compliance of manual instructions - data ispesl

[Uni_Mo]

Good morning.

from the analysis of the “sixth report on market surveillance activities carried out for products falling within the scope of the 98/37/ce machine directive” edited by thickl emerges that “almost one in four manual does not comply with directives and one out of three is the cause of mortal injury" the data is certainly underestimated also because it refers to alone results of technical checks conducted (a total of 2052 machine models).

in particular in the res “marks, markings and instructions” the points of the unrespected directive mainly concern the content of instructions for use (1.7.4), le minimal informationzioni that the instruction manual must contain (1.7.4 a)), the warnings regarding risks (1.7.2) e le noise indications aircraft produced (1.7.4 f))

I wanted to share this with you and know your impressions.

 

[gerod]

strange, I would have said that 3 out of 4 are not compliant. That 25% seems very optimistic.
thinks that point 1.7.4.f) is often by-passed and this is non-compliance.
It is a serious cause of 33% fatal injury, which means that there will certainly be other injuries (even less serious).
However around you find everything, starting from declarations of conformity absolutely wrong with norms and repealed laws. this is the level of culture of our manufacturers, not only Italian ones.
Hi.

 

[PaoloColombani]

I wanted to share this with you and know your impressions.

My personal impression is that I'm not even so surprised. Many machine builders and quasi-machine manufacturers consider technical documentation as a frill, an obstacle to be overcome more than a topic to be studied. from what I have seen it is common to fuck (inherited habit from school) and to adapt existing files.
many make this reasoning: "I couldn't cover the expenses of the prototype, let alone if I worry about technical documentation." then when production generates its economic return the question of technical documentation is now already fallen into the forgotten.

I have to do with design and support for the realization of prototypes, often in the perspective of a production but not always because some achievements can be end to themselves. I have been seeing complete and operational demands lately, so that of the documentation will be a subject that I will be forced to deal with.

 

[Uni_Mo]

strange, I would have said that 3 out of 4 are not compliant. That 25% seems very optimistic.

I think it's very optimistic.
I agree with what you say. the non-compliance of the manuals (and therefore of the machines in circulation - we remember for those who do not know that the manual is an integral part of the machine - is hypothesized, at least by the things I see around, on 80% of the cases.

It is a serious cause of 33% fatal injury, which means that there will certainly be other injuries (even less serious).

the percentage of non-fatal accidents is around 20% (always of cases established).
Unfortunately, most of the time we do manuals for customers who do not have risk analysis, which is fundamental!
other times, they don't want to put them because they say "that the car doesn't sound safe."

this is the level of culture of our manufacturers, not only Italian ones.

Yes, it is. on the other hand sometimes designers work, perhaps pressed by the prototype as they say paolo or by the other thousand things they have to do, in "emergency conditions".
or without adequate training on specific aspects of regulations and directives.

common to fuck (inherited habit from school) and to adapt existing files

very frequent to see the same errors on manuals of two competitors.

 

[Uni_Mo]

this is the level of culture of our manufacturers, not only Italian ones.

gerod, but do you think manufacturers (firstly the legal representative) know what they risk? ? ?

 

[MBT]

gerod, but do you think manufacturers (firstly the legal representative) know what they risk? ? ?

they know the same way as those who travel by car with half a bottle of merlot in the stomach
"Yes, but with all those who are there, do you want me to drink? "

 

[Uni_Mo]

they know the same way as those who travel by car with half a bottle of merlot in the stomach
"Yes, but with all those who are there, do you want me to drink? "

beautiful this!:smile:
But sometimes you get caught... and when they catch you...:redface:

What can you do from the forum?

how do you plan to open a section dedicated exclusively to directives, regulations, and related documents?
I noticed several open discussions (with convergent arguments) in several sections.. .

 

[gerod]

you can also do. But what do you mean to open a section to the directives?
a new subsection?
Type: Machinery Directive, ped ...?
Hi.

 

[Uni_Mo]

you can also do. But what do you mean to open a section to the directives?
a new subsection?
Type: Machinery Directive, ped ...?
Hi.

yes, perhaps you could open a space dedicated only to the machine directive (I think it is perhaps the most important for members - risk analysis, ft, marking procedure, declaration of conformity, manual) and perhaps another for the "minor" directives (ped, atex, electromagnetic compatibility, raee, ...).
the most useful modes (subsection or complete section) is not to me to decide it but perhaps I would give more visibility (maybe under the forum "mechanical design - general forum").
Perhaps leaving him under work and profession > general free professional forum > would not have the visibility he deserves (in the sense that not all are free professionals and perhaps in this section do not access).

 

[gerod]

Okay, I turned the request to the administrator.
Hi.

 

[Uni_Mo]

Okay, I turned the request to the administrator.
Hi.

Great!
Maybe there's a chance to launch a survey to probe users' direct opinion.
Bye!