presentation and domandina on ftc

[Paolo118]

Good evening, everyone.

First of all I introduce myself: I am an aerospace engineer (three-year degree) and, while waiting to take the specialist, I work as a designer for a mechanical construction firm.

and now the domandina on the ftc.

I pray that you will certainly have already answered questions like mine and hope not to ted too much, but for me every answer will be left out of heaven.

we build automatic machines in general, in the sense that we do it at the request of the customer. I'm not signing projects.
being a small company, I also manage the editing of manuals of use and maintenance.

I would like to ask the Commission to make a statement on this.

I would not be able to do this now, but I would still be able to deal with all the training needed to be able to learn to do so.

but the real question is another: Figured as a person who writes the technical file and taking into account the possibility (or certainty) that at least the first ftc will contain some error and/or inaccuracies, my question is: as an editor, what risk civilly/penally if the ftc is not perfectly drafted?

I know, it's a question you have answered a thousand times, but put yourself in my shoes: on the one hand I'm stimulated to acquire the ability and skills, over time, to draft a good ftc, but on the other I'm a little scared by the consequences.

In a few days, I expect them to ask me whether or not I would like to draw up the ftc and I would neither risk losing an opportunity of professional growth for too much paranoia, but not accept without reflecting on any consequences.

thanking you for reading here and some, I hope many, answers, I greet you.

 

[cesius79]

Hello Paul, welcome.
I think you're in an iron barrel... if you don't sign projects the civil/penal responsibilities are all of the company, it's she who has to take advantage of the right staff and she has the responsibility.
This is what I think of course...

 

[gerod]

Let's make some clarity.
the machine directive defines as responsible who signs the declaration of conformity. It's the manufacturer who's responding.
the ftc you will have to do is partly already done (draws, patterns, etc.) generally exist already.
you miss the risk assessment and the editing of the manual. Give an eye to the list of the directive to understand what it takes.

I agree with cesius79. the eye that there is also the unique text (d.lgs. 81/08) and therefore also the designers respond for what competes to the designer. It is obvious that the designer is responsible according to the employee's qualification, so the responsibility is there but is to be quantified.
I hope I have clarified
a greeting

 

[pollo]

I, if I were you, would ask your employer whether to train you properly (look at the courses you find on the net, which are often drafts), or to entrust the first drafting of the ft to an expert in the field (but one of the good and serious ones), from which you can understand the system.
Of course, every car will be on its own, but having a good example from which to leave is not bad.
responsibility there are (think if you do an analysis of the wrong risks and one then it hurts because you did not reduce one - it is like wrong to calculate a particular): must be evaluated according to your frame.

 

[Paolo118]

That's the kind of risk I'm afraid, but I'm still confused now... who says I'm not risking anything, who's risking. .

My sister, Counselor, tells me there's no risk to me, but it's not in the industry. .

As far as training is concerned, I would have thought to propose to my principal something like this:

1- enter into the contract with the trainer also a kind of "assistance", or the possibility to submit to his assessment and correction the first 5-6 ftc drafted by me;

2- I would also ask not to appear as editor of the file (though physically I do) for these first 5-6 ftc.

Do you have any sensible demands?

As regards the paneling, they are employed as technical staff of 5th liv. metalmechanical.

suggestions? clarifications?

Thanks again to everyone!

 

[pollo]

I don't know what you're looking for (I've never worried about it, since I've always done just the free profession in the first person), but you'll surely understand where you're covered.
It seems to me sensible how you planned to propose to your dl: be aware that everything would be to its advantage (however the chief manager remains in any case). you may also agree to sign the ft, provided that the expert is reviewed (that your boss would pay less, do ut des): It's still an investment. nothing would prevent you from carrying out a review of the documentation if you noticed errors: Obviously they should not be such as to involve a revision of the machine (and here you must ensure the correction of the expert).
hello and good luck
ps: risks as far as you are responsible: If your construction falls, and you're responsible for the calculation, the blowy disaster investigation you get, as well as the manufacturer. If you've computed well, get out clean, but if you've hurt. .

 

[gerod]

I fully agree with chicken.
just to make sense of what you are discussing (from the single text):

Article 22
design obligations
1. designers of workplaces and plants respect the general principles of occupational health and safety prevention at the time of design and technical choices and choose equipment, components and protective devices complying with the laws and regulations on this subject.
(stop up to 6 months or fine from 1,500 to 6,000 € - art. 57, c. 1)
art. 23
obligations of manufacturers and suppliers
1. Manufacture, sale, rental and concession in use of work equipment, individual protection devices and plants not complying with the laws and regulations applicable to health and safety at work.
2. In the event of a financial lease of goods subject to conformity certification procedures, the same shall be accompanied, by the applicant, by the relevant documentation.
(the violation of Article 23 entails for manufacturers and suppliers: stop from 3 to 6 months or fine from 10.000 to 40,000 € - art. 57, c. 2)
art. 24
obligations of installers
1. installers and installers of plants, work equipment or other technical means, for their part, must comply with health and safety standards at work, as well as the instructions provided by their respective manufacturers.
(stop up to 3 months or fine from 1,200 to 5,200 € - art. 57, c. 3)

the machine directive catches the manufacturer or the machine manager. on a civil and criminal level he answers (as a rule).
then there are other laws (see single text on security but not only) which identify which people are responsible.
Hi.

 

[cesius79]

I throw it there...make a section dedicated to these types of problems just to have the clearest ideas possible? Bonaa

 

[pollo]

What kind of problems: the civil and criminal responsibilities of dependent designers? just read the contract

 

[gerod]

I don't think we need a dedicated section, then maybe we just have a couple of discussions.
I can ask the admin, but I don't want it to be too desperate.

 

[Paolo118]

summing up, if I understood correctly, regarding the ftc:

declaration of conf. ce: holder responsibility

projects and calculations : responsibilities designers

If I only deal with manual use and maintenance and risk analysis, should I be quiet if the manual is drafted as indicated in the directive and if I have analyzed all the res, is it correct?

still remaining the two proposals that I wrote just above, do you have any other suggestions on any other "conditions" to be placed or requests to be made to the owner to be able to do well and with calm conscience the ftc?

Thank you.

I know I'm repetitive and insistent. is not for poor brain, it is to be really sure to make the right choice; thanks also for patience... )

 

[gerod]

declaration of conf. ce: holder responsibility

no, of the person indicated to sign the ddc (it is not said that it is the holder, could also be a third person)

projects and calculations: responsibilities designers

yes, but also of the manufacturer (he avails of qualified personnel but must check that such staff does not cable). I would say co-responsible.

If I only deal with manual use and maintenance and risk analysis, should I be quiet if the manual is drafted as indicated in the directive and if I have analyzed all the res, is it correct?

Yes, in theory because the manufacturer has to watch what you write. It is obvious that if you write a cable and he is not competent in the matter (maybe it is a commercial!) he could always break the boxes for poor commitment (always to prove) and in this case he can rival you (can not ask for damages but he could leave you at home - what unlikely - because you did not do your duty (in the end he pays you for your skills).
Hi.