I would like to thank Rob Edwards Pres. of the CPMA for his respons.

Question. By Todd Bullis

Rob when is it ok to use a double end on a high rise job?

Answer. By Rob Edwards Pres of CPMA

Double ended hoses are always okay to use, EXCEPT when they're free-hanging from the boom, or when they're the last piece of lay-down hose... then they're 'tip hoses,' which by definition may only have one end.  The worry is hose whipping.  If a man gets hit by a hose whip on a double ended hose (which CAN happen on a high-rise job), the results are always more severe than with a single-ended hose, and can be deadly.  So, for example, you could connect from your boom to a double ended hose to a separately laid pipeline.  There's no danger of hose whipping there because it's attached to the pipeline.  Then, as they pull off pipes all day, there will come a point where the operator can reach the rest of the job with just the boom and one hose.  At that point, he should install a hose-whip restraining device, a 'boxing glove' over the second end, or switch to a single ended hose.  It would also be safe if nobody was allowed near the double-ended hose while he finished the job, but chances are pretty good that somebody would forget and walk towards it.

Again, the thing to remember:  What will that second steel end do in a hose-whip?  People have died.

Rob Edwards.

For those of you that don’t know, Rob Edwards is the engine behind all of those safety bulletins and well written findings on what is and what is not safe within our industry. He is, for me at least, the bottom line.

If Rob tells you that a mouse will pull a house……….. Hook him up!

Thank you for the clear, well reasoned response

As is usual for him ;~)

What is a "boxing glove"?

It is a thick piece of closed cell foam padding that is placed over the metal portion of a double ended hose.

This device mitigates the effect of the bare metal hitting an individual but does nothing for the 'weight' which in many cases is the cause of the damage.

Do you wish to learn about this game? Do you want to use a single ended tip hose?

Proximate cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For the notion of proximate cause in other disciplines, see proximate causation.

For English law, see Causation in English law

In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law, cause-in-fact and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but-for" test: but for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

[edit] But for test

A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective. The primary examples are:

• Concurrent causes. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable, even though the injury would not have happened but for the negligence of the other actor. For example, a construction worker negligently leaves the cover off a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian.
• Sufficient combined causes. Where an injury results from two separate acts of negligence, either of which would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both actors are liable. For example, two campers in different parts of the woods negligently leave their campfires unattended. A forest fire results, but the same amount of property damage would have resulted from either fire. Both campers are equally liable for all damage. A famous case establishing this principle in the United States is Corey v. Havener.^[1]
• In the United States, the rule of Summers v. Tice holds that where two parties are equally negligent, but only one causes an injury to a third party, the burden shifts to the negligent parties to prove that they were not the cause of the injury. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their shotguns in the direction of their guide, and a pellet lodged in his eye. Because it was impossible to tell which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, the court held both hunters liable

Todd,

Did you ask the same question of the ACPA?

If you did, what was their response?

ps; they may not have known what a bouble was

Yes i asked Christi

I would like to know the ACPA position on when it is ok to use double ended hoses as a tip hose on a high rise project.

Christi Collins Replied.

Thanks Todd ;~)

Now all of the members have the "real deal" on how they should act in a placing boom application.

ConcretePumping.com earned its stripes today.

No assumptions, no guesses - just FACTS ;~)

mmmm,in Todds defense I have to say getting other peoples prospective and thoughts is good.Mr Edwards views should be considered in the upper most sector of knowledge base.On the flip side,the acpa,that was to be expected.

Hey Todd,why not poise that question to a leading insurance carrier (or close).It sure would be interesting as to what there take on it is.

Way to go ACPA!!!  This is why the ACPA is a JOKE! 

Todd, this is the dumbest information posted on this site since I've been a member

  That was pretty harsh Raymondo?  However, I do agree that the "boxing glove" and "anti whip device" should not have even been mentioned.

  Why the hell would using a DE hose on a high rise job be any different than using one on the backyard C.O.D. job? It is kind of an odd question, safety is safety no matter where you are. I'm guessing the question came up after the sponge ball catcher video?

  If anything, a high rise/placing boom job would be the last place I'd expect to see a double end discharge hose being used because all (most) of the people on those projects are professionals.  

Bob-Todd-evryone else offended:

...I may have inferred the info incorrectly.  You asked an 'industry expert' if it's OK to use a DE hose.  He said yes, except when they're 'free hanging' from the boom.  I agree with that.  That's what we've been talking about for the last year.  However, suggesting that you take the extra time to install 'anti-whip' restraints and 'boxing gloves' instead of simply swapping out for a whip hose is not what want we need to hear from a so-called-expert.  This guy should have stated that you remove the DE and install a whip as soon as the boom is 'free hanging' the hose.  This would have completely resolved the arguement on what's acceptable...instead, he offered some suggestions that only keep the DE issue in a 'gray area'.

People look here for information that is accurate and safe.  This, in my opinion, didn't help anyone out.  You got a speech from a politition that can't really say yes and can't really say no.  We don't need that here.  We need black and white, right or wrong....no gray area - especially with something as important as this.

If you're 40 floors in the air, or right there at ground level, DE hoses serve the same purpose: to go between the boom and system, be it slick line or rubber.  I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that...and I'm not a recognized 'expert' representing a manufacture association or a pumping association.

If what I'm saying is harsh, that's tough.  This isn't a hair and nail salon.  People's lives are on the line when they're holding these hoses - on the ground or 40 floors in the air.  I would expect an 'expert' to know that.

Werd!

I also wanted the answer down and dirty –simple – But neither of us is in his position and since he is the voice of the authority on these matters he found it necessary to give us all of the available information, not just the part that you and I wanted to hear.

Yes, [as far as I know] it is just as easy, or easier to just change the hoses. If someone were to ask me tomorrow, that is the answer that I would give them. There had to have been testing on these alternative methods that proved their worth or he, Rob, would not have used them as alternative safety practices.

“You can’t always get what you want….. but you get what you need.” Said the Stones.

So we, Todd, asked the question, we got the answers and we know how to proceed from here. Let us not forget that the reason that the question was asked of the ACPA & CPMA was due to the video of the high-rise project and their use of the two ended tip hose. Since some of the participants in that little fiasco maintained that in a high-rise/placing boom application a double ended hose was acceptable as a tip hose we needed an authoritative answer to counter that statement; we now have that answer.

In the context of the video that started this most excellent post; you are incorrect folks, the double ended hose is not acceptable by either the ACPA or the CPMA.

Nuff-said

Raymond,

By the way, I was never offended just surprised and glad that you jumped in with your always logical opinion, thanks ;~)

 So the short answer is...  NO

 Pump-off.

this so called safety device! Comes as a kit when you purchase the DE hose? Or just another expense you have to fit into the old budget. I've always informes the super. prior to the pour that nearing the end of our pour,that we are going to have to change out our DE hose with a single end WHIP hose to finish the pour due to safety reasons. Never been an issue. I feel things go over better these days when I mix the "safety" word in with all grey areas of how to conduct right from wrong. This boxing glove thing! If in fact was tested, who was the testy? Curios to Hear what they would have to say! Keep it simple,Take the rist factor out. P.S. If your 40 floors up and I hope your pump is by the hour,when getting your SE whip hose,take the stairs.