(FOPS)FALLING OBJECT PROTECTIVE STRUCTURES

[Pauchik]

I believe that a political action committe or similar beast is in order consider the devastating effects that roll off or fall off accidents result in. there are state organizations (NY & PA) that give rebates for ROPS installation but I can't convince them (YET) to include FOPS.

I mentioned that most ROPS (if available from manufacturer) can be had for less than $1000 and my quotes for manufacturing one was about $800. With my own materials and work, I could build one equivalent to OEM ROPS for $300 or less. This would be two vertical posts attached (detachable) from the verticals of the FEL with a center piece on top extending back to the ROPS. It would be nice to add a fiberglass canopy which would protect from dirt, gravel or stone injuries. I would be building mine now except for my injury and the need for surgery.

 

[Pauchik]

I've had my FOPS installed now for quite some time since my last post. My expense was about $500. The cost to manufacturers would obviously be less with production savings. It can be removed with the FEL after removing one bolt.





My point is that this inexpensive protection would be effective against the final common pathway of accidents from objects falling from virtually any FEL attachment and includs improperly attached quick detatch implements falling from the lift arms.

I cannot conceive of an argument against this simple option and its installation upon the purchase of FELs. I bleive its installation should receive the same attention as regards the present requirments regarding ROPS/seatbelts on tractors. Is there actually an argument against this out there? If so, does it apply to ROPS too?

 

[Duffster]

I cannot conceive of an argument against this simple option and its installation upon the purchase of FELs.Is there actually an argument against this out there? If so, does it apply to ROPS too?

Likewise I cannot conceive an argument for it. We cannot protect every single person from every single conceivable risk or danger.

You obviously could purchase and have installed the protection that you wanted and or needed so likewise anybody else that wants this can have it as well. There is no need to get more "regulation" involved.

Your loader tractor as pictured would be worthless and unusable in my application.

 

[Pauchik]

What is your application Duffster?

 

[Duffster]

What is your application Duffster?

A low barn door that you have to duck when you drive through.

 

[Qapla]

I mentioned that most ROPS (if available from manufacturer) can be had for less than $1000 and my quotes for manufacturing one was about $800. With my own materials and work, I could build one equivalent to OEM ROPS for $300 or less...

Let me start by saying that I have nothing against a FOPS or a ROPS ... however ... let me ask - The FOPS or ROPS that you built for less then you could buy one for -

Did it pass all the engineering and safety standards when you had it tested? Does it meet the legal requirements to not only get the proper certification from the Government, but to alleviate any legal repercussions in a lawsuit in case someone did get hurt?

These may seem like odd questions, since most of us do not have the time or the money for such testing and documentation. Bit, before any manufacturer can build or offer such devices, they MUST. All this testing and certification costs money. That is one of the reasons they cost more when we buy "ready-made". It also takes quite a bit of time ... time most manufacturers don't want to spend ... so they WOULD argue against them being required.

My point is that this inexpensive protection would be effective against the final common pathway of accidents from objects falling from virtually any FEL attachment ...

Two additional thoughts here:

1) A cab, enclosed and having Heat/AC would be just as effective ... why not require that?

2) I am sure that someone would find some way to get hurt even with the FOPS, so it is not the "final common pathway"

... just some additional food for thought ...​

 

[Pauchik]

Qpala, I' sure someone could get hurt with FOPS in place but my point is that FOPS with a solid shield virtually eliminates falling object injuries (stones or other objects in a bucket, feed cement or other 80 # bags from a pallet fork, round hay bales from any attachment, the improperly fixed attachment from the lift arms) - this IS the final common pathway of all objects falling from a FEL regardless of the attachment.

If you can eliminate even some of those injuries at little expense, doesn't it make sense? The only way to avoid all tractor related accidents is to not use one. The manufacturers must provide FOPS, at least as an option, and FOPS should recieve the same priority for FEL as ROPS do for tractors. Can you prevent rollover injuries using ROPS, NO. But, you can substantially reduce the incidence and severity of the injuries. That is why they are now standard on utility tractors. The same should apply to FOPS.

 

[horse7]

A distinction should be made between a two and four post ROPS-- there don't seem to be very many open station 4 post ROPS tractors around my area. Also cabs may be qualified different ways, I am not familiar with whether most cabs would qualify as four post ROPS or not (or as FOPS for that matter).

I have an open station tractor, FOPS with a two post ROPS. A log rolling off the loader won't be stopped by anything significant before reaching the operator (but I have an MSL loader specifically due to the danger of the non-MSL loaders in this regard. Been there done that in a skid steer. MSL loaders that I have used don't curl quite as much and generally cost more, which may dissuade people from the safety features.).

The FOPS I have is mainly for driving in the woods-- while worming between trees and watching all the edges of the tractor and mud covered hilly ground, it is easy to miss the widow maker hanging up above. They make a pretty good bang hitting the FOPS.

 

[RDrancher]

Interesting read.

I have to agree with this:

You obviously could purchase and have installed the protection that you wanted and or needed so likewise anybody else that wants this can have it as well. There is no need to get more "regulation" involved.

4-post FOPS like the setup on Kubota's commercial tractors (L35) would be a nice option for many of us. I've yet to find one readily available, so I'll be making one myself.

Since I use my NH TC35D for my business and it's used many times for work it was never intended for, it would be nice to incorporate a design that adds a bit of structural support to the top of the FEL pin attachment area as well. Hopefully this winter I'll have it all figured out and have time to fab one up to fit my needs.

 

[Pauchik]

I am not talking about regulation, I object being told what to do as much as most people. What I am talking about for a start, is for manufacturers to make a FOPS available as an option or at least set up their machines so that a FOPS can be attached without modification.

It is ironic that virtually every commercial manufacturer (of backhoes for instance) with open platforms have a four post FOPS incorporated into the ROPS system which is standard. It seems to me that the utility or compact tractor user is probably less experienced than the commercial operator and did not get the safety instruction or supervision that the commercial operator had, yet it is the commercial unit that has the protection of ROPS/FOPS.

NY and Vermont have a rebate program to encourage the installation of ROPS on older tractors because of its proven safety factor and they are considering the same program for FOPS for the same reasons.

In terms of engineering and production expense, I have been amazed by the cabs available for compact tractors and their associated unnecessary bells and whistles. These are "ROPS certified" but not "FOPS certified". It just doesn't make sense when a rock or log could fall out of the bucket under certain circumstances and crush that beautiful cab (and operator).