Ageing workforce
Download
1 / 23

Ageing workforce? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 60 Views
  • Uploaded on

Ageing workforce?. “ Likely to cause ” …. …a difference of opinion? Howard Watson. Stating the obvious?. History. 1994 Railtrack Safety & Standards Directorate 2001 Hatfield accident – RSSB formed RSSB controlled by railway stakeholders Many Railway Group Standards

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Ageing workforce?' - blaze-franks


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Likely to cause

Likely to cause” …

…a difference of opinion?

Howard Watson



History
History

  • 1994 Railtrack Safety & Standards Directorate

  • 2001 Hatfield accident – RSSB formed

  • RSSB controlled by railway stakeholders

  • Many Railway Group Standards

  • Strategy for standards management

    • Devolve

    • Concentrate on “interfaces”




General health requirement
General health requirement

  • Unchanged

  • No medical condition “likely to cause…”

  • Non-prescriptive

  • Future-proof

  • Allow evolution of guidance

  • Problems

    • Fragmented OH

    • Risk averse culture


Acceptable risk for the railway
Acceptable risk for the railway?

  • CAA 1%

  • DVLA

    • Group 1 20%

    • Group 2 2%

  • RSSB research project T663

    • “Managing the risk associated with incapacity in safety critical occupations”


T663

  • Consultations

  • UK data

  • International and intermodal comparisons

  • Event tree analysis


Event tree
Event tree

  • Onset of unavoidable impairment

  • Engaged in safety critical task

  • Engineering controls unable to prevent

  • Hazardous event

  • Fatality/weighted injury

  • Current rate of FWI


Assumptions
Assumptions

  • Fatality / weighted injury (FWI)

    • Tolerated = tolerable?

  • RSSB risk model: 125 types of hazardous event

    • Not all have human precursor

    • Probability of FWI estimated

  • Human Error v medial impairment

    • 2% due to medical impairment


Results
Results

  • Driver – 43%

  • Signaller 16%

  • Track worker 15%

  • Crossing keeper 4%

  • PICOP 0.4%

  • Acceptable risk to system safety only


Implications for train driving
Implications for train driving

  • “F1: FIT NORMAL DUTIES”

  • 43% annual risk of incapacity?

    • 68% chance of an event in 2 years

    • 94% chance of an event within 5 years?

  • Would a TOC be happy?


Train driver additional considerations for employer
Train driver:additional considerations for employer

  • Safety of the driver - lone worker

  • Service interruption

    • Safety of passengers and other staff

    • Compensation to customers

    • Reputational damage to TOC

  • Network disruption

    • Delay penalties

    • Reputational damage to Rail


Inquiry begins into train ordeal
Inquiry begins into train ordeal

Train company GNER has launched an inquiry into how hundreds of passengers became stranded for hours in stifling heat due to a power failure.

Some travellers broke carriage windows to escape temperatures of over 37C on its 1555 BST Newcastle to London Kings Cross service on Thursday evening.


Acceptable risk to toc
Acceptable risk to TOC?

  • Likelihood of event in 5 years

    • “unlikely” (<50%)?

    • 5% (CAA)?

    • In between?

  • TOC view?

  • “UK rail” view?

    • Mutual interest?


Australian standards
Australian Standards

New draft 2011

Category 1 SCW

5 yr risk >25% – unfit

<5% - fit

5-24% risk assessment (split at 10%)

“Fit subject to review”

UK DVLA

5 year risks:

Group I – 66%

Group II – 9%


Suggestion
Suggestion

Fails group I – unfit.

Meets group II – fit’

In between = risk assessment

  • OH: risk of relevant impairment; suggested controls

  • Operator: ?safe system of work

  • Fit with limitations



Case

  • Freight Train Driver, 4 months post MI

    • Well

    • Inferior infarct

    • 2 vessels stented

    • Moderate LV impairment

    • No ETT

    • Diabetic type 2

    • Probably still smoking


Relevant requirements
Relevant requirements

DVLA II

Australia

4/52 post-MI

Exercise test

Repeat 2 yearly

  • 6/52 post-MI

  • Exercise test

  • Repeat 3 yearly


Consensus
Consensus?

  • Fitness category?

  • Further information?

  • Drive meantime?

  • Future management?

    • Review frequency?



ad