(FOPS)FALLING OBJECT PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES

[Duffster]

What you said is so obvious - the FEL related accidents without FOPS are actually common which stands to reason because in general with the tractors today (and with
RopS) it is pretty difficult to roll over.
What I can't believe is that manufacturers don't even supply after-sale or retrofit FOPS for tractors with loaders - not even an option. Perhaps this negligent attitude is best exemplified by Duffster who is our Massey Ferguson contributor who at best is complaincent and worse, seems to be arguing against simple ways to reduce very serious injury and death.

I have no affiliation with MF.

You obviously got hurt by your poor decisions/actions and now want someone else to take responsibility.

 

[aczlan]

Because equipment, accessories and recommended usage methods fail. In my case, the bale was fixed to the forks with a heavy duty ratchet strap and when the lift arms unexpectedly and uncontrolably went up rather than leveling the forks the bale was virtually launched out of the restraint.

So, did the strap fail? If so, which direction was it wrapped around the bale in? Any pictures?
A properly sized and tensioned strap going around a pair of non-flip up forks (forks like this or this, not this) should not come off no matter what your loader does.

Some people remove ROPS and PTO shaft guards and some people won't wear seat belts. Manufacturers are "obligated" where possible and reasonable to protect and warn about obvious risks. That is why there are warning bells with seatbelts and why it is against the law to drive without using them. That is why manufactorers must install shields and ROPS and why dealers must replace or repair shields or ROPS if not in safe condition.

Last I checked, dealers they are not required to repair shields or ROPS that are broken or missing when they get a tractor in to repair it. Sell it perhaps, but not when they just work on it.
Also, there are stickers warning about things coming back over the top of the bucket on most (all?) modern loaders (most of them even show a round bale coming back).

An after market hydraulic self leveling device costs less than a spear and spears that are recommended as OEM equipment for quick detach loaders are in fact very expensive.

Can you show some examples of prices of aftermarket self leveling devices?

Also, in my incident, the bale would have likely come off the spear and land in the same place causing the same injury.

Really? How far up will your loader roll back the bucket when all of the way up? There is a difference between a bale rolling backwards off of a set of forks and one coming off of a bale spear like this: New Quick Attach Hay Spear / Bale Fork - eBay (item 230565259271 end time Feb-17-11 12:51:59 PST). The first is possible, the second not so much.

What you said is so obvious - the FEL related accidents without FOPS are actually common which stands to reason because in general with the tractors today (and with
RopS) it is pretty difficult to roll over.
What I can't believe is that manufacturers don't even supply after-sale or retrofit FOPS for tractors with loaders - not even an option.

Take a look at this B7500 and tell me how you would put a FOPS on it that would do the following:
1. Not be in the way of mounting and removing the loader
2. Be able to drop down for areas where there is low clearance (like the ROPS is in the pictures)
3. Not impede the operator from getting on and off the tractor


Aaron Z

 

[wvpolekat]

Every tractor with a loader has a FOPS, it's located just above the operators shoulders. Generally referred to as a brain. If used, it will prevent 99% of problems from objects falling out of the loader onto the operator.

 

[Pauchik]

No, I want common sense protections supplied or at least available at the consumer level to prevent accidents. Where do you stand on product safety Duffster? So far you seem to be disinterested in safety and without a logical rebuttal to my points -

 

[Pauchik]

Having been a tractor and implement dealer with a repair shop in the 1980s, I know that we would never let a piece of equipment out of the shop with unsafe guards or disabled shields without a release.

The strap was secured over the top of the bale and around the forks, side to side and did not fail. When the forks/lift arms reached the top of their range the bale strap was nearly horizontal to its starting vertical position and was catapulted out of the restraint. They were not flip up forks

I recently found a hydraulic control valve that can be inserted into the existing lines and will automatically adjust the bucket level. I don't have the webaddress at hand but will get it or you can google it like I did.

The lift arms are almost vertical when fully raised and after market bale spears that attach to the bucket or OEM quick detach spears in this case would be nearly vertical at full lift. With the weight of the bale the bale could easily come off, bend the spear or pull an attachment right off the bucket.

the Kubota you show has an approximate 1" pipe on the top of the loader verticals. this could be increased in size vertically almost in the same shape and then with a bar extending back on centerline to clamp to the ROPS with or without canopy. That is an approximation to what I have begun to have built and retrofit on my tractor which is a early 2000s major mfg. No OEM or aftermarket FOPS could be found. It would obviously stay with the loader verticals when removeing the FEL and could be unbolted from the ROPS and verticals if necessary. If top clearance is an issue then a cab wouldn't work either. I don't know, but I doubt ROPS on most tractors are ever lowered and I doubt there would be a need to remove the FOPS for the same reason.

I would be glad for the inconvenience of rarely removing the FOPS if it would save from possible paraplegia or death which is the most common result in roll offs.

 

[Pauchik]

Clever and true - brain = FOPS, but what about that 1%. What about the innumerable distractions, momentary inattention, forgetfulness. Accidents do happen to the most careful, attentive and intelligent people. For the cost of a steel FOPS I would cover the 1% - its a lot less expensive than a new brain FOPS.

 

[wvpolekat]

This is a slippery slope. How far do we go to protect that 1%? Once we mitigate that risk, there will be a new 1%. I would compare this to the anecdote about the Boiling frog. We can't keep building things to protect everyone from everything that could happen. #1- It forces things on people that don't want/need them. #2- It continually raises the cost with minimal benefit. #3- It gives people a false sense of security. Over time, each one doesn't sound like anything all that significant, but over time you take a step back and realize that you turned the tractor into something completely different by making it "safer".

Some things in life are inherently dangerous. People doing these things have to accept that when doing these things. If you are going to operate a tractor, YOU are obligated to understand the risks. From rollovers to items falling out of the FEL onto you or someone else.

I am just not a fan of bubble wrapping everything. I take risks when I operate my tractor or my ATV. That is just a side effect of doing these things.

 

[Pauchik]

I guess I could accept the logic of wvpolekat if the accidents we are discussing weren't so frequent and so devastating and also so preventable. Round bales became prevalent around 1970s and were primarily handled by FELS. the incidence of falling object injuries did not increase at a slow boil, but precipitously and they have increased with the increased use of FELs and round bales. I'm very familiar with traumatic accidents of all types and most of them are known, anticipated and accepted risks of using various forms of equipment. What should be proactively protected against are the unanticipated risks that can be prevented with relatively inexpensive measures. We see them with every type of equipment from cars to ATVs. People, of course, can make a choice if the safety measures are not mandated (safety belts, helmets, etc.) but ultimately everyone pays for trauma in one way or another through insurance premiums, product liability claims or injury. If you can fix it, why not? The risk-cost/benefit (accident avoidance) test is overwhelmingly in favor of doing so. The risk-cost/benefit of ROPS is a perfect example. Would anyone decline the installation of one on their tractor at a reasonable price? I think not. I believe in many states they are mandated so there is no choice.

 

[aczlan]

I guess I could accept the logic of wvpolekat if the accidents we are discussing weren't so frequent and so devastating and also so preventable. Round bales became prevalent around 1970s and were primarily handled by FELS. the incidence of falling object injuries did not increase at a slow boil, but precipitously and they have increased with the increased use of FELs and round bales. I'm very familiar with traumatic accidents of all types and most of them are known, anticipated and accepted risks of using various forms of equipment. What should be proactively protected against are the unanticipated risks that can be prevented with relatively inexpensive measures.

Have you found any instances of a round bale coming off of a bale spike (like the one I posted a link to earlier) and coming back onto the operator?

The main spike on those is generally around 3 feet long and does not come out easily when it is in the middle of a bale.

Talk about cheap insurance.
You could even make a mount to put a spike on your existing fork frame... Then the bale could not come off unless you wanted it to.

Aaron Z

 

[MarkV]

Mr. Pauchik I live near a major city with a great deal of crime. Shootings are a problem. The car manufactures are aware that a small percentage of customers will be shot at while using their product. Based on your logic we should require all cars to be armored.

I also have to ask, it sounds like you were injured when lifting a round bale of hay, I am sorry. What I don't understand is how did you lift a round bale to the full lift height of the loader fast enough to "catapult" it out of a restraining strap. That sounds like a rather violent way to operate the loader. Or were you operating defective equipment at the time?

MarkV