS (SUMMER)
KHAIRUL ISLAM
IN SUMMER DAYS ENVIRONMENT
IS BEING VERY HOT, AT THIS TIME EVERYONE NEED PRECAUTION. THE DRIVERS AND THE
VEHICLE NEED MORE PRECAUTION BECAUSE THEY SPEND MAXIMUM TIME ON THE ROAD.
DRIVERS SHOULD CHECK FOR THESE :-
1.CHECK RADIATOR (
RADIATOR SHOULD BE IN GOOD CONDITION)
2. CHECK HOSE PIPES ( HOSE PIPES MADE BY RUBBER FROM HEAT
IT MAY BE CRACK OR LEAK)
3. CHECK FANBELT ( FANBELT SHOULD BE IN PROPER TENSION)
4. CHECK COOLANT ( COOLANT SHOULD BE PROPER FILLED IN
RADIATOR)
5. CHECK TYRES ( TYRES SHOULD BE IN GOOD CONDITION AND TYRE PRESSURE TO BE
MAINTAINED)
6. CHECK ENGINE OIL (ENGINE OIL SHOULD BE CHANGE ON TIME)
7. KEEP AN EYE ON TEMPRATURE GAUGE IF THE NEEDLE
IS NEAR RED LINE THEN STOP DRIVING AND SPLASH COLD WATER ON RADIATOR.
8. DRIVE AT LOWER
SPEED.
9. DO NOT DRIVE WITHIN 2:00 PM TO 4:00 PM.
10. DRINK MORE WATER
ALSO CAN BE USED GLUCOSE.
11. DO NOT DO
CONTINOUS DRIVING AFTER 1 HOUR DRIVING TAKE MINIMUM 15 MIN. BRAKE.
12. PARK THE VEHICLE
ON SHADED PLACE.
THESE ARE OUR
OBSERVATION.
KHAIRUL ISLAM
H.S.S.E.
sharing the experance
INCIDENT: - Cat
-3, HMV incident near Mumbai
TYPE OF INCIDENT: Roll over
BUSINESS UNIT: Global Lubricants Supply Chain India
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: 66
KMS from SW of Murtajapur, Maharashtra
State (about 550 KM from
Mumbai)
DATE OF INCIDENT: 10th May, 2010
Incident time- 20.45 hours
BRIEF ACCOUNT OF INCIDENT:
A 16 tonner contractor truck (under influence only), carrying
finished lubricants packed goods from our Mumbai Central warehouse to our
Kolkata warehouse rolled over to its side near Murtajapur ( about 550 Kms from
Mumbai)
The incident occurred on a National Highway (NH -6) single carriage
dual lane with no shoulders or dividers, when a state transport bus while
overtaking came on the way of contractor truck and pushed him to his side
resulting in a roll over of contractor vehicle.
State transport bus came on the way of contractor truck as he was
obstructed by a trailer which was coming from the opposite side with single
head light on (cock eyed). The oncoming
vehicle had its left side (driver Assistant) single light was on.
No injuries to the contractor driver or to the assistant. .
Both the bus & the trailer had pursued their journey without
halting.
The contractor vehicle front tyre (driver assistant side) was busted
post the roll over.
The speed of the
vehicle captured in GPS was 43 KM/Hr at the time of incident.
Driver:
Driver Name- Addya Yadav (Module -4 trained (14/07/2008))
Age - 38 years.
From the records, it was observed that this driver had driven in our
operations at least two dozen times since 2009 and quite familiar to this route
with a fair record of safe driving principles.
Driver had reached our depot on 8th of May and had to wait for his load.
On 9th May – driven for 9 hours 36 minutes and covered a distance of
340 kms. He stopped his travel at 20.45 hours
On 10th May – driven for 8 hrs 10 minutes (before the incident) and
travelled about 220 kms. He begun his
journey at 7.45 am
He propose to stop in another
20 kms of distance which would have taken 30 to 45 minutes.
Driver had reached Mumbai from Kolkata on 3rd of May since then has
been in Mumbai and had done one local movement for Castrol.
Post the incident - eye test was done to the driver and report was
shared. He had perfect vision (6/6).
The incident was communicated by the driver to their operational in
charge around 22.30 hrs from the nearest local public telephone service.
Key Observations
Width of the road is 7.6 mtrs (24.92 feet). The width of the
contractor truck is 3.4 metres (11.15 feet), while the bus which was overtaking
the truck is also of same width. The length of contractor truck is 24 feet
while the bus which was trying to over take the truck is about 28 feet ( a similar
bus measurement was taken).
The oncoming vehicle (trailer) was 30 feet with a width of 3.4 feet
(based on the input given by the driver, measurement of similar vehicle was
considered).
The distance between the trailer truck & the bus was about 500 metres
when the bus came on the way of contractor truck to pave way for the oncoming
vehicle.
Contractor driver was driving on his side of the road (extreme
left), while the private bus which had to overtake him had to go to the other side
(oncoming vehicle side) to overtake the contractor vehicle.
A late reaction from both the vehicle (contractor driver and bus
driver) on recognizing the risk of the
oncoming vehicle led to the compulsive action by the bus driver , pushing the
contractor to go further left on the soft shoulder and rolled over to its side
of about 1.5 feet depth.
As per our journey risk assessment, the said location was a green
zone and the speed of the contractor driver was well below the recommended speed limit. The
weather conditions were very hot and dry.
No brake marks observed on the accident spot. From the GPS report,
it was observed that there was an attempt made by the contractor driver to
reduce the speed.
The contractor vehicle was under the maintenance of OE manufacturer.
The tyre burst was shared by the tyre manufacturer post the vehicle rolled
over.
WHAT WENT WELL
- Seat Belts were worn by the driver & his assistant
- Transport contractor ‘s active participation in providing assistance and collating the details
WHAT WENT WRONG
(CRITICAL FACTORS) :
- CF1 – malfunctioning of head lights (just one light was functioning) of the oncoming vehicle
- CF2- the bus overtaking the contractor vehicle and coming on the way of the contractor truck
SUMMARY OF IMMEDIATE
CAUSES:
|
CLC Ref No.
|
Description
|
Comment
|
|
2.3
|
Use of equipment of vehicle with known defect
|
The oncoming trailer vehicle head lights
were not functioning. It had just one light (on the driver assistant side)
was on, which had mislead both the private bus and contractor vehicle driver
were mislead.
|
System Causes (Organisational factors that allowed the immediate cause to exist)
|
CLC Ref No.
|
Description
|
Comment
|
|
11.7
|
Incorrect judgement
|
The oncoming vehicle with single light on had mislead the
contractor driver to a two wheeler,
hence did not try to adopt any evasive actions
|
|
14.2
|
Practice of skill not effective
|
Driver is adequately trained and have
been operating for Castrol for considerable period, yet have not perceived
the risk and reduced his speed
|
|
16.7
|
Lessons learned not embedded
|
Driver was aware of similar incidents
that had taken on Castrol operations
and yet failed to adopt
the learnings.
|
sharing the experiance
|
TYPE OF INCIDENT: Head on Collision
BUSINESS UNIT: Global Lubricants Supply Chain India
LOCATION OF INCIDENT: Allahabad
By pass (about 40 Kms) - 450 Kms from Kolkata
DATE OF INCIDENT:
21st May, 2010
Incident time-
13.00 hours
BRIEF ACCOUNT OF INCIDENT:
A contractor truck (Non Dedicated - under influence) carrying
finished goods from our Regional Warehouse at Kolkata to our Kanpur
warehouse met with an incident near Allahabad.
The driver side of the contractor truck
collided with oncoming truck.
Driver Assistant is safe while the
contractor driver fractured his right foot. The driver is still in hospital at
the time of this report thus classified as cat 3 DAFWC (severity level F).
The front cabin of the contractor truck
was damaged. The contract vehicle had to be towed away from the incident spot.
No damage to the material or no spill
reported. The material was transhipped to an other truck and reached the
destination.
Oncoming truck driver had fled from the
scene.
.
Driver:
Driver Name- Rajesh Prasad Yadav` (Module -3 trained drivers (29/03/2010))
Age- 32 years. Driver has been operating since August
2009.
From the records, it was observed that
this driver has been frequent traveller on this route and have demonstrated adequate
safe driving behaviour in his earlier trips. Driver has done at least 18 trips
since its inception and completely in line with safe behavioural practices on
14 trips. The other 4 trips where few instances of deceleration were observed.
The driver was engaged through training consultant on the same.
Driver had reached our depot on 18th
of May, 2010 Night.
19th may – left from our
Regional Distribution Centre (Kolkata) around 18.33 hrs, travelled 116 Kms and
stopped around 21.24 hrs.
Resumed Journey on 20th May at
6.10 AM- travelled around 400 KMS in10 hours 30 minutes
Resumed journey on 21st may at
6.23 AM, travelled around192 kms in 4 hours 20 minutes before the incident had
taken place.
Driver had multiple fractures on his right
leg and under medical treatment till this report been furnished. He is still in
the state of recovery and could not recall the incident.
Key facts
National Highway no 2 was concrete and
well laid out two way dual lane with proper shoulders and dividers.
However for some repair work, one side of
the dual lane (which was the lane suppose to have been taken by our contractor
vehicle) was closed for the last two months. Hence all the vehicles that are
travelling to Kanpur
had to use the opposite lane (hence it is temporarily single lane dual carriage
with no dividers).
The road has been blocked at least 3 kms
ahead and has a traffic density of 40-50 vehicles per minute around incident
time. Most of the vehicles are Heavy Vehicles and Light vehicles and with an
average speed of trucks about 60KMS per /hr, while car are at 100 kms/hr and
two wheelers are around 80 kms/per hr.. The road for the oncoming vehicle has a
natural curve (toward left) about 300 metres from the incident spot.
Just about the curve on left for the
oncoming vehicle has a dhaba( Highway Restaurants) where few heavy vehicles
were always parked blocking the way of moving vehicles, which normally let the
vehicles to move toward the centre or on the second lane ( which is currently
meant for the vehicle of opposite direction)
Width of operational lane is 30 feet (98.4
metres). The width of the contractor truck is 8.25 feet (27.06 metres), while oncoming
third party vehicle is 7.4 feet (24.27 metres).
About 2.5 feet each have been earmarked (with proper lines) for two
wheelers movement on either side.
The incident occurred at least two metres
within the lane of our contractor vehicle, while the collided oncoming vehicle
was very much into the side of the contractor vehicle. The oncoming vehicle was
a speed of 55 – 60 kms as per witness. No brake marks were observed at the
incident spot.
The oncoming vehicle while overtaking
another truck came on the lane of contractor truck and collided head on,
Post the incident the driver of the
vehicle went into the tea shop near by and subsequently fled off. Third party vehicle had also to be towed from
the incident spot. However since it is a local vehicle could get moved from the
spot immediately.
As per the information of tea shop owner
(witness), the driver of the oncoming vehicle was inebriated condition.
The same has been conveyed in the local
report with the police.
The oncoming vehicle was for local
commutation between Government Food corporation centre and its retails outlets.
Post the incident, when the injured driver
was taken for medical support, documents, cash, GPS which were kept on the
vehicle was stolen. Hence last minute date could not be captured to corroborate
the incident. The speed captured around
the time of incident was 55 kms per hour
WHAT
WENT WELL
¨
Seat Belts were worn by the driver & his
assistant
¨
Steel cabin of the truck ( protected the driver)
¨
Transport contractor ‘s active participation in
providing assistance and collating the details
WHAT
WENT WRONG (CRITICAL FACTORS):
CF1 – contractor vehicle travelling closer to the middle
lane of the road.
CF2- oncoming vehicle getting into the lane of
contractor vehicle.
SUMMARY
OF IMMEDIATE CAUSES:
|
CLC
Ref No.
|
Description
|
Comment
|
|
2.5
|
Improper placement of equipment
|
Both contractor driver and third party
driver had positioned their vehicle in potentially hazardous positions.
|
|
2.6
|
Operation of vehicle at improper speed
|
Both the vehicles were at an
inappropriate speed to avert or mitigate the risk
|
SUMMARY
OF IMMEDIATE CAUSES:
System Causes (Organisational
factors that allowed the immediate cause to exist)
|
CLC
Ref No.
|
Description
|
Comment
|
|
14.2
|
Practice of skill not effective
|
Although the contractor driver is
well trained at the time of incident, he did not choose an appropriate course
of action. ( appropriate side of the
road)
|
|
11.7
|
Incorrect judgement
|
The contractor driver did not
perceive the risk and perhaps not taken any effort to mitigate the risks.
|
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)