Citation Details

Back to citations

Section: 56.14116b
Date: 09/26/2013
District: SE
Negligence: Moderate
Injury or Illness: Unlikely
Injury or illness could be expected to be: Permanantly Disabling
Significant and Substantial: No

Condition or Practice: The Stihl Farm Boss AV5 chain saw located in the core room of the warehouse was equipped with a device that locked on the operating controls. Unknown when the saw was last used and was observed on the floor of the core room available for use. This exposes a miner to a serious injury in the event the operating control would lock during use due to lock feature.

Action to Terminate: chain saw was removed from property.

Why this concerns you: The inspector demanded that a written statement be made by the mine operator to verify that the chain saw had been removed from the property and would not be returned to this or any other mine owned by the operator.
But, more importantly, in discussion with the inspector and his supervisor, during the conferencing process, it was explained that the Stihl chain saw inter-lock was not the same as a trigger locking device. The inter-lock allows you to start the motor without engaging the blade, and, if you did engage the blade by tripping the chain brake, the engine would flood out with the inter-lock on. The problem is that MSHA would not accept the difference between a trigger locking device and a trigger inter-locking device, as explained in the operator's manual.

Abatement Suggestions From Industry

This citation has now been vacated following further review and demonstration of the inter-locking device vs a trigger-locking device on the chain saw. The District was involved in the explanation and demonstration of the chain saw, and the citation was vacated "due to further information provided"
- posted on 11/27/2013

We've been through this also. Standard says, "Shall not be operated in the locked position". Not that it cannot be on mine property. This is not a violation unless the trigger lock is being used.
- posted on 10/08/2014

Post a Comment

We have provided a place where you can post your professional comment or add additional information regarding this citation. Before doing so, please read the following guidelines:

Be nice!
If you are angry, step back and take a breath.

Post like you are talking to someone face-to-face. Better yet, post it like your mother is going to read it.

Don't discuss anything that might be construed as restraining trade. Nothing about boycotts and we certainly don't want to read about the price of rock.

Be honest!
Keep it factual. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate; some citations are hard enough to believe as is. Mine safety is important and those who visit the site must be able to rely on posts being accurate.

We review all posts
Sorry, but all posts come to us first. We want this site to be effective, and we want you to use it. The site can only be effective if it is legal and professional. If we get something that isn't both, we won't post it. None of us want that to happen.

No Guarantees
Anyone who has been a mine safety professional for long knows what one inspector approves, another may consider a violation. As much as we would like to, we cannot guarantee any solution offered here will work for your situation. We certainly hope what others have done provides helpful ideas, but we aren't willing to bet the farm on it passing an inspection and you shouldn't either.

Your name and email will not be shown when you post your comment. We ask for these fields because it helps us identify association members and keeps spam off the website.

Your Name

Your Email

Member Of



Any comments or opinions shown on this website reflect the views and opinions of the individuals or organization who posted them and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the parties sponsoring or supporting this website. The sponsors are not responsible for the content of any comment posted on this website.