A joint committee is merging two global machine safety standards (ISO 13849-1:2006, Safety of machinery -- Safety-related parts of control systems -- Part 1: General principles for design and IEC 62061:2005, Safety of machinery - Functional safety of safety-related electrical, electronic and programmable electronic control systems). Is this a good thing?
If a machine shop hasn't had an incident or employee injury for 10 years, is that result of an excellent safety culture or simply great luck? Are “hope” and “lack of attention” proactive business strategies?
What's the residual risk for Cat 3 hazard mitigated by a fixed steel plate? Did the repair result in a control reliable solution? Are physical barriers or control solutions better to reduce risk. Five steps define the hierarchy of measures for hazard mitigation and machine safety risk reduction.
Countries are teaming to globalize and harmonize machine safety standards. IEC and ISO standards are trending to global standards and slowly are being adopted by various countries as requirements for conformance. Is compliance becoming global?
Who really has the brain, the machine or the person? Whether it’s the operator, maintenance technician, set-up technician, engineer, or clean-up staff, the human brain has capabilities that surpass any brain on the machine.
An incremental documented process called “Risk Assessment” is required in many updated standards. And, a new standard, ANSI B11.0 – 2010, Safety of Machinery – General Requirements and Risk Assessment, is dedicated to this topic. With all this attention folks still are not clear regarding whether an engineer is essential to lead the risk assessment process.
An improved safety culture, advocated at the business level with engineering input, can bring about faster implementation of proven machine safety technologies, improving safety and adding economic value.