Remember when?

[wtdoor67]

I can remember doing hot bucket work with a 4 man crew. Usually 2 Journeymen, a working foreman and usually an apprentice. The 2 glovers worked the primary and the foreman gave his "undivided attention", while the apprentice stood ready to send up something on the handline.

Eventually in the interest of smaller crews it became maybe 2 Journeymen and the Foreman. In the interest of cheaper crews it became 1 Journeyman, 1 W.Foreman and an apprentice. The hot work would then be done by the Foreman and the Journeyman while the apprentice had to stay on the ground. However the apprentice had to be a qualified pole top rescue and CPR person. Now there was some controversy as to what step the apprentice had to be. At some levels apprentices cannot be in the zone of primary. I can't remember what the final ruling was on that but anyway it continued on.

Eventually came the concept of a 2 man " crew". I can remember when the one man in the bucket on primary stuff started showing up. For awhile the rule was 2 men to work primary and then eventually it was decided on "simple" stuff like changing an arrester, insulator etc. that one man would suffice. Now there are plenty of people who could work alone for a hundred years and never have a mishap but some can't. How do you eliminate those who can't? I believe we are seeing some unfortunate ways some are eliminated. Bad luck? Maybe.

Looking at it objectively you can see that the old 4 man crew has been cut to a 2 man "crew". That's cutting your workforce by 1/2. Pretty good cut.

Of course there's the old strategy. "Well if it's something that needs it we'll just put 2 crews together". Maybe.

You take a workforce of Line crews that have been cut by 1/2 and then tax them further by increasing their work loads then you increase the possibility of accidents. By decreasing the amount of people you train to fill these small crews then you decrease the amount of people you get to look at and decide if these hands can cut it. Eventually you pass people on through who maybe should have been culled. Then you have a recipe for a good amount of accidents. Buckets are a blessing and a curse. I believe many people rely on them to the point of becoming pretty careless.

Need a good bean counter to put some numbers together.

Now them non-union Texas boys. They believe it is more macho to work primary alone. I worked with a few of them and one would almost act insulted if you climbed the pole to give him a hand. They need a change of attitude. Or better education, I don't know.

Add on case in point?

Recently talked to an AEP employee in Ok. The accident involving the man who got in series with a capacitor in Ohio.The cutouts were mounted on an arm underneath the top arm. 3 phase tangent pole. The task was to replace one cutout. The reason the man was up without rubbers and sleeves was the intention to kill everything out. 2 MAN "CREW". The injured employee was intending to lift off the jumpers to the top of the cutouts with a shotgun and then proceed. He evidently forgot to kill the top of the cutouts. I asked why his buddy on the ground didn't warn him. His buddy on the ground wasn't watching because he was assembling the new cutout. Now the man on the ground will be eat up with guilt and the injured man (if he lives) will be maimed the rest of his life. 2 people injured in essence. 2 MAN "CREW". What a joke.

AEP over reaction. Immediately a rule has been instituted. Henceforth, no matter how simple the job on a pole, all foreign entities will be covered with line hose. All telephone messengers and cable etc. All TV messengers and cable etc. No longer can a phase be covered with a line hose and laid on the arm, it must in addition have a rubber blanket beneath it. No phase can be line hosed and laid on the bucket. It must be hosed and caught on the jib with an insulated stick. This man said they calculated that to change an insulator would require approximately 47 pieces of rubber. The fact that the tel. cable and tv cable is of the same potential as the pole seems to make no difference. To me the basic flaw here is the use of a 2 man crew. Of about 3 accidents I have heard of lately, 2 have involved 2 man crews. GO AEP!

[grizzlybuck]

When I started in this line of work, I was told that the safety manual was written in blood, as most of the rules in there were there because someone was hurt or killed. Nowadays though, it seems when someone is hurt, instead of looking at whether a rule was broken, intentionally or not, someone wants to just make up more rules.

In a lot of the accidents happening lately, there was a step missed that caused a rule to be broken. I think that the safety groups should look at why a step was missed (i.e. not lifting the top side from a cutout before attempting to take off the bottom side) instead of just making up new rules. I am a member of a company sponsored safety commitee and our group, including Linemen, engineers, supervisors, garage superintendants, safety coordinator and a district manager went over some of the recent accidents. The whole group talked about how maybe the qualified observer rule should be expanded to those steps that are critical to the job, like lifting the tap to deenergize something, and that the guy on the ground should watch instead of doing groundwork until these steps are completed.

I brought up what about single man trucks who, working within the rules, will at times change out a cutout by themselves or occassionally close a N.O. transformer on URD if conditions are felt to be safe, I was looked at like I had two heads, I don't know whether they aren't aware that these things happen or were seeing dollar signs in their head at needing two trucks on more jobs.

It is a lot easier to just create new rules and procedures instead of looking at the root causes of these accidents. I guess we will just continue to hear the old stale response, "if you need more help then just ask for it."

[old lineman]

This may sound stupid to the younger set, but when I started in this business the only place you would find hydraulic fluid was in an automotive store for a Cadillac transmission (I think). We never saw any anyhow.
We were paid twice a month and the monthly salary was $175.00.
Now that's almost 2 tanks of gas.
Enough already!
It's interesting that the previous posts talk about the creation of new rules following an accident.
I learned over the years that the easiest thing to do in an accident investigation is to look at the events leading up to the accident and say, "well you didn't do this or that".
Then out comes the rule.
We were taught in accident investigation techniques that you must look back farther (deep) than immediate cause to find ROOT cause. Many times training was insufficient, supervisors weren't supervising, inadequate tools were available or new tools had been given to the crew without instruction by a knowledgeable company representative.
That takes time and time is money for the bean counters. Overstress the tool and break it and we'll replace it and give somebody crap.
I ended up in the role of rule maker at one point and am proud to say that in 25 years I can only remember making about 4 new rules.
1. If you can't see (daytime) get out of the bucket before ever moving the truck (from one pole to the next).
2. Wear fall protection 100% of the time when working above grade.
3. Wear FR clothing when working in an area where the possibility of an electrical flash could occur.
4. You must be trained in an approved method of rescue and have the necessary equipment readily available, know first aid and CPR if you are working on or near energized equipment.
Today AED'S should be the standard and there is a slow laborous movement in that direction, finally.
We don't need more rules, just better training and (qualified) supervisors supervising.
There always has to be a consequence to a rule violators risk taking. A supervisor who wants to be everybody's friend is burning the stick at both ends. It's a lose-lose situation being created.
The Old Lineman

[mainline]

I'm not trying to start anything with his post, but my utility has gloved with two men for the eleven years I have been around. I can't recall a single incident that came out of having that crew compliment. We have had two fatalities in the past 15 years. Neither was related to two man crews, one of them was from lineman working with unqualified ground help and making poor decisions. So yes, there should be a minimum number of people to back each other up, but are four or five people really necessary for a straight line pole transfer. If there is that much of a concern about the ability of certain lineman to work alone isn't it the duty of the company to identify them, and provide additional training, or if they can't perform to the duties necessary, to reassign them to a job more fitting there skills. If this is your companies policy and it works that is great, because extra help can always be useful, but I don't know if it is really necessary. What ever your crew compliments work safe.

[mainline]

By the way, Old Lineman, you sound like a person I would have loved to have the opportunity to work under.