Recurring concern

Inadequate torque specifications for safety-critical equipment

First to latest report 28 Apr 2015 — 10 May 2016

Reports that mention this concern
2
Times this concern has been raised
2
Stated actions linked to this concern
1

What this concern includes

Includes failures to provide, clearly locate, cross-reference or communicate required torque specifications for safety-critical components of vehicles, lifting equipment or other safety-critical equipment.

What is not included
  • Excludes generic maintenance-documentation or information-access deficiencies where required torque specifications are not the material safety issue.
  • Excludes torque settings for non-safety-critical components or ordinary fastening tasks.
  • Excludes failures in performing or checking torque application when the required specification was reliably available and accessible.
  • Excludes broader equipment design, inspection or maintenance deficiencies that do not concern the availability or accessibility of required torque specifications.

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Peter William RICHARDSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 27 September 2015, Peter William Richardson was working beneath a car on a two-post vehicle lift when the car became dislodged and fell onto him, causing fatal head injuries. The substantive concerns included the absence of formal guidance on safe tolerances and torque levels for safety-critical lift components, inadequate recording and training arrangements, and the practice of placing foreign objects between lift pads and vehicles to provide clearance.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide guidance on required torque for safety-critical elements of Bendpak two-post lifts

    Wider context from the report

    “b) The supplier of the Bendpak Lift in the UK, Liftmaster, do not supply guidance as to the required torque for safety critical elements of their two-post lifts and neither do they provide guidance on safe tolerance levels. ”

    Source location

    Peter William RICHARDSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Wiltshire and Swindon

    AI-generated summary

    Colour Sergeant Martyn HORTON and 3 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    On 23 June 2010, four service personnel died by drowning after their Ridgeback vehicle collided with a parked Afghan National Police vehicle, left the road and overturned in a canal in Afghanistan. The report raised concerns about the Ridgeback and related vehicle fleet, including suspension fitness, driver and gunner height restrictions, lighting effectiveness, tyre-pressure equipment, maintenance documentation, emergency lighting and recognition of recurring component failures.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to provide a maintenance-section cross-reference to front spring hanger torque settings

    Wider context from the report

    “(V) AESP Torque references. During the course of the evidence I heard that the maintenance of the Ridgeback vehicle was governed by AESP documentation. I was told by Craftsman ████████ that regularly at MOB Price during Herrick 12 whilst maintaining these vehicles that he was unaware of the correct torque settings in relation to the front spring hanger assembly bolts and would ensure in the circumstances that the bolts, to quote him, were “fucking tight”. There were however torque settings on these settings appear to have been confined in the repair section of the AESP documentation in Section 5 as opposed to the maintenance section in Section 6. I fully accepted the evidence I heard that the AESP documentation is voluminous but I am concerned and believe that it would be of assistance to REME personnel and those responsible for the maintenance of the vehicles that consideration be given to ensuring mention of a cross reference pointing in Section 6 at the relevant section to where the torque settings can be found in Section 5 rather than repeating the verbatim torque settings again. I would ask that you give consideration to this so as to ensure correction maintenance procedures are carried out. ”

    Source location

    Colour Sergeant Martyn HORTON and 3 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review torque-reference cross-referencing across Cougar-based vehicle publications and issue major findings in a safety notice before publication.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We are reviewing documentation to check for cross-referencing as you recommend. This review will encompass all of the publications for the 21 different in-service Cougar-based vehicle variants. The AESPs for the Cougar-based vehicle fleets are subject to a major update release every six months. The next is due 31 August 2015; the review work is due to be completed ahead of this date and any major findings will be issued in a Safety Notice prior to the formal publication.”

    Source location

    2015-0164-Response-by-Ministry-of-Defence
    Page 3 · response
    Published 28 April 2015

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026