1 row is stored for this page
| Field | Field type | Value |
|---|
| _modificationDate | Datetime | 2024-10-22 5:37:01 PM |
| _categories | List of String, delimiter: | | MadeSafe audit • Questions • Safety |
| _lastEditor | String | Ttenbergen |
| _pageID | Integer | 883 |
| _pageName | Page | North Forge:LOTO |
| _pageTitle | String | LOTO
|
| _pageNamespace | Integer | 4 |
2 rows are stored for this page
| Field | Field type | Value |
|---|
| who | Text | all |
| question | Wikitext | - The stuff on this page is not built yet, but I plan to put it together this week, so talk to me ASAP if you don't want it this way. Ttenbergen (talk) 22:31, 2024 October 13 (CDT)
|
| Field | Field type | Value |
|---|
| who | Text | all |
| question | Wikitext | John
- I just had a look at both the general concept of LOTO and our submission for it. I have misunderstood it a bit, I thought it was what workers need to do to flag broken and dangerous equipment to stop others from using it. It now sounds like it is really only a maintenance related concept. We still need the member lockout process but we might need two different concepts and sets of instructions. Thoughts? Ttenbergen (talk) 15:50, 2024 October 21 (CDT)
- I knew of the other context for it, where you're trying to prevent others from activating the equipment when you're working on it and injuring you, but still used the same term for both types. All equipment would need procedures to temporarily disable a tool. Would we only need the stricter LOTO procedure for larger equipment? Someone wouldn't be able to turn on any small equipment while you're working on it directly... John Hache ([[User talk[John Hache|talk]]) 19:25, 2024 October 21 (CDT)
- A lot of the current instructions require the lockout kits Jeff and I have, so we would need to tweak these for the user lockout since they would not have those.
|
