array_files=new Array();
array_files[0]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax105.pdf","2010-04-17","705K"," NZLFAX105.PDF    ","","","November 2009 Issue 105 EDITORIAL OTIS Gen2TM LIFT ACCIDENT UPDATE: No one expected the present processes used by the Department of Labour (DOL) and Coronors office to achieve an official report in 6 months, but as I understand todate; now some three and a half plus months from Dave Shaws accident, that Otis have concluded their investigation, and the Coroner is awaiting the DOL results of their investigation before handing down their conclusions. Of couse the heresay reports have been handed down and Otis I understand has thoroughly investigated the accident and even issued an internal DVD on points learnt for its inhouse personnel, and I presume for the DOL, which demonstrates how the official bureaucracy influences the process of reporting accidents in NZ. Now what of the industry as a whole, those who also work on the Gen2 equipment involved, employ similar installation practices of single man installation, and other than for heresay, are still in the dark as to whether or not they are exposed to the same environment under which this accident happened in their own workplaces. Following enquiry from throughout NZ and Australia, this accident has attracted the attention of a much wider audience than just the manufacturers installers, considering independent lift contractors and even direct competitors have to install and maintain the Gen2 product world wide. Interestingly I already hear the conclusions being drawn, some might say the company line, being packaged under this void of fact. Surely if we really wish to learn from these accidents and not just encourage the possibility of protection of vested interests, the facts need to be transparent to any interested party as early as possible in the process, so that broad critical assessment can be determined and acted on. The last words go to the Department of Labour The investigation is ongoing. The Department of Labour cannot comment on the specifics of the investigation as it is ongoing. More information may be available when the investigation is c ompleted. 7 th December 2009. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 05/2008 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: LEC UPDATES WEBSITE: Yes, after being informed by a client who had been directed to the www.lifteye.co.nz site for inf ormation, and who responded on how ancient it looked, I had to admit that my early Microsoft Frontpage software was no longer up to it and that web technology passing me by. And so I employed the services of webmaster Graham Langton grammar@netaccess.co.nz who provided this 800 update for me. What do you think? NZLift Fax Search: Will we learn from this tragic accident. ELEVATOR WORLD VIRTUAL EVENT: You may have heard by now that Elevator World is hosting the first ever Virtual Elevator Event for the Elevator Industry on Wednesday - February 17, 2010 from 6am- 4pm Central USA time. This is a special event for both exhibitors and attendees, and it is a perfect opportunity to exhibit your company in a virtual environment thats not just another website, but a true event. The VEE is driven by ON24 the leader in virtual events and Elevator World the industry leader in reaching and serving the elevator Industry for over 57 years. DBH IQP UPDATE: Since the August 09 meeting there has been some correspondence following agreeing to further the Hamilton City Council Waikato IQP register. The first hurdle raised was funding; yet to be resolved, the second to correlate industry technical competencies of which some promises have been made along with the proposal to adopt the CBIP lift certification process as the lift industry D2 solution. No mention has been made of using the SI IQP structure. The next meeting proposed is for Feb 2010. see - http://www.elevator-world.com/vee/ Another EW information portal is to their blog where items of interest to the industry may answer your question. See - http://www.liveboards.com/mb/server/board.cgi?B=107638 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 November 2009 LEC RESPONDS TO IQP WORKGROUP: As you are aware, the lift industry has no formal association today, and as such each company entity reflectively focuses on its market needs, and as such will only respond to process changes in governance of the industry on an individual basis, and or where legally required to do so. The Commerce Commissions past foray into Corporate Collusion has created a paranoia against association in local mainstream companies, heightening competitor distrust and discouraging cooperative communication and endeavor. And so until a concrete and consistent process of governance can be produced and given credibility by the DBH, to which the lift industry can adopt across the board, the void created by the removal of the past centralised inspection process, whether for new or existing installations, I suspect will remain as we have experienced over the past 17 or so years since introduction of the Building Act. The Councils may have the authority and may even now acknowledge a problem exists, but they dont have the knowledge to ensure their solution will achieve any more than they have presently achieved over the past 17 years of having the responsibility to fix it. I wonder why I need to continue to say this, and maybe its time I didnt, but until a process of industry inclusion into the compliance and certification of inspection processes is backed both financially and in purpose by the DBH, even the simple nationalisation of IQPs by TAs can only end up a slightly more efficient process of inept governance, that doesnt address the issue of the void in providing a clear D2 certification and inspection process in NZ. When the DBH is prepared to trust the lift industries ability to work in conjunction with the CBIP structure to provide an efficient, auditable and workable D2 inspection compliance process, and fund it initially to establish the final model to be approved by the wider lift industry, then all the TA will need to do is to nationally record the CBIP D2 inspector levels, and ensure the CBIP qualification forms part of their Consent and Annual WOF inspection compliance processes. Until we see commitment from the DBH to addressing the deficiencies into the full process of D2 certification and inspection in NZ, funding of TAs to nationalise their IQP processes is just another red herring. If they need to know how to set up an efficient register, why not ask the SI IQP register body in Timaru, who have been proactive and have a track record in providing an efficient process since the early 90s. Issue 105 THE HALMA GROUP EXPANDS ITS PRODUCT RANGE: The Halma Group, who in New Zealand have been world leaders as suppliers of their TLJ Microscan M50, SP50, M150 & SP150 lift entry scanners, have now introduced a range of complimentary lift products to enhance local installed lift solutions. COMMANDER: Commander is their TLJ new wide viewing angle TFT lobby touch directory information screens, ideal as the main floor users directory that also provides stat us information regarding the lift system, as well building information if needed. With a touch input facility, these screens could possibly be used in conjunction with the latest Destination control systems. EVOLUTION: The Evolution range of system and building information screens developed under the well renowned E-Motive brand also has touch screen facility that enables their full range of hall lantern and in-car displays to complete the information loop throughout the building. MEMCOM: The easy programmable high quality microphone, phone, GSM or PC lift communication system brings all your single button emergency phone, internet and intercom (Globalnet) communications into the one device. Upto 8 Memcom units can be connected to the same phone line to cater for multiple lift installations. INTELLIGENT LIFT SYSTEM: The E-Motive independent intelligent lift system can provide dedicated realtime information and diagnostics to your portfolio of lifts no matter the brand. www.emotivedisplay.com www.tljones.com www.memcom.eu YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 November 2009 DISABLED ACCESS OR CORPORATE PROFIT: Since last issue a row has been a brewing that has come to my attention, where corporate sales pressure gives rise to some lift industry salesmen who find berating competitor products and playing on client ignorance as fair game in promoting their interests . This is not new; you might even call it just a human flaw in salesmen striving a little too hard to achieve sales at any cost, but it is what I term at worst; immoral competition, and at least just plain ignorance of market need over self interest. The issue arises in the lift industry because of a growing demand for disabled access equipment in buildings two or three levels that historically were accessible only by stairs. The past quarter of a century has seen our society becoming more aware of the restriction of building design to disabled users over these lower levels, and consequently laws and standards governing access rights to building have evolved. BRIEF BACKGROUND ON LIFT CERTIFICATION IN NZ. The Ministry of Transport (MOT) Governed lift certification during the reign of the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act in NZ up until the introduction of the Building Code in 1992. The only local lift codes applicable at that time were the Power Lift Rules 1989 and the Rules for Power lifts not Exceeding 750 Watts . Both these codes were singular prescriptive codes that had evolved over the past century. The 1991 Building Act brought significant change to lift compliance with introduction of a Building Code based on Performance, that identified two means of compliance for lifts in NZ, ACCEPTABLE solutions where the solution has to conform to D2/AS1 or D2/AS2, or ALTERNATIVE solutions where the solution has to demonstrate good industry practice and conform to the Performance clauses of D2. T he process of compliance from 1992 was now overseen by the local Councils (TAs) in place of the MOT.The two means of certification are:1. Under the Consent process for all new installations or upgrade of lifts. 2. Under the Compliance Schedule process for annual WOF inspection. BRIEF BACKGROUND ON DISABLED ACCESS IN NZ. As far back as 1975 the Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act came into being, but not until 14 th July 1988 when the MOT Marine Division Chief Engineer John Stark formally informed lift suppliers that any lift design submitted would be subject to the 1985 issued NZS 4121 Lifts Section 209 as the DA standard. It took until after the introduction of the Building Act in 1991 for the then Power Lift Rules 1989 to be amended in July 1992, to add Section 71 and clearly detail the Requirements for Lift on Access Routes for People with Disabilities in NZ. With the demise of the Ministry of Transport and role of central Governance of the lift industry compliance with release of the 1992 Building Code, a new provisional Lift Standard was issued in 1994, followed by the present NZS 4332:1997 Standard . The Disabled Access Standard NZS 4121 was updated and issued in 2001 to include a few subtle changes to what had now become Section 9Lifts of the NZS 4121 Standard. The Objective of the Building Code D2 requires: Ensure that people with disabilities are able to carry out normal activities and processes within buildings. Issue 105 Most of the major pre 80s lift suppliers in NZ have built their experience as agents for overseas suppliers before being incorporated into multi-national corporations through takeover. The equipment they supplied was designed for mixed ambulant / wheelchair users and therefore few building owners desired to install lifts serving less than three levels, as understandably it was classed as an unnecessary cost. Interestingly, the larger lift corporations seemed slow to recognize the increasing demand for low rise solutions , and have openly demonstrated they dont wish to supply to this market . . . . yet! And so over the past 20 or so years local manufacturers and importers of purpose built platform lifts have increased, providing a wide variety of low rise platform lift solutions for the disabled access market. They are the new lift industry, with equipment ranging from very simple water hydraulic platforms to high end screw and oil hydraulic drives able to provide more flexible, more cost effective low rise access solutions for both new and existing retrofit into buildings . These market changes have seen increasingly innovative more cost effective mechanical access solutions being manufactured to address this imbalance, but although these solutions are specific to the, low rise, low use access needs, to provide suitable access at low speeds of up to 0.15m/sec, some over zealous salesmen seem to be purposefully discrediting these solutions in favor of mixed traffic, high cost, high use passenger lift solutions. The equation seems to works like this. The low speed platform market is quicker to supply and install - is more flexible to site needs - is much more cost effective, but is limited due to speed as an access solution of up to only 3 levels. On the other hand, the standard passenger lift low rise solution is restricted on layout - has a larger footprint - takes up to 7 months to supply and install - is twice to three times the cost and is excessive when only needing to move a wheelchair user and possibly a passenger up to 3 levels. Now this article began with the question `Disabled Access or Corporate Profit, and this is because there seems to now be two camps vying for market percentage; the conventional mixed traffic passenger lift market, and the low speed platform lift market. So why are some salesmen deliberately berating the low rise platform lift solution by playing on user ignorance, promoting misinformation and suggesting these products are non-compliant, when the should be encouraging a more diverse range of purpose related performance based solutions, as the Building Act intended, and not just trying to constrict the market to suit only their interests. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 November 2009 The New Zealand Lift & Escalator Association 1980s to 2009. Globalisation is not only removing the trade skills out of the lift industry in New Zealand but also the need for a lift association, as the corporate business model is becoming so controlling that company spirit is being challenged by a consistent diatribe of international corporate edicts that erode trust. Admittedly the NZLEA (New Zealand Lift and Escalator Association) was also focused on corporate interests rather than those of the people who constitute the industry, but the individuals that formed it were by the trade based nature of the industry at that time, at least still attuned to the local operational issues, and therefore reflected this in their representation of the lift industry. BRIEF NZ LIFT INDUSTRY HISTORY . . . . . Historically the English Waygood Otis branch of the American Otis Corporation was the first manufacturer to enter New Zealand to service the emerging lift industry around the end of the 19th century. But locally the industry emerged from the growing NZ electrical trades represented in the North Island by the Thorburn familys Electrical Construction Company (ECC), who in the 1920s had imported equipment from the UK lift engineers of Northampton; Smith Major Stevens to service the growing demand. Later on in the South Island, the family electrical company of Thomas L. Jones Ltd, built associations with UK product suppliers of electrical doors and goods lifts before becoming an agent to the UK lift manufacturer; the Express Lift Company, to install passenger lifts. THE FORMATION OF A NZ LIFT ASSOCIATION . . . . . . It wasnt until around the early 1980s that Doug Mc Kelvie (Otis), Les Jones (TLJones) and Graeme Thornburn (ECC), met to canvas the idea of an association to represent the Lift Industry from which emerged the New Zealand Lift and Escalator Association (NZLEA). This association became the mouth piece for lift industry representation on standard committees and for communications with the design compliance engineering department; Marine & Industrial (M&I), of the Wellington based Ministry of Transport. It was the NZLEA that enabled the first recording of industry statistics to at least provide some means of assessment of the local market, but without the emerging smaller lift supplier input, only approximately two thirds of the NZ market was reflected in these statistics. Technical committees were developed to provide relevant advice seeing representatives such as Otis MD Murray Upton in the Chair, and respected managers such as Otis representatives Laurie Floyd and Derek Bryson; Kones Grace Wesolowski and Schindlers John Davies holding roles and chairs on the committee. One area the association did work Issue 105 on, was in integrating the European Standard EN81 into the 1991 Building Act as an Acceptable Solution, by minimizing inconsistent local practices and thereby retaining its international nature for more efficiently importing equipment designed to meet European Standards into NZ. Another area that the NZLEA technical committee did a tremendous amount of work in; based on International Best Practices, was to put together a recommended Safety Code of Practice for the NZ Lift Industry. Even though it was ridiculed at the time by some companies/groups outside the NZLEA, experience saw a notable decline in accidents become evident once the practices were put in place. The association did much more good work but disappointingly after the era of multinational takeovers, became know as `The Club with its many connotations, by then seen by many in the industry as representing only the three largest suppliers; Otis, Schindler and Kone. New senior persons from the smaller emerging companies were encouraged to participate, but with a restrictive constitution as to who could join, only a few did, and so the committee began to stagnate. In the mid 90s, approaches were made to change the NZLEA constitution to enable a broader representation of a growing number of suppliers; industry personnel and those associated on the rims of the industry such a inspectors and consultants, but this was rejected by the sitting committee at the time. In October 1994 a proposal outlining the structure and costing of a possible wider association was distributed by the writer among the industry with a questionnaire to gauge interest. This led in November 1994 to meetings being arranged in the three centers of Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland. The aim was to try and encourage a wider representation through the establishment of a newNew Zealand Lift Industry Association (NZLIA), but although there was a wide interest reflected across the board through numbers attending in each centre, few stepped forward to devote the necessary time to help build the structure, and so it disolved. The NZLEA responded by structuring a paid secretary into its operation, and Garth Wyllie of the Employers & Manufacturers Association Northern Inc. in NZ was appointed to the role. This saw the emergence of a website dedicated to the NZLEA association and the hope this step would strengthen its representative role in the market. Lift industry training modules were established based on the Australian RMIT lift course, and qualifications determined under a Government National Qualification Authority (NZQA) program, but training was structured through private training providers, and numbers to participate never reached a level of fiscal viability, and so to my knowledge has never been used. DEREK BRYSON GRACE WESOLOWSKI JOHN DAVIES YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4 November 2009 The merit resulting from this effort is that it should always be there to use if the industry ever sees sufficient value in it to back it. Today, early into the 21st century, industry cohesion has been severely disrupted through the high movement of persons and skills searching for that personal satisfactions once gained in being a part of an indus try with similar goals. But now fragmented by errant fiscal domination of all operations, combined with ill informed knee jerk directives to local managers responding to international anti -trust issues, the division within the industry widens. The same myopic fiscal yardsticks have reflected in the value placed on any inter-company association, and therefore gradually eliminating every argument to exist, as one by one the corporate backing was withdrawn. The final nail in the coffin was with the local 2006 pumped up investigation by the Commerce Commission into inferred local company collusion carried out in the early 90s. It was easier to demonize association, placing farcical restrictions on inter-company communications, than to contest the allegations. And so by default, the NZLEA under the Chairmanship of John Davies of Schindler in New Zealand became impotent. With no representation came no credibility, and any voice died to a whimper as other vested interests take over the role of representing the now non-existent New Zealand lift industry association. Bob Johnston. Lifteye Consultancy July 2009. Issue 105 TRANSPORTATION ROBOTS USE ELEVATORS: According to plasticpals.com, Fuji Heavy Industries, the parent company of Subaru, began developing robots for transporting cargo in pharmaceutical plants in 2007. The products are now equipped with a software module that allows them to communicate with elevator systems which allows them to ride elevators to move between floors. The products are also equipped with software modules that allow line tracing, ultrasonic-sensor recognition, ultrasonicsensor wall running, wheel odometry and laser triangulation. The robots are now being used in a Tsumura plant, which packages food items and other necessities. They are equipped with charge-coupled-device cameras, which track a line taped to the ceiling and can operate in areas as small as 1 meter wide. SECOND-TALLEST BUILDING TO BE IN SOUTH KOREA: According to Greenpacks.org, the Lotte Super Tower 123 will be the secondtallest building in the world once it is completed in 2014. The building will be built by Lotte Construction (a subsidiary of the Lotte Group) and house the company headquarters of Lotte Group. The builders are aiming for a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design silver certification. The structure will include public- transportation connectors, retail and residential space, offices, a hotel, an observation deck, and other public areas. TEEN FALLS FROM INDIANAPOLIS ESCALATOR: According to My High Plains, A 16-year-old teenager lapsed into a coma and was in critical condition after falling three stories on October 22. The 41-foot fall from an Indianapolis mall escalator occurred after the student lost his balance. While details are still unclear, the teens superintendent stated, He got caught up in the escalator handrail somehow, and it pulled him up and over. The incident remains under investigation. NEW LIFT EXPO TO BE HELD IN POLAND: Kielce Trade Fairs has announced that a new international lift exhibition, Euro-Lift, will take place on October 20-22, 2010 at the Kielce Trade Fair Centre. Planned to be a biannual undertaking, the exposition has been touted as the first event of its kind in Poland. For more information, contact Kielce Trade Fairs at Zakladowa 1, 25-672, Kielce, Poland; phone: (4841) 365-1222; fax: (4841) 345-6261; e-mail: biuro@targikielce.pl; or website: www.euro-lift.targikielce.pl. OTIS DONATES TO RONALD MCDONALD HOUSE: Otis Elevator Co. recently donated a check for US5,000 to the Ronald McDonald House Charities of Northwest Florida in Pensacola, Florida. Page 5 12 INJURED ON LAS VEGAS ESCALATOR: According to Justice News Flash, a casino/hotel escalator malfunctioned on November 14 in Las Vegas, injuring 12 people. No injuries were life threatening, and the victims have been treated and released. It is unclear how or why the malfunction occurred. The incident remains under investigation. THYSSENKRUPP FISCAL REPORT: According to ThyssenKrupp AG, the 2008/2009 fiscal year was one of the most difficult in its history. However, the elevator segment continued to show positive performance. Although order intake decreased by 9% compared to the prior year, sales and earnings improved significantly. Sales increased by 8% and profits increased by 29%, despite restructuring expense and impairment charges. Lower volumes in the escalator segment necessitated restructuring at the Hamburg, Germany, escalator plant. Overall, the elevator sector had to absorb restructuring expense and impairment charges of EUR34 million (US51 million). Elevator technology also continued to have high earnings contributions due to order backlog, and stable modernization and maintenance business. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[1]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax103.pdf","2009-08-15","395K"," NZLFAX103.PDF    ","","","July 2009 Issue 103 EDITORIAL IQP/LBP Working Party Forum: Held in November 2008, I participated in this DBH forum under the slender hope that the Government had come up against a brick wall regarding their specified system LBP (Licensed Building Practitioner) structure, and at last were ready to talk to the industry representatives of various building specified systems to instigate a functional process of auditable inspection into the NZ Lift Industry. My cynical side reported to the CBIP Lift Exam Body I work with; My main concern is that this is a dredging exercise aimed to gain knowledge to take into an overall LBP program, and supersede the CBIP role. Was I as usual too cynical? Ill let you decide. After the meeting, deadlines were set for each specified system representative to produce a clear set of competencies for LBPs of the future, these were closely followed up by the DBH to ensure the content was explicit, in order to meet the supposed second meeting with its then pressing February 2009 deadline. What resulted from the February meeting you may ask? Well Im sorry, but since 2004 when the LBP (Licensed Building Practitioner) structure was first proposed, each year the implementation date has moved out, initially to 2007, then 2009 and now 2010, and all we have to see for it is a few well garnished press releases, a few carpenters and roofing contractors becoming registered espousing the wonders of the system, and not a dickybird from the DBH regarding any second specified system meeting. Not to worry, I expect they got what they needed from all we gave them, and its just a bit much to take in to evaluate. And so we will just have to be patient mushrooms and await the next garlanded press release, or extension to the time table to maybe 2012. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 05/2008 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: EML EQUIPMENT MONITORING ELEVATORS 1995 LTD: For those who havent found EML on the LEC website as yet, click the link below direct to EML. http://www.emlelevators.co.nz/index.shtml EML, who have been monitoring lift systems since the early 90s in NZ have continued to move with the technological advances in the web and internet, now able to provide not only lift system monitoring, but all types of equipment monitoring such as building A.C units. These systems automatically call service persons, agent or client when the monitored system faults, using either SMS; email or fax. Monitored parameters provide continuous data logs of operations enabling multiple reports to be generated on system performance, or to analyse system operations live from their service desk. NEED NETWORK SOLUTIONS TO COME TO YOU: If you are looking for a competent network maintenance or setup partner for your business in Christchurch, or just need some advice on a computer hardware problem; I can only recommend Simon Knight who has been there for LEC over many years with Vintron Electronics and who has recently set up for himself. NEED A CBIP LEVEL 2 LIFT INSPECTOR: LIFT INSPECTION SERVICES Ltd 10 Hogan Place, Fairfield, Dunedin. 9018 Phone: 03 488 0588 ask for Alec Denniston. Mobile: 0211 592426 email: alecd@xtra.co.nz YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 July 2009 BWOF SEMINAR THROUGHOUT NZ: Have you noticed the improvement in Council follow up to annual Building WOFs throughout NZ of late. For us who have had 15 years of Territorial Authorities getting their Act together, at last we are seeing some consistency. The process never was difficult, and the benefits were always reliant on consistent administration and follow up. Admittedly it has taken a long time for building owners to learn new tricks, because the beginning in 1992 resulted in such a laizze-faire approach by Territorial Authorities who you would have expected to lead the way. Anyway thats behind us now as a more consistent administration of the WOF process means building owners are being followed up if the annual inspections are not completed. If we have leant a lesson from all this, it is that when you implement change as the Building Act in 1991 did; most people will take little notice, continuing on in their known way until, lets say they are encouraged to change. And the reason it has taken so long in NZ was in not ensuring a national consistent process was implemented at the beginning. Now if you are a building owner and beginning to feel a bit pressured of late, with threats of exorbitant fines gaining your attention, the best way to relieve this pressure is through fully understanding the few basic processes of WOFs, and `mums your uncle. To do this, one of the most experienced and down to earth educators is Rosemary Hazelwood, who is running a series of half day sessions just for you in:? Auckland 2pm Thursday 23rd July, Elleslie Event Centre. ? Hamilton 9:30am Friday July 24th Kingsgate Hotel. ? Wellington 2pm Thursday 30th July Capthorne Hotel. ? Christchurch 2pm Thursday 13th August Copthorne Hotel. Issue 103 NEW LIFT MONITORING SYSTEM: Once again this lift component supplier has brought a niche product to enhance lift solutions in our local NZ market, and carried on their upfront interfacing to accept multinational supplier protocols. With a good range of flexible compatible indicators and display screen units in their armory, they have taken the next step to taking away the mystique of where all your lifts are, and what they are doing, by building on their skills and experience in serial communication of data to provide a 3rd party LIFT MONITORING SYSTEM: LD-170C lift system display. Simply put, the LMS or Lift Monitoring System adopts the advantage of serial data with network and internet platforms and high resolution display screens, all designed to be modularized and compatible with lift industry control systems. The result is a flexible means of bringing lift status information in real-time depicted graphically directly to the property manager or building owners desktop. The LMS can accurately record the occurrence, time and date of selected events, for logging and reporting of lift breakdown and availability. IS IT COLLUSION? Calm down, relax you Commerce Commission watch dogs, but you can understand why one would jump to collusion when the only company providing the advantage of production line packaged rigidised lift door-finishes in the big three, drops the option from its latest packaged product update. What this means is that if you want rigidised finishes for your lift doors it is going to add some 1,100 plus per entry to have them reskinned locally on top of your packaged cost. It is understood that KONE have dropped standard rigidised door finishes off their latest product brochure. Not collusion, just blasé to market demand. Page 2 Cost: 150 + GST email: irma@fireprotection.org.nz YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY July 2009 STANDARDISING LIFT COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTATION: I dont know how we can ever expect councils to maintain consistent processes for the certification of lifts in this present void in NZ, when everyone in the industry differs in their compliance yardstick, varying from; only what Im asked for to a suitable sized pile of documents. As an independent lift consultant and CBIP certified inspector, I have tried to rationalize the process to reflect the minimum necessary from my experience of lift codes and certification processes, to meet the intent of the codes and Building Act, placing the emphasis on consistency. The adoption of the D2 Producer Statement stages of Consent similar to engineers: ie. PS1. Solution Design Compliance - PS2. Solution Review ­ PS3. Manufacturers Confirmation of Installation to Design ­ PS4 Confirmation of Satisfactory Test, has cleaned up the producer statement role in the process, but documenting the inspection and test, and use of certificates and type of record necessary, needs to begin with why and what needs to be achieved. LEC is adding to the website http://www.lifteye.co.nz/whois#Forms a few document check lists Ive developed and used to try and engender consistency, and if those responsible for their companys processes in this area would be prepared to represent themselves to determine a single acceptable process for each main category of equipment, w e could achieve improvement through consistency into the D2 Consent process in NZ. Suggested Categories: Passenger Lifts ­ Traction: D2/AS1 NZS4332 / EN81 Passenger Lifts ­ Hydraulic: D2/AS1 NZS4332 / EN81 Lifts under 0.3m/sec: D2/AS2 Goods only Service Lifts: D2/AS2 Inclined Cable Cars: D2/AS2 NZS 3270 Escalators & Moving Walks: D2/AS3 EN115 Similarly, for Testing of equipment, agreement on a single testing process, and inspector qualification for each category of equipment could achieve similar consistency in the Consent process. Without this, the standard of safe compliance I suspect will continue to go down hill along with it our industry standards, as it has since introduction of the 1991 Building Act. It is easy to isolate ourselves and believe its someone else; the competitor or smaller company who has dropped the ball, but like it or not, regulators govern industries, not companies. Individually a lot of good effort has been put in by some companies to address this issue, but unless a consistent agreed process of compliance is adopted soon by all, this effort will be wasted. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 103 WHY TEST & DOCUMENT FOR D2 COMPLIANCE: Other than for the short term efforts of the NZLEA (New Zealand Lift & Escalator Association) who attempted to set up recording installation of lift equipment in NZ following introduction of the Building Act and demise of the MOT, no consistent nor accurate record exists. So why do we need a record and should it be centralised? (a) The D2 compliance schedule regime might not as well exist without an accessible record of type of D2 equipment; the manufacturer; the recommended frequency of service, and detail of the approved solution it was installed under. At present, where or if data is recorded during the Consent process, an IQP or LBP has to search individual council records to determine these critical details to ensure a consistent, efficient process, which just doesnt happen. (b) If the consent process required councils to collect this specific D2 data and issue it to a central internet accessible data base, this critical data would then be useful to achieving an accountable D2 compliance schedule process. Any change of use or replacement of equipment would similarly go through the Consent process, enabling any change to the record to be updated, keeping the record relevant to the IQP or LBP completing annual inspection. With the questionably criminal oversight of the BIA and DBH in ensuring auditable and qualified testing of every lift installed as a specified system in New Zealand since removing the MOT (Ministry of Transport) structure of certification, who knows whether or not the lift you are traveling in is safe. With multiple types of D2 acceptable and alternative solutions installed over this past 15 years or so since the MOT was disbanded, and the CBIP certification of competent lift inspectors has all but disappeared through no recognition by the BIA and DBH, this void in competent D2 testing and inspection has only increased. As the Government continues to move at a snails pace to conceive their hugh Holy Grail umbrella of certifying every trade person in the building industry on the run, the critical testing of these specified systems and processes continue to deteriorate. Why has this happened you may ask? Its because of the inexperience of the building industry as to the past lift certification system, followed by the a lack of identifying clear processes for Councils to follow by the BIA, and now compounded by the DBH belief in a bureaucratic process to solve this issue. Page 3 July 2009 Media Release: T.L JONES OPENS NEW OFFICE IN AUSTRALIA: Issue 103 ABOUT T.L. JONES: TL Jones (www.tljones.com), a subsidiary of Halma p.l.c., is a world-leading manufacturer and supplier of safety and accessory equipment to elevator companies around the world. Established over 70 years ago, the New Zealand-headquartered company has recently undergone significant internal reorganisation. TL Jones Asia Pacific, based in Singapore, now houses a regional management team responsible for operations and trading throughout Asia Pacific and the Middle East, and a central marketing team for the whole organisation. TLJ Technologies, in Christchurch, New Zealand, and E-Motive Display, in Singapore, both accommodate trading, manufacturing and R&D capabilities. TL Jones China, in Shanghai, holds trading and manufacturing facilities, while TL Jones India (with its head office in Mumbai) has three trading offices. 4 JUNE 2009 Elevator safety and passenger information specialist TL Jones is further expanding with its first Australian facility. A company with its origins in Christchurch, TL Jones has already an extensive network around the Asia Pacific region, but the recently opened office in Brisbane is the companys first in Australia. Chris Stoelhorst, Divisional Managing Director, is excited about the move. The opening of our initial Australian facility in Brisbane in May is an exciting event in the long history of the T L Jones company and one that allows us to better serve our customers needs for our advanced elevator safety and building display products. he says. The Halma Elevator and Building Products division includes 25 sales and engineering offices around the world including 11 T L Jones facilities in the Asia Pacific Middle East region. TL Jones has been active in the elevator industry since 1927. As part of the Halma Group, TL Jones represents all the Halma Elevator Safety Division products, including world renowned brands MicroscanTM and PanachromeTM infrared door light curtains and E-Motive displays, along with a host of other products including the innovative new touch car operating panels from TLJ Technologies. For more information please contact: Chris Stoelhorst TL Jones Asia Pacific Pte Ltd 192 Pandan Loop #05-01 Pantech Industrial Complex Singapore 128381 Tel: +65 6776 4111, Fax: +65 6774 7555 E-mail: chris.stoelhorst@tljones.com Website: www.tljones.com ABOUT HELMA: Halma p.l.c. (www.halma.com) is an international market leader in safety, health and sensor technology. Halma is a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange and has over 3600 employees in over 40 subsidiaries worldwide with a total turnover of over US780m (2008). Halmas subsidiaries make products that protect lives and improve the quality of life for people through innovation in market leading products in areas such as manufacturing, energy, water and waste treatment, the environment, construction, transport and health, making its customers safer, more competitive and more profitable. The Halma Elevator and Building Products division includes 25 sales and engineering offices around the world including 11 T L Jones facilities in the Asia Pacific Middle East region. TL Jones has been active in the elevator industry since 1927. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4 July 2009 LEC RECOMMENDED REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR D2 LIFT INSPECTORS: Updated 07/09 * Used for CBIP Lift Inspector Examination: ACTS: The Building Act 2004 as amended by the Building Amendments Act 2005. Disabled Persons Community Welfare. Reprint 2nd April 2001 Regulations: The Building Regulations - Updated 2004: *Handbook: The NZ Building Code Handbook Third Edition ­ 25 th May 2007 Compliance Schedules & Building Codes. S S 8/1; SS 8/2; SS 8/3 D1; D2, F8 Issue 103 Website: www.dbh.govt.nz *1. NZ PASSENGER LIFT CODES: Power Lift Rules 1980 Effective 1st May 1980. NZS4121 Disabled Persons Community Welfare Act Issued 1985Effective 14th July 1988. Updated 2001. Power Lift Rules 1989 Effective 1st March 1989. Modified by the NZ Building Code as an Approved Solution D2/AS1.1.0 M andatory January 1st 1993. NZS4332P:1994 Provisional Standard . Issued 11th November 1994 NZS4332:1997 Full Standard issued as DS/AS1. Issued 6th March 1998. D2/AS1 modified as a NZ Building Code Approved Solution to incorporate EN81 in 2002. Reference Document EN81 Parts 1 and 2 Issued as D2/AS1.2.0 Amendments common to parts 1&2 of EN81. Issued as D2/AS1.2.1 Amendments to EN81 Part 1 1998 Traction Lifts. Issued as D2/AS1.2.2 Amendments to EN81 Part 2 1998 Hydraulic Lifts Issued as D2/AS1.2.3 *2. NZ SERVICE LIFT CODES: Rules for power lifts not exceeding 750 watts. Draft issue 6th November 1972 Modified by NZ Building code. as an Approved Solution D2/AS2.* *Renamed Mechanical Installations for Access Domestic and Service Lifts. M andatory January 1st 1993. EN115 - Safety Rules for the Construction and Installation of Escalators and Passenger Conveyors: Issued 13th October 1983 Updated July 2008 Modified by the NZ Building Code as an Approved Solution D2/AS3. M andatory January 1st 1993. BS 6037:1990 - Permanently Installed Suspended Access Equipment: Issued Second edition July 1990. NZS 4203:1992 - General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings: Issued 1984. Updated 1992 harmonised as AS/NZ 1170 Issued May 2004. 6. Australian Standard Lift Escalators & Moving Walks: AS 1735.1 1986 General Requirements. AS 1735.2 1993 Passenger and Goods Lifts - Electric. AS 1735.3 1986 Passenger and Goods Lifts - Hydraulic. AS 1735.4 1986 Service Lifts - Power Operated. AS 1735.5 1986 Escalators. AS 1735.6 1986 Moving Walks. AS 1735.7 1987 Stairway Lifts. AS 1735.8 1986 Inclined Lifts. AS 1735.9 1994 Special Purpose Industrial Lifts. AS 1735.10 1986 Tests. AS 1735.11 1986 Fire Rated Doors. AS 1735.12 1994 Facilities for Persons with Disabilities. AS 1735.13 1986 Lifts for Persons with Limited Mobility - Manual Powered. AS 1735.14 1990 Lifts for Persons with Limited Mobility- Restricted useLow Rise Platforms. AS 1735.15 2002 Lifts for People with Limited Mobility-Restricted UseNon Auto Controlled. AS 1735.16 1993 Lifts for Persons with Limited Mobility-Restricted UseAuto Controlled.. AS 1735.17 1995 Lifts for Persons with Limited Mobility-Restricted UseWater Drive. AS/NZS 1735.18 2002 Passenger Lifts for Private Residence Automatically Controlled. *7. European Standard EN81: Safety Rules for the construction and installation of lifts and service lifts: Part 1. 1987 Electric Lifts. Upated - 1998 Part 2. 1987 Hydraulic Lifts Updated 1998 Approved Documents relating to Lifts: Structure. Durability Means of Escape from Fire. Spread of Fire. Access Routes Mechanical Installation for Access. Safety from falling. Signs NZS 3000:1997 - Wiring Rules. AS/NZS 4431:1996 - Guidelines for Safe Working on New Lift Installations and New Constructions: Voluntary Code of Practice for Health and Safety Issues in the NZ Lift Industry. Issued - December 1999. Approved Code of Practice for Passenger Ropeways in New Zealand issued ­ December 1998 Barrier Free NZ Trust - Resourse Handbook for Barrier Free Environments: Issued February 1997. NZS 5270: 2005 Issued 15 th December 2005 Cable Cars for Private Residences ­ Design, Construction and Maintenance. 8. B1 B2 C2 C3 D1 D2 F4 F8 9. 10. *3. 11 12. 4. 13. 5. 14. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 5 July 2009 IQP Forum 09 #2 When and Where Friday 11 September 2009- Auckland Friday 25 September 2009­ Hamilton Friday 16 October 2009 - Wellington Friday 23 October 2009 ­ Christchurch Friday 30 October 2009 ­ Dunedin Who should attend? This Forum is for: Issue 103 Registration Form ­ IQP Forum 09 #2 Tax Invoice GST Registration Number: 89-128-145 Name of attendees: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Organisation: Postal Address: _____________________________________ ______________________________________ ? ? ? ? ? Staff working in Compliance Companies, IQP firms, and IQPs Council staff working in BWOF Compliance, Compliance Schedule writing Managers of I QP registers Facilities Managers, Asset Managers Building owners and owners agents Phone: ________________________ Fax: ________________________ Email: ________________________________________________ Special Requirements:__________________________________________ Investment: IQP Network members person Non-members person Want to join the IQP Network person IQP Forum 09 Location Auckland Hamilton Wellington Christchurch Dunedin Preliminary Programme 9.00am 9.15am Welcome and Introductions State of the Nation Update Proposed changes to the BWOF regime Whats happening with new Compliance Schedules and amendments? Infringements ­ what we can learn from others mistakes Morning Tea The Unusual Things Work on specified systems that should have a building consent. Dealing with buildings without Compliance Schedules but with Ce rtificates of Public Use, or Certificates of Acceptance, Department of Building and Housing BWOF Technical Reviews of Councils What DBH has found about Councils and IQPs What does this mean for you? Lunch and networking - Swap a business card with a stranger. Technical Topics Backflow - different rules for boundary and building backflows HVAC ­ which HVAC services should be on the CS? Passive Fire Protection ­ what are you checking? Afternoon Tea Saving time and money with BWOF maintenance Separating BWOF maintenance from other rules and regulations for maintenance 10 things that could save money and time Summary and Closing Comments Close. - 270.00 incl GST per - 295.00 incl GST per - 117.00 incl GST per 10.30am 11.00am IQP Network Member 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 270.00 Non-member 295.00 295.00 295.00 295.00 295.00 Add-on IQP Network membership @ 117.00 each (incl. GST) 11.45am 12.30pm Payment options: ? Payment by cheque - TOTAL enclosed ______________ TO: Building Networks NZ Ltd ? Purchase order ­ Supply a purchase order and we will send you an invoice. Purchase order number: ____________________ 1.30pm ? Direct Credit - Building Networks NZ Ltd ASB Bank 12-32540010739-00 How to register - Complete registration form and email, fax or send to: Building Networks NZ Ltd, PO Box 57031, Mana, Porirua 5247 Phone/ Fax: 04 233 9588, Email: office@bnets.co.nz Confirmation Policy All registrations will be confirmed by email. Please note that the registration form may be used as a GST invoice. Refund Policy: Should a registrant need to cancel their attendance prior to an event a 25% administration fee will be deducted or, alternatively, a substitute attendee can attend in their place. There will be no refund for any cancellation made within 24 hours of the event or a no show on the day. 3.00pm 3.30pm 4.15pm 4.30pm YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 6     ");
array_files[2]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax102.pdf","2009-06-08","98K"," NZLFAX102.PDF    ","","","May 2009 Issue 102 EDITORIAL IS IT TIME FOR A REBIRTH OF THE LIFT ASSOCIATION ? Typically, over the past three years the major lift corporations responded with a knee-jerk reaction to the invasion of the Commerce Commission with a `shut the door, `dont talk to anyone else in the industry approach. I expect this was engendered by mans primal survival reaction of aligning with the perceived strength of the immediate group. Admittedly times have been tough as the full effect of globalisation is radically changing our industry of old, and although some of those with a long experience of the lift industry understand the full effect of these changes, the reality is that change has always been a product of human evolution and with that comes uncertainty that plays on our inherited fears. But we dont need to respond to the divisive misplaced accusation of collusion by weakening our industry, but just emphasis respect in our commonality as competitors, and challenge ourselves to be proud of our industry and all those in it by nationally representing ourselves. We only need to separate the competitive 20% of out association through adopting moral practices, and accepting that 80% of our associations are there in respect for ourselves as human beings. Without that we are little more than beings. I believe i t is time to unite as an industry, not reinforce these artificial barriers of fear engendered by the Commerce Commissions intrusion that exposed our weaknesses, by re-forming an association with values that encourages good practice, respect and excellence in all we do together, and so reject this imposed division. This needs to be an association of individuals focused on the common interests of knowledge, friendship, and as a representativ e of the lift industry in NZ. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 05/2008 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH Mike Flanagan at ACC: With the split from Lift Solutions, Mike Flanagan informs me he has begun a new career at the Accident Compensation Corporation in Christchurch. Im sure Mike will be invaluable with any ACC lift accident claims. Standards NZ to Update D2/AS3 ­ EN115: Russell Appleton Departs KONE Wellington: Sadly its farewell to Russell Appleton after taking on the KONE umbrella for a few years, it seems there is little satisfaction in branch management these days in the local lift industry. Surely the question must be being asked as to why the turnover of personnel moving company and or leaving the industry seems so prevalent in NZ. Is it unrealised ambition; poor corporate leadership, or simply over looking the needs of the individual? My observation is that in nearly all cases, its the employee making the decision, and not the corporation. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY With the update of the European standard EN115 for Escalators & Moving Walks dated July 2008, the DBH has set up a process of review using Standards NZ to update Building Code Approve Solution D2/AS3. LEC was asked to participate on the review group but felt it was more sensible to use John Mardell Schindler Wellington to represent the industry, being located in Wellington where the committee will sit. LEC will remain an observer with possibly Graham Leslie representing IPENZ and Otis. SNZ to Consider a Platform Lift Standard: Production of a Platform Lift Standard would allow for recognition as an acceptable solution under the Building Act. Geoff Ellett of Access Elevators Ltd (www.lifts.co.nz) and Ian Bougen of Pandect Mobility Solutions (www.pandect.co.nz) have been invited onto the committee with the following observers:Alex Quinn; Quinn Elevators Ltd - Bob Johnston; Lifteye Consultancy - David Cremer; Cremer Engineering Ltd Mike Schofield; Associated Lifts­ Murray Barr; Vertrans Terry Viccars; Kone ­ Wally Trelewsky; Wolfe Elevators. Page 1 May 2009 Peter Thomson Retires from T.L Jones Ltd: Issue 102 Colin Parkinson in Brisbane: Probably up there as one of the longest serving members employed in the one company in the local NZ Lift industry; Christchurch based Peter Thomson retired in January this year after some 50 years from starting as an apprentice in January 1959 with T.L Jones Ltd in Christchurch. Peter was a prodigy of the apprenticeship era where employers mostly relied on local field skills to construct and commission new lift equipment, consequently Peter spent time in the UK with the then international colonial Express Lift Company to hone his skills before returning to NZ, and take responsibility for many local lift installations in Christchurch. With economic conditions pushing T.L. Jones into receivership in the early 80s, Ross Brown from the Dunedin based AOTEA Electric stepped in to use the always viable lift department to restore the financial viability of the company, but retain the T.L Jones name. It was at this time at T.L. Jones Ltd that Peter took on overseeing the technical role of converting the EPL/Express design incandescent lamp based entry passenger protection light curtains to using intra-red sensors, that the Microscan division was ready to stand alone. And so that by the time Ross Brown decided to sell off: through technical innovation, the now profitable lift division to the multi-national Swiss lift company; Schindler, at the end of the 80s, who better to head the technical management but Peter Thomson with Harry Visschedijk as the design technician. And so using the T.L. Jones name, the Microscan product evolved through static to multibeam scanning, to slim-line and 3D to become a renown international supplier. The company grew rapidly at this time to establish offices in Asia, India, the US, and China, but Ross Brown was finished with milking this cow, and so around 2005, T.L Jones was sold off to the UK based Helma Group, who happened to be world leaders in infrared sensors and manufacturers of the Memco range. By 2009 the Thomas and Les Jones name and offices in Christchurch sill survive, but Peter Thomson, who has overseen these many years of accomplishment and change, saw the 50 year mark as a good time to step aside and place his many years of experience into the realm of history. A time to reflect, rest a torn Achilles tendon he experienced on his first week of retirement, and enjoy the simpler pleasures of life with his wife Sheryl. Thanks for the memories Pete, and enjoy your deserved retirement. Bob. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY The well known Taranaki lifty Colin Parkinson has emerged in Brisbane, presumably preparing for his future retirement in the sunny north coast of Australia. Colin ran EML for many years from New Plymouth and was one of the first into remote monitoring of lifts and providing local hands free phone systems in NZ. EW NOW ON FACEBOOK: Elevator World, Inc., recently established a page on Facebook, the online social networking service. EW will be posting on the site daily, including news headlines, whats in the current issue of the latest EW publication, where in the world EW may be visiting and other information that may be of interest to friends and fans. Anyone with a Facebook account can access the EW page, but you must be logged into your account. KONE REPORTS GOOD FIRST QUARTER: For its first quarter of 2009, KONE Corp. reported an overall good performance. In the January-March period, orders received totaled EUR898.5 million (US1.2 billion). The year-on-year decline in orders received was 19.6% in historical and 20.5% in comparable exchange rates. The level of orders received was higher than in both the third and fourth quarters of 2008. At the end of March 2009, the order book was EUR 3.8 billion (US5.1 billion). Net sales increased by 12.8% to EUR 1 billion (US1.4 billion). At comparable exchange rates, the growth was also 12.8%. Operating income was EUR91.2 million (US124.4 million) or 8.9% of net sales. The result was still encumbered by high raw material costs. SCHINDLER ANNOUNCES CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT AT EBIKON: Faced with a decline in the demand for high-rise elevators, Schindler has announced it will adjust capacity at its Ebikon factory through a reduction in personnel. At the same time, reduced work hours are to be introduced in response to the postponing of construction projects. Effective May 1, approximately 110 employees in production and supply-chain management at the Ebikon factory were placed on reduced hours until the summer vacation. This measure will affect approximately 65% of the employees working in these areas. At the same time, a consultation process has been started concerning the planned reduction of the factorys 250 personnel by 36 employees. THE 4TH SPANISH ELEVATOR EXHIBITION: h h W ed 17ttth June tto Frrii..19ttth June iin Barrcello na.. W ed 17 h June o F 19 h June n Ba ce o na fforr de ttaiiilllss sse e :::-fo r de t a s se e o de a ee w w w ...e llle v co n...co m w w w e e v co n co m w w w e e v co n co m Page 2 May 2009 Commerce Commission Vomits its Findings on Local Lift Industry Cartel Investigation: We can all be crass, but the press release by the Commerce Commission regarding the investigation into the purported local lift industry Cartel reflects the vested interests of the local Commission and its disrespect for anyone fingered under its cartel rules in NZ. From my knowledge of the lift industry and persons tainted in this instance, the witch hunt of communists in the McCarthy era and burning of heathens by the Catholics draw similar parallels to this investigation. The focus on hearsay, innuendo and reflected ignorance of simple competitive fervor needs to be considered thoroughly in the future, before over enthusiastically jumping in behind the draconian secrecy rules that remove any right of a fair response to accusation, if the commission wishes to remain a useful and credible investigative body in NZ. The reason the Commission had to resort to a mud slinging report full of innuendo and unsubstantiated criticism but make no penalty, was purely face saving for not looking before they leapt. If the Commission wishes to retain its credibility somewhere near it power, it needs to rely on good investigative process, and retain respect for all parties, giving the benefit of the doubt where specific evidence is not forth coming. It looks to me as if they entered this investigation to prove collusion, not to determine the significance and degree of culpability or effect on market competition, because if they had, they would have found this locally small industry is about providing a broad service and meeting multinational targets efficiently in a very competitive market. The local NZ lift market is relatively small, but has still had to provide 24/7 experienced breakdown cover of any of their lift systems in NZ no matter how remote, which to meet customer and legislative demands, invariably pressured management and employee to have to occasionally work with competitors to assist in covering a lift breakdown or supplying thinly spread experienced labour throughout a widely spread market. On the other hand, the lift industry the Commission investigated evolved without the broad range of packaged off the shelf solutions as reflected in the market today, where each company specifically designed and manufactured unique solutions in its control systems and component parts. Issue 102 The result in this highly electromechanical past era, was that expertise was centered in lifetime employees reliant on overseas manufactured product distributed through local based companies or agencies, that developed highly specialized skills in its employees to install and maintain the technically complex equipment throughout NZ. The industry therefore engendered strong company loyalty and fervent inter company rivalry in those days, where building property owners were best served by maintaining good communications between their lift service provider, as shopping around was seen as a disloyalty. In the majority of new installations, I feel it fair to say that competition was keen, with pride in ones company and ones work paramount, but of course the market place is fickle, and there were times of boom and bust, and being a relatively small workforce spread thinly over NZ, there would have been times in specific localized areas and specific circumstances where there was little or no competition for a period, and Im sure some sales managers tried to push the envelope. But this didnt reflect longstanding anti-competitive behavior against fair competition as purported in the Commerce Commission press release, but the balancing of forces that exist in any market economy working in a free market to survive. The lift industry was then about engineering, and apprentices and providing a service in return for a fair profit for the companies endeavors, not about the myopic yardstick focus on bottom line management evident today. The problem in trying to judge the past using todays values is the power and enthusiasm of a government appointed watchdog that seems keener to please through heads on the plate than to understand the industry. The resultant justification for nearly 3 years of personal persecution of two community focused individuals and their families was through a press release full of nothing but innuendo, with nothing to prosecute and no apology. Why werent the corporations accused if this was a cartel as reported, or was it easier to prosecute anticompetitive behavior and accuse individuals rather than the multinational corporations, leaving the final press release to justify the application of mud and to further the Commerce Commissions profile. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 May 2009 Surely at the time of the initial accusations the Commerce Commission knew of the 10 year limitations, or was it just three years of trawling based on too much reliance on hearsay, and overseas hype hoping to hit the jackpot without any concern for the effects on the accused individuals. I suspect in a climate of suspicion, where northern hemisphere lift industry corporations had just been prosecuted for market collusion, the Commerce Commission antennas were very receptive to an approach by one of the multinational corporations who was keen to gain immediate immunity from naming and prosecution once the accusation was raised by dobbing in a competitor. To light the fuse, it just took a relatively new ly arrived to NZ, enthusiastic account manager to combine competitive inspired stories from the past, all with a little truth, and maybe a few disgruntled customers, to assert suspicion of his immediate past managers and strongest competitors associations. In the end you need to look at overall local company profits and wider industry influences rather than focus on parts of individual sales circumstance or personal perceptions of past incidents, because if there is no obvious overall benefit to two or more corporate identities, then there is no substantive collusion. In other words it can become a good old witch hunt. All service pricing was usually based on a formula of averaged cost, relative to the number of lifts, number of floors, expected work load, and thereby frequency of service. Large institutions of course always had bargaining power and efficiencies of distance between units, which could reflect reductions per unit in cost. Of course there has been a reflected workface arrogance in this industry over time from being in a presumed captive market, but interestingly this was not necessarily associated with price control nor reflection of collusion, but with a projected corporate belief within the major service providers that any lift in the companies portfolio was looked on as their `life of the lift responsibility. Because of the nature of the comprehensive contracts in the industry, the perception was also that the building owner was the third party and thereby less important in the contract, where the company and employees took all responsibility of how the lift was looked after, and the owner just paid the bill. Once again we need to look at the reality of this premicroprocessor era. Lifts were managed as a total portfolio, w here responsibility both financial and for day to day operation was based on control of the pool of resource against cost. An example is similar to insurance, where the costs are spread over the total portfolio income. This better YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 102 handles the vagaries and fluctuation of claims. And so from the lift service providers perspective, the annual maintenance cost to the building owner is a proportion of the overall lift company portfolio cost, and not necessarily just the cost to maintain the specific equipment in any one contract. It is therefore understandable from a building owners perspective, who has experienced little problem with his lift, that excessive charging or even collusion could be perceived. Even where breakdown of the lift occurs, there may be many excess hours spent trying to locate intermittent faults, or the repairing of expensive failed components that are not so obvious to the owner at the time, but are soaked up within the lift company portfolio costs. Consequently, in the period focused on by the Commerce Commission in their investigation and report, in their desire to only look for evidence of negative practices of individuals, I can only conclude that exaggerated focus was given to personal grievances, competitive fervor and hearsay, rather than to understand this past period of the industry. There may have been individual acts of persons working together to keep an industry of many variables viable, but from my knowledge of the persons involved, their good characters and community involvement over many years, combined with overseeing building owners needs in association with the lift industry, I find it difficult to not respond to the uninformed self interested slurs handed down in the report. It is not that I dont understand the response of the Commission; I just put it down to an over enthusiastic and over powerful regulatory body working in an environment focused on penalty rather than understanding, who is very aware of political criticism and the need to justify its position seemingly with little regard to those whose lives it impacts. It also has to be said, that the environment of offering `first in immunity may work against the commissions credibility, as from my understanding in both this and the Thyssenkrupp case, it may encourage the unprincipled dobber with vested interests to respond rather than expose genuine market concerns. I therefore think it only fair to state this opinion and hopefully it puts some balance into the irreparable harm done, by briefly reflecting on the lift industry since the era so venomously portrayed in the report existed, in the hope the commission has a better understanding of the industry, and is less likely to waste tax payers money in any future Don Quixote like exercises. Ed. Page 4     ");
array_files[3]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax101.pdf","2009-06-08","442K"," NZLFAX101.PDF    ","","","March 2009 Issue 101 EDITORIAL. SOME COUNCILS NOW CALL FOR DURABILITY ASSESSMENT ON ALL D2 PRODUCER STATEMENTS: Better late than never must be the word. After 17 years of the Building Act the revamp of council processes under their multi-million dollar accreditation has of late seen a requirement for Durability confirmation on D2 producer statements result. Now I can understand durability headlining concern after domestic leaky buildings, along with newly trained council officers where tuned up to the phrase durability, but surely the processes of consent evaluation, inspection followed by ongoing maintenance, and annual WOF reinspection of all D2 equipment as specified systems, doesnt need the unnecessary addition of a durability assessment during the D2 Consent process. In fact it might be fair to say that any specified system is durable for life by definition. I understood the Building Act to be about efficiency of process, removing the wasteful duplicity of unnecessary processes, not a covert means for bureaucratic duck-shoving all and sundry onto independents to produce a multitude of irrelevant producer statements. I understand its difficult to promote efficient solutions and common sense based on experience, when you have a society consumed with fault, punishment and penalty, but to suggest durability has to be assessed on all D2 Producer Statements when it has no relevance, is in essence duplicity, and therefore inefficient . Good standards and minimising risk is achieved by workface experience and training, not by whimsical and excessive bureaucratic processes. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 05/2008 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH INVITATION TO BARCELONA: The fourth Exhibition of Spain of Elevators and Components organised once again by the IAEE is to be held in Barcelona from Wed.17t h to Fri. 19t h of June 2009, if you are looking to get away from that mid winter blues. See www.elevcon.com for all details of papers to be presented and functions. The exhibition is to be held in Hall 1 of the Fira Barcelona. Barcelonas population is 1.6 million. Currency is the Euro Language is Catalan & Spanish. Temperatures in June 18c to 25c. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 March 2009 D2 ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION - IN PRACTICE: As most are probably aware by now, since 1993 certification of lifts in NZ falls under the Building Act that is administered by Building Code Authorities (BCAs), referencing the D2 performance based NZ Building Code, and mostly non-mandatory selected prescriptive codes, know as acceptable solutions. For passenger lift installation in NZ, where one of these D2 acceptable solutions exists and is suitable to the building owners purpose, the building owner has two options, he can selects either D2/AS1 1.0 using NZS 4332, or D2/AS1 2.0 using the European standard EN81, as long as he includes a few pertinent local NZS 4332 clauses. Where Acceptable D2 solutions are proposed, the BCA has to accept these solutions at the Consent approval stage. Now because these solutions are based on past prescriptive solutions that may or may not have been updated to reflect market change, issues may arise where new designs; especially from overseas that may not comply exactly with the acceptable solution, but still inherently achieve the intent of the mandatory D2 building code performance clauses. A lift operating systems query that has arisen of late regards one sentence of the acceptable solution NZS 4332:1997 in clause 25.8. This related to the operation of lifts under earthquake conditions. Now this unique to NZ clause 25.8.2(a), includes a requirement for all lifts to immediately slow as soon as an earthquake is sensed, but this is not required in overseas codes where the control systems are manufactured. This situation means, when applicable overseas solutions enter the country, they need to have their control systems modified. In some instances this is not practical, as these changes require software design changes that multinational corporations are not interested in. Issue 101 A proposed solution was to use the overheat detection circuit which is incorporated in overseas systems to parallel the earthquake sensor, but this features returns the lift to the Ground level and shuts the lift down, as compared to the local code requirement to slow the lift to the nearest floor and shut it down. In essence the European solution achieves the Building code performance requirements, but not exactly to the local prescriptive code, and so how do we sit regarding compliance. The solution as I see it is to accept paralleling the earthquake input with the overheat detection, as both achieve a similar result. The lift is safely isolated with passengers able to exit the building until a serviceman can check the status of the building, and reinstate the lift when safe to do so. AS far as compliance under the Building Act goes, this is where the Building Compliance Schedule should come in as a record of the lift installations code status detailing any slight variations at Consent. Counterweight Earthquake Sensor The solution would be recorded on the Building Compliance Schedule SS8/1 B2 as D2/AS1 2.0 EN81 Part 1 with a D2/VM1-Earthquake variation. D2/VM1-Earthquake variation: The earthquake control feature will upon operation return the lift immediately to the main floor, open the doors and shut the lift down. The concept of a dynamic Building Compliance Schedule Data Base of specific detail relating to each building, drawn from the Consent and made publicly accessible through the internet would ensure consistency of inspection throughout NZ, and suitably accommodate these variations. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 March 2009 WHAT CONSTITUTES A SUITABLE LIFT EMERGENCY PHONE SYSTEM: There is no reason why a clear and simple to operate means of providing emergency communication to passenger lift users isnt fitted to any post 1989 building in NZ. The acceptable solution D2/AS1 (NZS 4332:1997) calls for a 24 hr monitored, single button, vandal resistant means of calling for emergency assistance for all passenger lift s. It has not been since 1989 that a lesser solution was acceptable, and only after 1992 when alternative solutions could differ the solution. A Timeline of lift phone code changes over the years has been:1. Power Lift Rules 1958. Rule 26. Automatic lifts require an emergency signalling device operated from inside the car and audible means outside the lift well. The device shall be marked `emergency signal. Power Lift Rules 1980. Rule 28.3.3 (reflected AS1735) Required an audible alarm labelled `Lift Alarm located outside the building where no 24hr monitor exists. Required a 24hr direct telephone communication with handset approx. 910 above floor level for disabled use. The location of the lift and street number was to be displayed by the telephone. A minimum 2hr rechargeable emergency battery backup was to be provided for the alarm system. Power Lift Rules 1989. Rule 28.3.3 Required to be a 24hr monitored direct dialling system, with push button or voice activated and be vandal proof with 2hr battery backup. Additional capacity is required where emergency lighting is attached as well. The location of lift and lift number is to be displayed by the phone. NZS 4332P:1994 Rule 28.3.3 No change. NZS 4332:1997 Rule 28.2.3 No change. Issue 101 2. 3. 4 5. Alternative Solutions: One of the positive things regarding the Building Act was the recognition of the Alternative Solution to enable a process for designers of solutions to better reflect new ideas, and evolve with change w ithin both an industry technology and building owners need, to better match the solution to the circumstance during the consent process. A good example of the lesser emergency call solution for low use, low travel platform lifts, that provides a simpler, more cost effective solutions for disability access into buildings over 2 or 3 levels, has been to use 24hr security monitoring of alarms. These lift alarms are connected to 24hr security monitoring companies that can identify the building and lift initiating the alarm . This allows attendance or contact by the security company to be made directly with owners during normal hours if preferred, and lift service provider personnel after hours, negating the needs for costly additional telephone lines and more co mplex phone equipment. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 March 2009 Issue 101 Ted Semon of the Space Elevator Blog will serve as ISEC president. The consortiums goal is to promote the development, construction and operation of the space elevator as a revolutionary and efficient way to space for all humanity. UTC REPORTS EARNINGS PER SHARE UP: United Technologies Corp. (UTC) reported its fourth quarter and full year earnings per share were up 14% and 15%, respectively, compared to the same periods last year. The company also reported net income of US1.1 billion and consolidated revenues of US14.5 billion for the quarter. The news was not all positive, as new equipment orders at its Otis Elevator business fell 14% for the quarter compared to the same period in 2007. 2009 SPACE ELEVATOR CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT: The 2009 Space Elevator Conference is set to take place on August 12-16 at the Microsoft Conference Center in Redmond, Washington. According to co-organizer Dr. Bryan Laubscher, the four full days of the event aim to further a possible alliance with the museums and science centers, receive more advertising through early sponsorship, and add major sessions on applications enabled by the space elevator and carbon nanotube technology development. Organizers also hope to obtain a sponsor so that much more money can be raised than has been in the past in order to lower the conference fee. For more information, contact Laubscher at e-mail: belaubscher@comcast.net or David Horn at e-mail: david.horn@microsoft.com. KONE RELEASES FINANCIAL REPORTS: For the three-month period ending December 31, 2008, KONE Corp. announced it had experienced continued market share gains and growing profitability. During the quarter, the company reported net sales of EUR1.4 billion (US1.8 billion), an increase of 10.6% when compared to the same three months in the previous year; operating income of EUR189.2 million (US245.7 million), an 17.7% increase; and EUR845.2 million (US1.1 billion) in order received, a decrease of 6.3%. FATAL ESCALATOR FALL IN SOUTH AFRICA: The Times recently reported that a six-year-old boy died as a result of injuries he sustained when he fell more than 6 meters from an escalator. The incident occurred December 16 in a shopping center near Durban, South Africa. According to the report, the boy was playing at the top of the escalator when he apparently tried to climb down from its moving railing... SCHINDLER REPORTS ITS LARGEST PROFIT IN HISTORY: Schindler recently announced it had achieved a net profit of CHF634 million (US540.6 million) for the financial year 2008. It noted this was the largest profit in its history. Consolidated operating revenue rose by 1.4% (6.5% in local currencies) to CHF14 billion (US12 billion). The elevators and escalators business increased its operating profit by 11.6% to CHF895 million (US763.1 million), while orders received rose by 2.6% to CHF 9.3 billion (US7.9 billion). The earnings before income taxes margin reached 10.2% for the first time. WOMAN INJURED ON ESCALATOR IN JAPAN: According to The Yomiuri Shimbun, a woman was seriously injured when her stole was caught in an escalator she was riding in Mito, Japan. A commuter found her unconscious on the escalator steps about 9:30 p.m. on March 6. The stole had tightened around her neck, and she was in a coma. Other clothes had also gotten entangled in the steps. Police reported a security camera in the rail station in which the incident took place showed the 57-year-old woman falling on the escalator, apparently when the stole became caught in the escalator. She is being treated at the hospital. The incident is being investigated. TL JONES INDIA MOVES TO NEW PREMISES IN MUMBAI: TL Jones has shifted its Indian headquarters in Mumbai to new premises in Hyde Park. TL Jones India moved to this facility with expanded engineering and service support in November 2008. The new TL Jones India HQ address and contact details are: 202 Hyde Park, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400 072 India; phone: (91) 224215-0700/01/02/03; fax: (91) 22-4200-0789; e-mail: info@tljones.com; and website: www.tljones.com. AUSTRIAN BOY DIES FROM ESCALATOR FALL INJURIES: The Austrian Times recently reported that a boy who fell from an escalator in a Vienna metro station had died from the injuries he sustained in the incident. According to the report, the 10-year-old boy was sitting on the escalator handrail when he lost his balance and fell about 15 meters to the floor below. The incident occurred on January 1. The death was the second in less than two months at the station. On November 28, a 21-year-old man died from injuries he sustained when he fell from the same escalator. The government agency responsible for public transportation in the city is looking into methods to improve safety on metro escalators. SPACE ELEVATOR CONSORTIUM FOUNDED: A coalition of leaders in the space elevator movement recently announced the formation of the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC) in Rancho Santa Margarita, California. The group established a new, independent assembly designed to promote standards and foster research relating to the construction of an elevator to space. ISEC will function at the international level and be founded by the Spaceward Foundation, the Space Elevator Reference, the Space Elevator Blog, EuroSpaceward and the Japan Space Elevator Association. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[4]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax100.pdf","2009-03-06","240K"," NZLFAX100.PDF    ","","","January 2009 Issue 100 100 Issues: I suspect its fitting to say something about the 100th issue with only two, maybe three missed since the first issue on March 1992. (see attached copy) I must admit my inspiration has mostly to do with the ambivalence of the industry to introduction to the change in Governance under the Building Act, and to try to retain a hysterical record. I must admit it has given me much to write about, although with seemingly little effect as little process has improved in this period from 92 to 2009. Then again the lift industry has gone through a tumultuous period over this time moving from locally managed to multinational, from a highlabour workforce based on trade skills, to a minimised workforce reliant on high technology and the skills of off-shore engineers. This era has seen installation go from 12 weeks to four for a 4 stop lift; maintenance from 30 units/person a month to 60; in-house installation to sub-contracted labour; proprietary maintenance to institutional maintenance contracts; company management from industry experienced to accountant; knowledge from person to computer; industry experience from workplace to consultant; training from apprentice to corporate; certification and inspection of lift equipment from cenralised to laise-faire; industry spirit from keen to PC; industry association from corporate club to a void; and lastly, loyalty from corporate to self interests. Thanks to those who keep me on my toes, and to those who provide feedback and opinion, even though sometimes you may not realise it! Ed EDITORIAL. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 05/2009 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH KONE NEW APPOINTMENT, OLD NAME: Ex Otis NZ Sales Manager Terry Viccars has just been appointed to oversee the KONE Sales team in Auckland. This should take some of the load off the boys in the sales team. I dont know if its an Otis plan, but it sure adds to the high number of ex-Otis employees now working for the ex-Otis now KONE NZ ManagerRon Perez. We best be careful as some in the Commerce Commission might see this as a form of collusion! DESIGN-COM EXPANDS FULL COLOUR LIFT DISPLAY RANGE: With the 6.4 and 10.4 TFT lift information screens produced by Design-Com in Australia being so successful & reliable locally and internationally, they have now announced a further 3 new modules. These are the LD-90C (4.3) for landings, the LD-170C (7.1) wide screen, and the LD-200C (15) lift screens as an alternative to their top end (e-screens) that incorporates video etc. The lower cost end is still service by their (blue on white) LD-33 and LD-88 monochrome screens. Page 1 AMREIN DYNASTY CORRECTION: Last issue I reported that Nigel Amrein who had just joined KONE as their new Installation Manager, was well known industry entity; Brian Amreins son, but instead Nigel is his nephew , for he is the son of Brians brother Nick. And who thankfully should make this all clear to me, but Peter Logan, of Logan Elevators, who is Brians sisters son. So apologies Nick, I hope its all clear now. There always was a bit of nepotism in the lift industry! YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 2009 HAVE YOU CONSIDERED DESTINATION? As the lift industry gets its head around the expanding use of the lift Destination control system, the mix of Sales information and competitive misinformation understandably tends to make prospective user conservatively hesitant when it comes to yes or no decisions. Of course it doesnt help that suppliers milk early design costs out of market advantage from something new that looks good by making it exclusive. Such with Schindlers Miconic 10 that has now been on the market well over a decade and still because of its exclusivity hasnt touched the base market of up to 10 level buildings in NZ, let alone the goods lift market. From someone who has been keen on the Destination control concept since first experiencing Leo Ports idea, and EPLs (Kone) relay logic control solution installed in Sydney Law school back around 1970, it is interesting to see the conservative pace at which the concept has been accepted. For those still unaware, this architect Leo Port thought it would be much more efficient for a lift system to know where the user wanted to go before allocating a demand to the control system, as compared to the past system; and I say past deliberately, where most existing lift controls dont know where the passenger want to go; only that they want to go Up or Down, until after the lift has been allocated. The simplest analogy is to think of the inefficiencies of a taxi system where the driver doesnt know where anyone wishes to go until they stop the taxi and get in, as compared to a bus system where everyone lines at the stop dependant on their destination. Now Schindler using a patent advantage could see high rise multiple lift performance solutions would give them system advantage in the exclusive area of the market, and marketed it accordingly with their Miconic 10 control system. But what they didnt do was interface it to their whole range of lift sizes and solutions, and so overlooked the many other advantages of Destination control, by focusing on the single user input, with no need for additional car inputs. Issue 100 Yes, to market the new single user input across the board of lift solutions from 2 stops ¦ to odds and even floors ¦ to mixed levels served by multiple lifts ¦ to remote lifts no longer needing single lobbies ¦ to multiple paths, all able to be efficiently serviced through a users single destination input. But what about goods lifts, vehicle lifts, periodic dedicated service lifts, they are all able to be serviced by a single input. Why would you entertain a Directional double input call button system again. Lets look at some scenarios. 1. A single 3 stop lift having a 3 button station at each landing. Single input, no more hands, great from those with disabilities. 2. 2 lifts one wide 800kg the other long 1125kg same lobby, one serving basement and 4 floors, the other no basement but servicing 3 extra upper floors. Single input, great for the basement plus 4 floor medical center. 3. A single 5000kg goods/passenger lift serving 4 floors 2 front, 2 rear with electric forklift movements between floors. Single input using remote pedestal for easy access or proximity device for service to dedicated levels. No hands. 4. A 4500kg vehicle lift serving 6 apartment levels with swipe card security access from single landing stations plus passengers. Input your destination or swipe your dedicated card from the car window like exiting the airport car park and drive in when you lift arrives. No the driver doesnt need to try to reach the COP from the car window. The system can handle it simply and with a single input, the same system that serves a 50 storey multi-rise building. All users needs to know and input is their DESTINATION. Yes you can use the `PAST Directional system with multiple and dedicated controls and hybrids to achieve the same thing in most cases only less efficiently, but why not use the flexibility of the Destination technology of today for ALL systems, and so liberate the user, building designer, and solution complexity in all instances. Be innovative! YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 January 2009 CONSENT PROCESS FAILS BUILDING OWNER: Property owners after years of hard work bought their 3 level dream-home overlooking the beautiful Tasman Peninsular in the late 1990s. The property included a lift that they didnt need, but thought it would be a great asset as they got older. What they didnt know was that leaky buildings were an inconvenient, but the adhoc lift certification process in place since 1992 under the Building Act, could be deadly. It was when the aesthetically pleasing, solidly engineered 10 year old lift that he had a maintenance contract on and occasionally used that made more noise than usual as it began to descend one day that changed his world. The memory of that inherent fear of being trapped in a runaway lift will never be erased as he plummeted the 6 meters to the bottom of the shaft, fracturing back and leg bones in multiple places. Why? How this could happen in a highly legislated environment haunts him to this day, such that the only solution he can see once his body has had time to sufficiently heal, is to move away from the memory, and find out why this could happen so that others wont be placed in the same unsuspecting position he was. As an independent lift industry consultant with some 40 plus years of experience in the world wide lift industry, I was still arrogant enough to think that lifts cannot fall uncontrolled such as this lift had, because of the inherent fail safe features learnt over the 100 plus years of history of the industry, and of the certification processes in place. But I was wrong, not because the industrys learned experience failed, but because this experience wasnt appreciated; fully considered, or applied by the designer, of the equipment, nor was the Consent process functionally carried out in New Zealand. In my opinion, the reason why these personally devastating injuries brought this building owners daily life to a halt was because of 2 critical failings:1. Because of its deficiencies in design as the design must never have been fully considered or tested by an experience lift inspector. Because the Consent process failed with no documented record of assessment, testing or design documentation recorded. Issue 100 In this instance, the first weakness of design was in the use of a suspended wire rope winch fitted wi th single standard 11mm RHOL 6x19 wire rope. This rope is more than adequate to support the load Frayed Hoist Rope with an approximate 50kN breaking strain, but break it did because it is not designed to wrap onto a 150mm diameter drum, let alone pass over an approximate 50mm 2:1 pulley. The rope wires fatigued and broke over the 10 year period until they reached a point where they could no longer support the 400kg or so rated load. The rules require over-head machines to be supported and not suspended to ensure fixing attachment failures dont end up with the hoisting equipment on top of the user. Another rule overlooked was to not pass the rope over a suitably sized drum or sheave, proportional to the rope size, to ensure maximum life of the rope is achieved, and also to not fit two ropes to maintain a fail safe environment. In this instance a minimum sheave diameter for the 11mm RHOL rope should be around 520mm. This was 150mm. The second weakness was in the design of the safety gear, purposely designed for this job, that if tested and operational, would have engaged and stopped the lift falling as soon as the rope parted. Defective Safety Gear The broken rope design relied on spring initiation upon the parting of the hoisting rope; to force neoprene padded shoes laterally against the guiding channel and presumably exert enough force to stop the vertical descent of the lift. In actuality, there was never any lateral force applied because the mechanism would never set, and if it did, it is suspected the channel guides would flex sufficiently to the lateral load to be ineffective. Suspended Hoist 2. How was the design safety deficient? The closest industry practice based code to the small domestic lift installation in NZ is D2/AS2, or its full title under the Building Act ­ Mechanical Installations for Access, Domestic and Service lifts- An acceptable solution. And although this is an old code, it contains the fundamental safe practices to use when designing this type of lift. Local codes require the safety gear be located beneath the platform and to bring the car and its maximum full load to rest and to securely hold it in position. And so since inception this solution was an accident in waiting for an unsuspecting building owner to use it, all because of an ineffective certification structure in NZ. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 January 2009 Safe Industry Practice in Alternative Solution Lift Control Circuits: With 15 years of inconsistent practice in the evolution of lift control circuitry since introduction of the 1991 Building Act in the local lift manufacturing market in New Zealand, along with the regulatory processes of inspection coming under review by the Department of Building & Housing, it may be time to consider a consistency of practice within the industry to enable a single efficient inspection process to evolve. To enable manufacturers of D2 Alternative Solution equipment in NZ to establish the status of their control systems against good industry practice, it is therefore considered prudent for local manufacturers to compare the features of their control system designs against the following safety critical features, and to raise any issues of concern or opinion regarding deficient circuitry, to be considered and addressed accordingly. The following RISK characteristics should also be considered for users of the equipment relative to failure of any critical safety circuit design features in your lift control system:? The consequence risk factor. ie. High likelihood of injury unless trained to avoid it. ? The frequency and exposure time risk factor. ie. Every time the lift is used. ? The possibility of avoiding the hazard. ie. Almost impossible unless trained to avoid it. ? The probability of the unwanted occurance. ie. Very low where good design, maintenance and inspection practices are implemented. The following checklist of lift industry safety-critical design features that should be considered where applicable for incorporation into any lift system control to achieve a fail safe design are:Up and down direction control confirmation of rest state before restart. 2. A minimum of 2 control components in each main directional drive control. 3. Hydraulic check valve. 4. Hydraulic over pressure valve. 5. Hydraulic over speed valve. 6. Hydraulic door lock valve. 7. Overtravel. 8. Passenger overload sensor. 9. Door lock. 10. Car gate. 11. Electric drive protection. 12. Phase failure & reversal. 1. Issue 100 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Top of car EM stop. Pit EM Stop. Sub-floor EM Stop. Non-enclosed car EM stop. Safety gear switch. Overspeed governor switch. Slack-rope or chain switch. Terminal slow limits. Terminal stop limits. Maintenance inspection device-set switch. Handwinding set switch. No critical safety control function fully reliant on a PLC output. It is suggested, that upon applying the checklist against any lift control system, each of the 24 points be either confirmed as included, or a brief comment detailed beside the point as to why it is unnecessary or not applicable to the solution. Where sufficient response is forthcoming, these responses will be put to the CBIP industry expert group for consideration and reply. Dependent upon DBH agreement, it is envisaged that a performance standard be developed to be used as an industry guideline for all future manufacture of these systems. Thank you for you cooperation and response as soon as possible, in this intention to ensure consistent manufacture and inspection of safety critical circuits. I might add, that where good cooperation is evident there should be improved respect for self-governance of this industry, which should lead to common processes of efficient documentation and inspection for the industry. If commercial sensitivity is of concern, there is no need to identify the manufacturer or control system, and by responding through LEC, this discrimination will be maintained. Of course any comments on the list to improve or adjust it are welcomed. Ed. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[5]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax99.pdf","2009-03-06","1126K"," NZLFAX99.PDF    ","","","November 2008 Issue 99 EDITORIAL. Are TAs D2 Accredited? Im overseeing the replacement of a Duplex 8 stop lift installation in Christchurch at present, and duly prepared a code PS2 Peer Review of the change in design for the client to submit with their application for Consent. Now I suppose it wasnt a surprise when my client rang up to say the Consent officer had informed him that there is no need for a Consent if you are replacing a lift. Fair enough, everyone likes to see a more efficient process and thereby less cost, but hang on a minute, who will ensure the replaced installation is suitable for purpose, safe to use or even compliant with the building Act. We are not talking about replacing a plumbing fitting here, this equipment will take thousands of passengers up and down a building in future years, and the TA implies it is not their responsibility to ensure it is installed properly, tested, nor a suitable record kept. No wonder D2 Compliance Schedules are mostly nonexistent or irrelevant. And if its not their responsibility, whose is it? Prior to 1992 all lift installations, new and replaced required full details and layout drawings to be submitted to the then Ministry of Transport Marine Department for approval of the design, followed by department testing upon installation, before certification was issued and the equipment could be put into service for public use. Now it seems, someone else does that, in fact since 1992 as an inspector of lifts, this is exactly what I have experienced, a totally uncoordinated, inconsistent Consent certification process for lifts D2 equipment in NZ. No Im not surprised, just concerned when you encourage property owners to meet the requirements of the Building Act and Acceptable Solutions, and TA officers say, forget it. See article page 3. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH KONE NEW APPOINTMENT, OLD NAME: The name AMREIN has been associated with the NZ lift industry for many years through father Brian, and now son Nigel Amrein is making his own mark in being appointed into the position of Installation Manager for New Zealand. Nigel will be responsible for all installation activity after spending the past two years as Project and Modernisation Manager for KONE. LEC PHOTO UPDATE: I has been suggested that the photo of yours truly was a bit dated, and so this was the most esteemed I could find taken in 2008 onboard the Saphire Princess, and without extensive touchup. The eyebrows from a distance still have little sign of grey and the waist still shows a little girth, but generally I think Ive still got a few more good years in me. KONE REPOSITIONS STAFF: Jeff Smelts who recently joined KONE as their South Island Operations Manager has just been appointed to take on the full responsibility of the South Island as Manager as NZ General Manager Ron Perez strengthens his commitment to the south and particularly Christchurch and Dunedin. To balance the ship, Theo Blaauwbroek with a wealth of experience as installation manager takes over the increasing number of larger projects as Major Projects Manager. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY NEW SALES MANAGER FOR OTIS CHRISTCHURCH: Although Ive enjoyed working with Nitin Gupta from Wellington Branch, it is good to welcome Paul Buckley the new Otis local Sales Manager to look after the South & Pacific Islands regions. Paul who came from Simtech AGV Ltd has a marine and electrical industry background, with time overseas, in Christchurch and in Dunedin that should put him in good stead. You can contact Paul to say Hi through the office on 03 378 3078, or Mobile 0276 836 233. email: paul.buckley@otis.com Page 1 November 2008 IQP PROSECUTED BY TA: North Island husband & wife IQPs were used as an example by a TA who instigated proceedings against them after they found out that two separate alarm systems the IQPs had issued 12as for, should have been connected into the one system. It is understood that both alarm systems individually operated correctly, and that the IQPs had informed the owners of the need to integrate the system, but this didnt sway the judge who handed down convictions under the Building Act totalling some 80,000 to the IQPs and lesser amount to the building owner. The fact that Consent for the work was issued was dismissed as irrelevant in this instance by the judge. The penalty was determined relative to the period covered by the 12a, suggesting the IQP should not have issued the 12a, knowing the systems were not interconnected. It seems the prosecuting TA felt they relied on the IQP to not issue a 12a to make them aware of such issues and to enable the `notice to fix process to begin. Not knowing whose noses were out of joint or what preempted the prosecution, this seems a reasonably straight forward stance until you consider the role of the IQP. There has been a lot of misunderstanding as to the role of the IQP, as under the 1991 Act in which the role was determined, it specifically identifies an IQPs role as part of the building WOF process. ie. It is a means of ensuring previously Consented installation work has continued to be maintained, and documented over the past period, and that the test or inspection checks that are determined on the compliance schedule are carried out. It is simply and specifically that. Now the Licensed Building Practitioner process emerging from the 2004 Act widens inspection to cover both consent and WOF roles, but because the DBH wasnt in the position to implement the LBP structure, and still isnt, the IQP structure was carried over, but not changed. Admittedly, just of late a change has been made to require IQPs to add any items not complying with the compliance schedule requirements or not meeting the tests carried out to be detailed on the 12a reporting document, and it is this change I suspect the IQP was prosecuted under. Now if we go back to the Judgment, the IQP was prosecuted for issuing a 12a, not because he didnt carry out the tests as required in the compliance schedule; not because the test failed, but because the system was designed incorrectly, and presumably added to after the Consent process. Issue 99 And so my proposition is that an IQP is registered as competent to carry out the specific tests and reporting necessary under the applicable building compliance schedule, and is responsible to confirm this through the 12a WOF process. There is nothing in his registration suggesting he is a design engineer or requires skills any more than to complete the compliance schedule task, or for that matter, know if the equipment is compliant with the Building Act. And so how can he be prosecuted for additional responsibilities? ie. Being expected to confirm the compliant design requirements, that he can only presume were established under the Consent process, or a building owner has had added, of which any change should be clearly detailed on the TA issued Building Compliance Schedule. If the TA wasnt notified of the change then this was not the requirement of the IQP, as his responsibility is to test what is required on the building compliance schedule. Now we know the Building Compliance Schedule process has been in place for over 15 years now, and I dont think it unreasonable to presume that councils throughout New Zealand have had sufficient time to achieve a consistent process, but from my experience there is a wide and varied range of processes used throughout New Zealand. In fact it is only lately as far as D2 solutions are concerned, that the WOF process has become in any way consistent, and that was when the 12a was promoted and TAs process began to include followup, and so bad habits and inconsistent process has been the norm over all these past years. You can therefore imagine how difficult it has been for IQPs to know how to work with their building owners. The editorial and following article this month just touches the surface as to misconceptions and inconsistent practice that has evolved since introduction of the 1991 Act, let alone the added confusion of the 2004 bureaucratic revamp. Interestingly, in a society that reflectively believes in big sticks and institutional power to attain conformity of process, I have a lot of sympathy for the IQP prosecuted unfairly for what I see as political or institutional expediency. I also have had to work in this vacuum of inconsistent D2 process, to try and encourage building owner to understand their responsibilities, to encourage contractors to retain consistent process when Consent requirements vary so much throughout the country, from non-existent to minimal. There are positives emerging in Governance under the Building Act, but expedient prosecution is not one. Page 2 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY November 2008 DOES REPLACING A LIFT REQUIRE CONSENT? This client comment, TA follow-up and LEC response, hopefully clarifies the issue. Rather than go through multiple Building Act clauses. The critical issues are that lifts whether replacement or in a new building are Specified Systems, and installation of specified systems requires Consent approval. Admittedly, as I try to point out, it is whether or not the lift requires testing or retesting under the acceptable solution that determines the need for Consent. Issue 99 Hi Greg, Just to confirm I have checked with John Buchan, Manager of the ChChCC Consent Department to see why a replacement lift should be exempt from requiring Consent Approval. He has confirmed my understanding that full replacement of Specified Systems should go through a Consent process to ensure they are tested and safe for use upon completion of the installation. Tests should be documented and layout drawings and schematics need to be updated, so that the Building Compliance Schedule and any changed WOF processes can be updated as necessary to reflect the new solution is compliant with the Act. TA records. As you point out, not all part-lift upgrades require Consent, such as replacement of components that dont effect the safe operation of the lift or require retesting. eg. Fixture replacement, car fit out, or maintenance replacements such as re-ropes, trailing cables etc. Part upgrades that also attract a need for Consent approval similar to full replacement, would be where independent retesting of equipment is necessary before the lift reenters service. eg. machine or controller replacement, extending or reducing the lift travel or load changes. The solution should also be upgraded to a level that disabled acces, earthquake and fire status of the building is addressed. The role of the TA would be to approve the Consent requiring independent inspection and recording the change the same as for a lift in a new building, so that where necessary, the TA record can be updated and reissued onto a new Building Compliance Schedule. This process also maintains past industry and approved solutions codes of practice relating to upgrading of lifts.. I understand that the TA Consent department officers will be advised accordingly by John Buchan. Hope this helps, Bob. Client Query: Hi Bob In regard to Council consents, I have talked to two other local developers who have recently replaced lifts. Both of those contract developers advise me that there is indeed no need for a consent application for lift replacement. I have also talked to our Architect and he confirms this as well. Their attitude is that if Council do not want a consent then why waste the money applying for same. Apparently the Council has formed their view possibly because the people replacing the lifts are technically competent and possibly because the lifts are actually covered by the Certificate of Compliance, the 12A forms which lift IQPs generally undertake and in most instances, if not all, are the lift companies themselves. Certainly for new lifts a consent is required. Another factor in this is that many people upgrade lifts by introducing new bells and whistles and that also has no consent requirement. The replacement of the lift is simply seen as an extension of these types of parts upgrades and therefore it does not constitute or warrant separate consent applications. I have looked at the consent form which I did get from the Council and probably 80% of the form itself is useless. It talks about building areas, buildings, floor plans, fire reports and a host of other issues which relate 99% to substantial refitting of premises where there are changes to partitions, layouts, air conditioning systems fire protection materials etc. We actually did fill out the form when we were making the application and put N/A in over three quarters of the areas. Clearly the consent form is not designed for lift replacement. I trust the above clarifies the situation but it appears that it is common practice for lifts to be replaced without consents and this certainly was the view of the Council and the experience of companies that have recently completed this work. Cheers Client YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 November 2008 THYSSENKRUPP ADMITS ATTEMPTED PRICE FIXING: Media Release Issued 14 November 2008/no 060 The Commerce Commission has concluded an investigation into anti-competitive conduct in the elevator industry, reaching a settlement with one company. The settlement is with ThyssenKrupp Elevator New Zealand Limited. (ThyssenKrupp), which has admitted an attempted breach of the Commerce Act by contacting a competitor and attempting to ensure that the prices submitted for a maintenance tender were similar. Both ThyssenKrupp and one of its former contractors admitted contacting a competitors employee by telephone and discussing the pricing and other details of an upcoming contract for which both parties had been asked to submit a quote. During this telephone call, the ThyssenKrupp contractor suggested that the prices to be submitted by the parties be similar, and also requested that the competitor inform the ThyssenKrupp contractor of the price prior to its submission. This behavior amounted to an attempt at price fixing which is prohibited under the Commerce Act. Price fixing is harmful both to consumers and businesses. Such agreements push up prices at the expense of consumers, and also of other businesses, said Commerce Commission Director of Competition Deborah Battell. Ms Battell said that a settlement was the appropriate way to resolve the issue. The Commission would not normally settle with parties when price fixing attempts are involved. In this instance, however, the attempt appeared to be an isolated incident on the part of one contractor and not part of a more long-standing cartel arrangement. Under the terms of the settlement the Commission required ThyssenKrupp to admit the conduct and provide details of its Commerce Act compliance programme. ThyssenKrupp has now implemented a training programme to prevent such behavior occurring in future. Background The purpose of the Commerce Act is to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers in New Zealand. To this end, the Act prohibits a range of anti-competitive conduct. Of relevance in this instance is section 30 of the Act, which prohibits they supply or acquire. Section 27 deems such competitors from agreeing to fix prices for goods and services behaviour to substantially lessen competition. The price fixing provisions of the Act prohibit a range of collective behaviour among competitors (including pricing formulae, maximum prices and fee schedules). Issue 99 Price fixing is considered harmful because it interferes in the competitive determination of prices, resulting in potentially higher prices for consumers. If the Court finds that a person has breached the Act, substantial penalties may be imposed: up to 10 million for companies, and up to 500,000 for individuals. LEC Response: Hi Felicity, Congratulations, I welcome this progressive step with the detailing of this occurrence which is critical to nip this sort of thing in the bud, although I suspect any advantage would only work for a short period in this small market before consumer knowledge would make the practice commercially unviable. I would be interested to know the duration of this investigation. On a positive note, all my tenders for new or upgraded lift equipment request ongoing maintenance cost offers in them, and all tenderers receive tables of all prices offered following the letting of the tender, which provides feedback and encourages ongoing competitive pricing. It should also understand that the annual cost of the lift maintenance is only half of the equation; the performance of the service provider is also of significance. Lift maintenance is a safety critical procedure and overly tight price control without assessment of provider performance can end up as we have with some players in the industry whose price is less, but the performance provided is close to non-existent. As always, building owners need to show due diligence to discourage individual opportunists in any market, but this is difficult in a market that seems to encourage excessive profit taking as a virtue. All this aside, I am still awaiting an update on this long drawn out anticompetitive case against Schindler Lift NZ Ltd, that due to its length of time to determine, and from my knowledge of the circumstances, like above, is still looking like a McCarthism instigated by overzealous industry individuals using the Commerce Commissions protective dobber in policy to get one up on a competitor. In the end, without considering the massive resources allocated by all involved, it has only undermined good faith, encouraged the multinational corporations to suppress important issues of industry technical safety and communication, and encouraged a totally unnecessary suspicious atmosphere to the detriment of the lift industry and building owners in NZ. On top of this it has pretty well destroyed the health and livelihood of a long serving employee and good community member and his family in their latter years of his career. Will this ever be acknowledged in any determination? Will there ever be a determination to resolve this issue, as the damage can never be undone, but maybe a hard lesson will be learnt by the Commerce Commission to also consider the consequences of their actions, before they act indiscriminately in the future. Please keep me on your email determinations for any future lift industry investigations. Regards Bob. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[6]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax98.pdf","2009-03-06","71K"," NZLFAX98.PDF    ","","","September 2008 Issue 98 EDITORIAL. PRODUCT CERTIFICATION: The next change to see the light of the DBH magic wand is a retry at the product appraisal scheme, first introduced with the 1991 Act and overseen by BRANZ, but little used by industry because of the perceived time and cost overhead to arrange certification. I understand 16 certificates have rolled over into the 2004 Act, but it is unclear whether or not these certificates have been reviewed since introduction of the 2004 Act. In the lift industry some of the smaller companies showed interest to try and remove the inconsistency of council processes of assessment, but I usually advised there wasnt a lot of value because the major part of certification was in providing the job record particular to the installation, and necessary for every new installation. The new product certification system with its revamped acronym will employ a PCAB (Product Certification Accreditation Body) to oversee PCBs (Product Certification Bodies) whos responsibility will be to impartially, competently, consistently and transparently certify processes and products within criteria (not yet specified). The PACB or DBH (Dept.of Building & Housing) chief executive will have the power to revoke the accredition of any PCB. Certificates issued by a PCB will need to be renewed annually, probably for another small fee. As of 31s t March 2008, JAZ-ANZ (Joint Accreditation System of Australia and NZ) was appointed by the DBH as the PACB. As previously BCAs; both Council and private if they ever evolve, have to accept PCB issued certificates. It is now understood the scheme is to be ready for applications by the end of year. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH OTIS WELLINGTON CATCH UP: I was in Wellington a few weeks back so took the opportunity to catch up with Mike Jennings and Gavin Pollard who I havent seen since Gavin returned to the lift industry late last year to take on overseeing Service Modernisation Sales for Otis in Wellington. Put these two heads together and you end up with a wealth of local industry knowledge. GRACE WESOLOWSKI IN CREDIT SQUEEZE: The personal side of the international credit squeeze has seen its f irst close to home casualty succumb to the financial vagaries of bankruptcy. Trethwey Granite and Marble Ltd of Auckland was where Grace Wesolowsky headed following her lift industry break last year, to now find herself in the middle of this bankruptcy. The only positive i s it might be an opportunity to see Grace back into the lift industry. I hear Otis needs a good `new sales person in Christchurch! HELLO & FAREWE LL REINALDO ANTONIO: Earlier this year we welcomed Reinaldo into the Otis Christchurch office to fill the new & modernisation sales void, only to hear last month that Reis family were not coping with the winter in Christchurch and so have now headed to the warmer but wetter clime of the Auckland office. In the interim, its been a pleasure to work with Nitin Gupta from Otis Wellington office who has taken on the added workload of Christchurch. So if there are any keen sales persons who enjoy the occasional round of golf and appreciate the clear blue winter skies of Christchurch, maybe Otis could use you! DBH VISIT: The issue with the DBH (Department of Building & Housing) of not addressing industry concerns over lift size through their publication `Code Words as promised, prompted me to drop in to their new offices in Customhouse Quay a few weeks back to discuss this issue. Mike Stannard; Manager Building Standards Group, and Engineer Dennis Monastra represented Chief Executive Katrina Bach, and after an hour or so of discussing the v oid in certificat ion of lift s in NZ, and updating Mike on who the CBIP was, a second promise to publicise this issue in Code Words was given. Patience! YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 September 2008 HOW QUICK WE FORGET: The Building Act emerged from an inefficient pile of highly prescriptive standards and codes all seeking the ultimate singular solution, but because of change in the market, all require constant updating and revision to remain relev ant. Now stagnant prescriptive solutions are ideal as guidelines, because you can rely on the knowledge of the past, but to ensure the solution is relevant today, you need to also consider the experience of today to form the best solution. Also when using a performance code in governing an industry, as in the past, you dont require single solution centralised government inspection agencies to determine the solution, as Government has set what needs to be achieved through the mandatory performance requirements, and to gain the efficiencys expected in the Act, leaves it up to the experts in their fields to determine and document the most appropriate solution for today! To ensure the standards were maintained, the Territorial role is to ensure an auditable process of recording solutions and providing ongoing WOF inspection was implemented. So why after 16 years do we still have some administrative council officers wanting to decide upon the solution; causing huge inefficiencies and overhead cost in disrupting the process, and demanding unnecessary total compliance to some cases obsolete prescriptive standards and codes? It is obvious, that the inefficiencies of the past that brought about the change were in the inefficiencies of council processes, who rather than focusing on sound consistent process, were focusing on interpreting the multitude of codes and standards no matter how outdated, enforcing them to achieve their own ends. And now 16 years later, what is the undercurrent we see emerging from the accredited council officers, but the same desire to return to their interpretations of any prescriptive code or standard, rather than be expert at ensuring a consistent and efficient Consent and Compliance Schedule process is attained. How many times do you have to say it! Council officers need to leave the responsibility of the solution to the appropriate experts within industry, and focus on being expert in the process of over seeing the Building Consent and Compliance Schedule structure for the Building Act to achieve the efficiencies it envisaged. Ensure the design engineer confirms the structure; the lift inspector consistently completes all necessary testing and documenting of the installation, and if you havent an up to date clear knowledge of the process applicable to any particular trade, seek clear process from the industries involved. As previously stated, the lift industry has floundered for the past 16 years because Councils have either i gnored or been ignorant to the necessary safe processes to undertake during the Consent process, enabling shonky companies to disrupt the past good standards of the Issue 98 industry because of inconsistent and even non-existent compliance processes. The over zealous interpretations of NZS4121 is a good example of where some council officers of late prefer to interpret each word of a standard rather than trust industry expertise. They seem to either misunderstand the Building Act or have vested agendas in considering solutions, and display an unwillingness to listen to experienced industry advice through the hollow cry; `Take it to a determination. My advice relating to D2 solutions has been:1. The Performance based Building Act under the Objective and Performance requirements of the Building Code D2 clause D2.1(c) only mandates that a building owner; ensure that people with disabilities are able to carry out normal activities and processes within buildings. There is no requirement to achieve a higher performance, but of course this is subjective and requires considered assessment to ensure this performance is achieved. The Act identifies NZS 4121 as a solution on accessible routes within a building, but being a Performance based Act, and understanding the limitations of prescriptive solutions, like NZS 4121 and other adopted Acceptable Solutions, they are for owner selection, and are not mandatory. The 1.4 m wide x 1.4m deep lift requirement of clause 9.2.2.1 of NZS 4121 was adopted from back when the mandatory Power Lift Rules were in place, evolving from negotiated understanding that wheelchair users needed to rotate their chair for all to be able to reach the lift controls. It was accepted that it was not cost effective nor necessary for a wheelchair user to have to be able to rotate 180º to use a lift . In those days control panels were all located adjacent to the lift entry, and the wheelchair needed to be rotated to enable access for disabled users. Design note C9.2.2.1 page 50 of NZS 4121 confirm s that 1.4m wide is insufficient to allow a wheelchairs to turn through 180 º. Annex C6.1(b) page 104 of 4121, confirms reduced car sizes as narrow as 0.9m x 1.57m enables sufficient room for accompanied wheelchair users in some circumstances. The ISO International minimum standard for lift size suitable for disabled access, is 1.1m wide x 1.4m long, and includes side wall mounted control panels so that disabled wheelchair users dont need to rotate their chairs, as the controls are easily accessible besides them. The standard manufacture of model lifts coming into NZ most suitable for the cost effective MRL low rise market are a maximum 1000kg rated, with some 1125kg. To maintain this maximum load rating where floor area limitations restrict car size, the option is for either wide or long solutions. ie. 1.6m wide x 1.4 m deep OR 1.1m wide x 2.1m long with slight variations. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. It was not past solutions that caused the inefficiencies of the past, but the processes adopted by Councils in trying to interpret every sundry standard. Are we once again going to fall into the same trap, or have we matured sufficiently to gain the efficiencies offered through the introduction of Performance base Governance and ensure good processes move responsibility for safe solutions onto those most experienced at the workface? YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 September 2008 BUILDING INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE: These are LECs comments to the DBH but relate only to D2 processes under the Building Code. 1.0 Although changes to the building warrant of fitness regime are already improving performance, the Department has identified four areas with potential for significant further improvement. These areas are compliance schedule accuracy, monitoring and enforcement, owner awareness, and registration policies and processes. Issue 98 4.0 Licensing - The Department has identified a mismatch between the specified system-based approach of IQP registers and the occupational group-based approach of licensing. Q4. Do you have any comments on workforce structures and occupational groupings within the IQP sector? Occupational Groupings: Existing Occupational Inspection Groups; ie. (CBIP lift inspectors), in providing an auditable registration for certifying D2 lift inspectors that work totally within the Building Consent and annual WOF structures, need to be financially assisted and recognized under the Building Act to:? retain and expand their processes. ? continue to identify and certify suitable candidates. ? provide the expertise necessary through their industry representative exam group to prepare and mark examinations. ? Provide industry inspection processes for all types of D2 equipment to ensure consistency in inspection nationwide. A4.1 Q1. A1.1 Do you have comments on any of these four areas? Compliance Schedule Accuracy: A lack of standard processes inconsistently applied by the administrating TAs over the 91 Acts reign, mainly through ignorance of lift industry standard safe practices and confused administration of the 1991 Act in this area by the TAs has led to consistent inaccuracy in any process throughout NZ. To address this, it is recommended that a central data base of existing compliance schedule equipment specifications (lift particulars); frequency of use; installed to code data and WOF anniversary date be compiled and made accessible publicly through the internet. A1.2 Access to Data: All D2 equipment needs to be indexed against the building name, consent No & WOF No, and location in NZ. Registration & Process: A national register of 3 levels of D2 lift inspector needs to be determined and centrally recorded in an accessible database to cover the Consent, and 2 levels of Annual WOF inspection under Compliance Schedule requirements. National industry related occupation groups using auditable certification processes such as the Certification Board for Inspection Personnel (CBIP) lift inspector body should determine inspection qualifications and processes. These occupational inspection groups should be registered with the DBH, recommended to all TAs, and their member certifications accessible to anyone by means of the internet. A single process of performance inspection for each type of D2 equipment needs to be produced by the applicable industry bodies for recommendation by the DBH that all TAs use when inspection equipment under the Consent and Compliance Schedule annual WOF processes. 5.0 The Department has not been able to find any clear evidence of competence and accountability risk across the IQP sector. A1.3 Q5 Do you think that there are any serious competence and accountability problems for any part of the IQP sector? NO. I dont believe the problem is a question of trade competence, just one of a multitude of unclear processes being administered by a multitude of TAs who have no knowledge of lift inspection processes and have been shown to be incompetent in administering the 1991 Act. The problem arises because D2 covers a small industry spread over a wide area with a large number of TAs who dont understand lift industry safe practices or inspection processes. This combined with vested interest free to advise the gullible, and we will end up with accreditation of everyone. Separating LBP administration from TAs wit h production of a central register where candidates are identified through Trade or Occupational groups, combined with a Compliance Schedule database covering all buildings that is accessible to anyone through the internet would provide a structure. Standards are maintained through DBH group audits and a process of investigation and penalty emanating from private complaint. A5.1 Q2. A2.1 Do you think there are any other areas with potential for significant further improvement? Central Data Base Update: Update of new equipment into the central building database would be through required documentation compiled during the consent process and forwarded to the DBH by local TAs when producing building compliance schedules for the building owner. 6.0 3.0 The Department is developing a work programme to target areas identified as having most potential for further improving the performance of the building warrant of fitness regime. The Department proposes that the Building Act 2004 is amended to remove the requirement for IQPs to be LBPs, permit future licensing, and allow supervisory IQP licence classes. Q6. Q3. A3.1 Do you have any comments on the action points for the proposed work programme? As above. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the Building Act 2004? YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 September 2008 A6.1 Supervisory Classes. Under the D2 CBIP certification structure there is no need for supervisory classes as the more experienced level 2 lift inspector classification provides the necessary demarcation between Consent and WOF inspection. Level 1 Endorsed 0.3m/sec equipment speeds. Level 1 Annual WOF with restriction on escalator inspection. Level 1 Annual WOF inspection all other D2 equipment. Level 2 Consent test and inspection of D2 equipment. Issue 98 are efficient through being centralized, consistent, and dynamic to move with industry and technology change, then the Building Act needs to allow for a financially viable model that forms part of the Governance overhead. In the D2 instance the CBIP certification structure already exists as a struggling but viable solution mixing industry experience, certification process and an expanding international recognition of the qualification. The need is for Government re -recognition and participation to ensure a continued viable governance of this safely critical area of the Building Code long overlooked to date under the 91 BA. I would recommend a funding structure be conceived for the implementation and expansion of the present CBIP D2 structure to enable completion of suitable test and recording documents able to be adopted by TAs for guidance and used for all D2 equipment inspection and test processes to ensure consistency is implemented and retained through clear process. From my experience as a past D2 Building Certifier I am well aware of the past shortcomings under the 91 BA, with the CBIP recognition at that time the only small glim mer of consistency in an abyss of indifference and inexperience. The present Chairman of the CBIP, John Wilson and the board are aware of these issues and concepts, and have been working with the industry exam panel chaired by Grace Wesolowski to promote recognition and adoption of this certification under the 2004 Act. WHATS YOUR VIEW? eg. Q7. What impacts (benefits and costs) do you think the proposed changes (preferred option) would have on your business? For D2 IQPs I would expect the status quo to remain as is, reflecting no experienced input or industry participation into the inspection process at the work face; no participation by the industry in qualification of inspectors; and no lift industry experience in TA administration of procedures and processes. On the other hand, with an integrated lift industry and CBIP inspector certification and examination process, I see the following benefits:Bringing consistency nationally to the D2 WOF inspection process. Ensuring a qualified and consistent single process for all D2 types of equipment under the present non-existent lift consent process that can easily respond to change and any future concerns in the process. Save governance and industry overhead cost of inspection through the efficiency of a single responsible industry represented certification and examination body able to provide and regulate inspectors, and represent the industry in governance of D2 issues facing the building industry under the Building Act. By removing the inefficient, inexperienced multiple TA administration overhead of what is a simple process by using an existing single industry recognized certification process for all lift inspectors, and employing a centralized database of equipment updated through the consent process, resulting in an internet accessible nationally recorded and updated building compliance schedule record for IQPs to use. A7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 AUSTRALASIAN RENAISSANCE: It was a period of intellectual, philosophical and artistic change in society that spread from Italy over the European continent to step out of the feudal past. So are we in our own renaissance within the building industry , only instead of being lead by the knowledge within the building industry, we are seemingly being lead by those who are expert in the production of accreditation and certification processes, who seem to have little regard or knowledge of the necessary processes within the building industry . Second to this is a leadership that seems to believe governance by policing and penalty will conform sufficient participants to the accredited processes to achieve the desired performance. Yes there is need to improve the system, and some of the deficient practices that have evolved through poor governorship, but the building industry is still highly reliant on individual skill and expertise, not necessarily learnt in a class room, and to focus on the creation of a high overhead all controlling bureaucratic systems of certification, accreditation and penalty to achieve a desired performance, over looks the major factor that can achieve the performance, and that is to encourage participation by all to apply their knowledge and skills, and to take ownership in their work to achieve the performance. It is not accreditation and certification that makes an industry achieve its purpose, although it can play a role. Lets suggest 20% effort into overseeing the process, and 80% into ensuring work satisfaction; access to skill development and knowledge, along with the building of self respect in the individual for the role they play in being part of the solution. A renaissance may not necessarily achieve improvement unless it is with the will of the participants. 7.4 Q8. Do you have any comments on the other options and the impacts they would have on your business? As above. A8.1 Q9. A9.1 Any other comments? Through a single accountable concentrated D2 inspection process being integrated into the existing building consent and compliance schedule obligations under the Building Act, in conjunction with the set up of an internet accessible centralised database, accurate, effective accountable governance of this safety critical area of the Building code can be achieved. At present the WOF inspection process is funded through building owner fees, and similarly consent inspection costs can be funded through fees. But when it comes to the establishing clear, experienced processes of inspection that YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[7]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax97.pdf","2008-09-26","608K"," NZLFAX97.PDF    ","","","July 2008 Issue 97 EDITORIAL. JUST TOO BUSY: A no go for the May issue, the second since inception, but a break is as good as a holiday, so I had a break over May, and holidayed in Alaska. This trip had been planned some 35 years back when living in Vancouver BC, stemming from a dream to explore Mt McKinley and its surrounds in Alaska. Mt McKinley at 20,340 feet dominates the Alaskan Range roughly midway between Anchorage in the South and Fairbanks in North Central Alaska. The taming of Alaska reads like a boys own manual, with beauty and extremes in wealth and hardship filling every page. Where better to appreciate life. There have been and are many highways into Alaska, with the minority surfaced in bitumen. From the early days the S/E Pan Handle accessed the Sitkine River highway near Wrangle, and the inside passages of the Clarance and Chatham straits, or Cross Sound and Icy Strait lead into the Lynn Canal. These routes lead to Skagway and over the legendary Whites Pass, or to Dyea and over the Chilcoot Pass, and then onto Whithorse and the Yukon gold fieldsfields. Of course you could always sail or steamboad from Seattle to the Bering Sea and enter the might y Yukon delta around Alakanuk and travel the breadth of Alaska to the Yukon gold town of Dawson. From the Gulf of Alaska the Kenai Peninsula provides access for the Cruise ships today through Whittier and Seward and up Cook Inlet to Anchorage. We entered the Alaskan Highway by flying into Prince Rupert in Canada and boarding the ferry Taku, that enabled us to experience the magnificent fiords and spend time in Sitka, Juneau and Skagway before taking the train up White Pass and on to Whitehorse. With Grizzly , Black bear and Moose as company, we drove the Alaska Highway for some 13 hours of unsurpassed majesty to arrive in Fairbanks. A dome train of the Alaskan Railroad took the morning to reach Denali National Park, were we stayed a few nights and headed 56 miles into this remnant glacial wonder of breathtaking natural beauty beneath the Mt McKinley Range. The train south to Anchorage and Whittier allowed us to board the luxury Sapphire Princess to explore the awe inspiring Prince William Sound; Glacier Bay, and back down the pan handle to Vancouver. All booked through the internet and costing around 10k. Ed. Photos pg.4 The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH TOP MANAGEMENT CHANGE FOR OTIS: The new NZ Manager in Nicolas Breton who came from China to take over the reins for Otis earlier this year, welcomed Chris Ribuot in July who took the helm as Northern NZ Branch Manager. Chris comes with 10 year of Otis experience as a Sales Engineer and since 2001 Branch Manager in the French West Indies. W ellingtons Manager Mike Jennings has increased his area of responsibility to take in the South Island on top of his Wellington duties. OTIS CHCH REFOCUSES ON CUSTOMER SERViCE: To enable improved client service, Colin Merritt (Past FFP) colin.merritt@otis.com and Doug Buchanan douglas.buchanan@otis.com have joined the Otis Colin Christchurch office to cover all South Island service accounts. Colin will also focus on the Pacific Doug Islands with Doug covering Christchurch to Dunedin. Dave Johnstone oversees all South Island & Pacific Islands Dave Richard operations, and Richard Strong is to Service Team Leader for ChCh and northern SI. OTIS INSTALLER ADRIAN SMEEHUYZEN TO KONE: A backbone for Otis installation in Dunedin has decided to broaden his horizons and move over to KONE. With Alex Denniston taking a slightly early retirement after his triple bypass, he will be pleased to see the branch remains strong with Adrian joining the team and keen to learn. COMMERCE COMMISSION UPDATE: Another lecture on how important security of information is regarding Commerce Commission investigations followed by no comment, but seemingly little desire exists to bring what is increasingly becoming a farce to a close. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 July 2008 COUNCILS IMPROVING PROCESSES OR ARE THEY? The Governments proactive effort to improve building processes with their increased building levy charges in response to Territorial Authority bleating about lack of funding, and subsequent allocation of millions of dollars to individual TAs to assist them with their accreditation processes, is seeing some results in lift D2 solution compliance. The accreditation of TAs seems to be making some Consent officers more aware that the past 15 years of their ignorance as to inconsistent deficiencies in the lift certification processes, has undermined the credibility of a safe lift industry in NZ. This looked a good step, but in some officers it seems, where they lack knowledge their newly found accreditation reflects little respect for experience within the industry, and prefer only to interpret and apply the D2 acceptable solutions to any consent application. In addition to insisting on applying selected paragraphs from the acceptable solution most preferred by them, their increasing response seems to be to wash their hands of any submission suggesting the submitter take it to a determination. The immediate question arising is what are these newly accredited officers as being taught? Is it that they are solution experts in themselves by needing only to identify a prescriptive solution and demand compliance to it? Was this not the reason for impl ementing the Building Act, to use performance as the yardstick, and industry expertise and knowledge as the determiner of the solution, and not have administrators of the processes becoming the arbitrators of all solutions? It is the processes; the responsibilities of the Territorial Authorities that have been overlooked in the past, undermining safe installation and sound documenting of D2 equipment in NZ over the past 15 years since Building Act introduction, and at last when being recognised as being ov erlooked, the administrators of process seem to be focused on approving the solution as their role, of which they have no expertise. An so the lift industry in frustration with the inconsistencies; the dogmatic adherence to past prescriptive solutions as the only solutions in a changing industry, with the high overhead consent approval costs and inefficient assessments being imposed on building owners, provided detail of these issues to the Department of Building and Housing in the hope of that these inefficient and costly Territorial Authorities imposed overheads be addressed. The following is the Department of Building and Housings response to date. Issue 97 LIFT INDUSTRY ABLE TO PROVIDE SOLUTIONS: The CBIP lift industry work group exists to provide experienced examination and qualification of lift inspectors in New Zealand and is prepared to provide single inspection processes for all types of D2 lift equipment to enable Territorial Authorities to have documented check lists suitable to provide a consistent, competent Consent compliance to the Building Act. It also believes the Department of Building and Housing needs to provide a centralised internet accessible searchable database of all lift equipment installed in New Zealand, that clearly identifies:? the type of equipment and date installed for every building in NZ. ? The code or solution it was installed under. ? The recommended frequency of service. ? An annual WOF check list specific to the equipment. Ask the Government how many lifts there are in NZ? What types are there and where are they located? How old are they and when were they last inspected? Since introduction of the Building Act 1991, this past centralised record has not been maintained and is virtually inaccessible. Why? How long do we have to wait for the DBH to take ownership for the problem and work with industry to solve it? NEWS FLASH June/July Code Words issued without any reference to this concern as indicated by the DBH. Why? YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 July 2008 www.elevator-world.com 2009 Elevator World Source Results from a recent survey confirm: ? 75% of subscribers use the Source weekly ? For every 1 subscriber 5 people use the Source ? Over 36,000 industry members use it as a reference all year long Renew your Advertisement now... Need help with deciding what size advertisement? Contact the Advertising Department for all the options. Advertising starts as low as 650.00. Call 251-479-4514 ext 129, 131 or 120 or email sales@elevator-world.com Issue 97 www.expoelevador.com www.liftitalia.com www.elevcon.com 2010 www.naec.org 2008 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 July 2008 PRODUCT CERTIFICATION FOR IMPORTED OR STANDARD DESIGN LIFTS . . . MAYBE: The old product accreditation process introduced under the past BIA (Building Industry Authority), always seemed too bureaucratic as its uptake was no where near what it could have been. The concept of having a process for recognising local standards or overseas certified product appeals, in that it removes the vagaries and inconsistencies of individual BCAs (Building Code Authorities) from the solution assessment process, thereby removing the biggest frustration to most product suppliers, of having to have the same solution reassessed at every consent application if not an acceptable solution. The DBH (Department of Building and Housing) in consistently changing the name to every process of the BIAs reign is promoting the launch later this year of the `Voluntary Building Product Certification Scheme. Understandably it feels this scheme will provide an easily understood, robust and cost effective way to demonstrate that the product, systems or method (psms) meets the requirements of the Building Act. This in reality is an assessment by an `expert in the field that the product etc. achieves the Performance requirements of the NZ Building Code. Sounds good! The `psms once certified must be nationally accepted as compliant with the Act. A DBH list of compliant `psms will be maintained, thus removing the unnecessary inefficiencies of constant inexperienced reassessment by all and sundry. So whats different to the old BIA accreditation scheme? Well this scheme has been developed in close conjunction with the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) and will be harmonised with Australia under the brand name `CODEMARK. Sounds efficient! However . . . before the scheme can be launched there will need to be work done on accrediting product certification bodies. These will be the bodies that carry out assessment of products. The product certification bodies will be administered in NZ by JAZ-ANZ (Joint Accreditation Systems of Australia and New Zealand). These bodies will be fully funded by companies applying for product certification. Whoops. There goes the efficiencies, up goes the overhead cost, and similar to the BIA product accreditation scheme, few other than the large corporation will see beyond the time and overhead cost to participate ­ and thats a maybe, as it wasnt seen as overly successful in the past. The exclusive bureaucracy of government is good for setting the goals, recording the results, administrating the process, but not for determining the solution. Issue 97 To achieve an inclusive process that encourages participation, the standard of solution needs to be set by an accountable industry, one that sees itself as inclusive in ensuring a safe solution, not alien to it. Unless we encourage those experienced in any particular industry to participate; to make accountable decisions, and be part of the solution, rather than just an unrespected bystander to label a cowboy, no mater how big the bureaucracy overseeing it, the result will be the same as under the BIA. The key word is TRUST! VIEWS OF ALASKA: GO THERE! YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[8]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax96.pdf","2008-09-26","409K"," NZLFAX96.PDF    ","","","March 2008 Issue 96 EDITORIAL. PROPERTY OWNERS BEWARE: After 15 years the Building Act is to get some bite. If not the most significant reason for leaky buildings, it was the most significant reason for incomplete building work and building owners ignoring building maintenance , and that was the lack of partnership in Governance of the Act. The same thing is happening with the 2004 Act, with little to no partnership between those who implement the Act, and those who work under it, and so the authority once again has to resort to the only seemingly relevant governance tool used in NZ . . . . Fines! The vast majority of New Zealanders I believe prefer to have a stake in the solution, but only where their input is respected. So unless authorities use common sense, the only conformance you will achieve is through the big stick. The DBH (Department of Building and Housing) I understand is developing guidance material for building officials on the implementation of an infringement system to control non-conformance. This is not to say there hasnt been an infringement system in place since the 1991 Act was introduced, it s just that the TAs (Territorial Authorities) have either been too busy, under resourced, or incompetent in using their powers effectively. And so Building Owners beware, a system of `On the Spot Fines is being offered to TAs to adopt as they see fit. The present Act allows for penalty of up to a quarter of a million, but these `On the Spot fines will only be up to 2,000, with facility for a second notice. The infringement system targets 22 potentially dangerous offences around annual WOF - work without consent - unsafe or unsanitary buildings - and not complying with a notice to fix , with no need to prove intent. Larger fines will need a court prosecution. All I can say is we brought it on ourselves. The Performance based Building Act gave the opportunity for industry expertise to participate in the solution performance , but seemingly we dont want responsibility for our own actions as part of the process, we prefer to be told by invested authority! And as you are aware, the expertise in any building authority is in its ability to interpret the rule rather than to set the performance, and so expect more compliance to the restriction of obsolete rules. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH REGRETTABLY ANOTHER MANAGEMENT CHANGE: Just accept it as a way of life under a globalised world. Believe it or not, Otiss Johnathan Lewis who entered into the NZ Lift industry in Christchurch from the UK just 2 and a bit years ago, and who soon took over management of the South Island Otis branch a few month later, has announced he is leaving the industry to take up an interest in Images Unlimited, a Christchurch digital print venture. It seems the most offered reason for moving on these days is to do with lifestyle, a desire for more control over ones life, as against the old maxim of more pay. Are these moves just a management aberration or is their something more fundamental at work here? Like a sterile workplace, one that doesnt want your input, just robotic adherence to a singular global fiscal direction. This is not to say we didnt enjoy your time with us Johnathan, and we wish you and the family all the best in this new venture. CHECK OUT - Images Unlimited ­ 03 366 2801 www.standeasy.co.nz AN OLD FACE RETURNS? With Peter Loader moving on from KONE Christchurch office, a blast from the past brought some light to the day with the announcement that Jeff Smeltz has returned to the industry bringing further good engineering management experience with him to take over the KONE Christchurch new contract and maintenance management. It will probably take Jeff a little while to get up to speed again after 4 years since leaving Schindler, but his drive and enthusiasm will bring a good resource to the team at KONE. NEW SALES PERSON FOR KONE CHRISTCHURCH. To strengthen the branch, KONE have further expanded its South Island resources by engaging Ian Kimpton who moved to Christchurch from the UK two year ago, bringing an electrical sales experience with him. Ian is presently upskilling on the KONE product s in Auckland, and so you should see him out and about over the coming months. LIETO DI CONOSCERLA RENALDO ANTONIO: I was privileged to be able to welcome the OTIS New Equipment and Modernisation Sales Consultant for the South Island NZ and Pacific Islands the other day, when I had the opportunity to farewell Johnathan Lewis and welcome Renaldo Antonio to NZ. I subsequently found out I was a bit late as Renaldo and his family had already been in NZ for a year since immigrating from the Philippines. Renaldo comes with good experience in the industry working for both Mitsubishi and Otis over the past decade or so. Page 1 PRU HAYWARD & STEVE COX MOVES ON: There is little left to say other than a job well done Pru after 1½ years in the role as the Otis Sales Administrator in Christchurch. Also Steve Cox is on the move again after a part time stay to help with the sales workload. Read on to find out about their replacements. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY March 2008 CABLE CARS NOW REQUIRE COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES: Cable Cars have achieved prominence as notifiable equipment since introduction of the 2004 Building Act and the publication of the local Standard NZS5270:2005 in NZ. And now on March 31st 2008 it means that any building with a cable car attached or servicing it must have a D2 Compliance Schedule. Consequently, it must have a maintenance programme and a WOF test check list for annual inspection. The significance here is that this includes domestic or single household buildings that in no other area require a Building Compliance Schedule. Even a D2 domestic lift doesnt require a Building Compliance Schedule or inspection, so why a domestic cable car. It seems inconsistent as to why cable cars are any less safe than a lift in a domestic situation. But that aside, inconsistent or not, it is now law for all you property owners who cart your groceries and people up the hill to your property on your little cable drawn platform, or more elaborately, to cross other properties and include a couple of stops to pick up friends and neighbours. The Act requires the PROPERTY OWNER to notify the appropriate council of such equipment on their property, and to ensure suitable documentation is provided to meet annual maintenance and WOF compliance. And yes, there will be a cost for this. Note this issues editorial, because it will also apply where the local TA sees fit to issue an infringement notice to transgressors. But what of the logistics of all this? Cable car have never been covered by any Act in the past in NZ, they were usually `home built or rudimentary in design as sketched by an engineer to fit its purpose. But rarely if ever were they assessed for risk with complete onus being left to the property owner to worry about any danger to users or others. Now I expect Councils (TAs) have little experience let alone expertise in determining the safety, inspecting or maintaining of such equipment, but they will probably soon become aware of the NZS 5270 Standard, so I expect it wont take them long to wish to interpret and apply it to any equipment they come across. In fact any experience in the process of inspecting and documenting this equipment will need TA recognition and D2 registration of competency. Your immediate thought is to use registered D2 IQPs (Independent Qualified Persons), but they are only registered to carry out the inspection of existing equipment for WOF purposes, not consider safety of design, user risk, suitability for purpose and produce suitable documentation to make up a suitable compliance schedule, so who do we use. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 96 The D2 Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) of course. Faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and finely tuned to bring accredited inspection expertise to the workface. When? Well 2007 we thought, then 2009 and now 2010 . . . Maybe! But dont be dismayed, we have got some carpenters ready to go that should address all the leaking problems! The closest industries associated with these devices are the mines and passenger ropeways but they are not governed under the Building Act, leaving only the lift industry that are covered by D2 if you wish to maintain competent experience in the equation. There is of course the Wellington manufacturer of Cable cars, Mark Galvin of ACCESS AUTOMATION who has been closely associated with the standard, but it is unlikely as a manufacturer that he would wish to be inundated by persons wanting advice on compliance issues. But here we have the DBH who are slowly rearranging the building industry Acts and Laws and Regulations, but where are the processes and inspectors to implement these legally binding responsibilities on Building Owners now in place in NZ you ask? Well if you just want someone to handle the fines and even turn up for a fee to meet the bureaucratic needs, there are thousands of entrepreneurs ready to be accredited to make a buck, but do we really want to go from Leaky Buildings straight into Unsafe D2 building mechanical access. In fact its 15 plus years since the lift industry certification process was deregulated and there is still no clear nor consistent process for Consent inspection of D2 Mechanical Access and new lifts in New Zealand. In fact the only certification and inspection process available for D2 equipment following deregulation was the independent CBIP (Certification Board for Inspection Personnel), and the DBH has never recognised their role under the Building Act, ignoring the demise of suitable D2 inspection under the Don Quixote led drive to set up the promised cover-all LBP Accreditation structure. And now we have included cable cars to the list! Page 2 Ed. March 2008 Issue 96 LIFTS URGENTLY NEEDED IN FIREFIGHTING AND EVACUATING TALL BUILDINGS: GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF LIFTS DIRECTIVE 95/16/EC: Mechanical Equipment - Lifts 15 May 2007 This Guide sets out the text of the Lifts Directive 95/16/EC and includes comments on its provisions. It gives references for ensuring consistent application of the directive. It is important to stress that while this Guide aims to foster uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of the Lifts Directive, only the texts implementing the provisions of the Directive in each Member State have the force of law. The Guide has been drawn up by the services of the European Commission following consultation of the Member States and of representatives of the lifts industry, standardisation, Notified Bodies and users of lifts. It draws widely on the discussions and conclusions of the Lifts Working Group. It has been approved by the Lifts Committee set up under Article 6(3) of the Lifts Directive on 15 May 2007. Most of the comments address issues that are specific to the Lifts Directive. Guidance on the general concepts underlying the Directive can be found in the Commissions Guide to the implementation of Directives based on the New Approach and the Global Approach. The Member States have been invited to make available other language versions of the Guide, however, only the English version has been checked by the Commission and, in case of doubt, reference should be made to this version. It is intended to update the Guide regularly in order to include opinions adopted by the Lifts Committee or answers agreed by the Lifts Working Group to questions that arise during application of the Directive. The Guide includes hyperlinks to a number of reference documents. A PDF Copy of the GUIDE and DIRECTIVE can be obtained through the below link. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/mechan_equipment/lifts/lifts_guidelines.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/mechan_equipment/lifts/dir95-16.htm REPRINTED FROM THE LIFT INSTITUTE MAGAZINE INTERNATIONAL March 2008. NOT ENOUGH ATTENTION PAID TO HUMAN BEHAVIOUR An ageing population combined with increasingly higher buildings creates a situation that requires a targeted fire fighting and evacuation plan. The use of reliable firefighter Lifts and evacuation Lifts (Lifeboat Lifts) that have been specially designed for this purpose, is becoming inevitable. These were the main conclusions at a Liftinstituut conference on fire safety measures at buildings and the role of lifts that was held on 6 November 2007. But in practice, clients, building owners and building managers have a hard time making the right choices when it comes to fire safety. Rights and obligations play a role, as do the technical possibilities (and impossibilities). There is also the question of how people react in emergencies like fires. Once again, the conference showed that legislation is not yet sufficiently geared to addressing these circumstances. NationaL LegisLation needed besides European standardisation For fire safety combined with lift safety, three important European standards have been laid down in recent years. They are EN 81-58 ((landing doors fire resistance test), EN 81-72 (firefighter lifts) and EN 81-73 (behaviour of lifts during fire). But unless member states implement these European standards in their national laws and support them through building regulations, usability of lifts based on these standards in the event of fire will be limited. The Netherlands is no exception in this regard. Dutch building regulations currently state that there must be a hall that is smoke-proof for at least 30 minutes (and fire-proof for 20 minutes) in front of lift entrances. After this had been explained by Peter van Veen of the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment, Jan Brekelmans (a fire brigade safety consultant specialised in prevention) pointed out that these regulations were insufficient for the fire brigade. In his opinion, the current building regulations provide insufficient protection forfirefighters. In any case, there is a period of twenty minutes between the time a fire is reported and the time firefighters can actually start fighting the fire. This is assuming there is automatic fire detection. If that is not the case, we often cant start work until after 28 minutes. By that time, temperatures in the hall can have risen enormously and the firefighter lift may have failed. NEW MACHINERY DIRECTIVE TO REPLACE 98/37/EC: Building hoists and platform lifts presently examined under machinery directive 98/37/EC with a maximum speed of 0.15m/sec, are to be replaced by the new EU Machinery Directive 2006/42/EC at the end of 2009. The maximum speed of 0.15m/sec is the decisive factor delimitating the application of the lift or machinery directive for mechanical access equipment used in any building. A copy of the existing machinery directive can be obtained through the below link. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/mechan_equipment/machinery/direct/dir98-37.htm YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 March 2008 Builder makes what the market wants Henk Bol (managing director of a large building company) responded that his company can certainly produce the halls the fire brigade considers necessary for firefighter Lifts. Safety is high on our agenda. If users want fire safety facilities that go beyond the national legal requirements, we are more than willing to provide them. They should let us know while initiating a new building, so we can keep the costs of extra facilities of this kind relatively low. Human behaviour underestimated Paul van Soomeren (managing director of a consultancy firm) concluded, based on research into human behaviour that insufficient attention is paid to this matter when new legislation is drafted. Thats strange because people often behave very differently to what you would expect, he says. Many office workers adopt a wait-and-see attitude to fires, follow the wrong people when exiting the building or turn back halfway along the escape route. He therefore advocates holding regular fire drills. If lifts are used during evacuation, he says leadership and orchestration from a central crisis room and on the separate floors of the building are imperative. He further believes it is important to hold evacuation exercises with different types of groups, with special attention to disabled people. They take up a lot of space in the lift with their wheelchair or rollator and they cant move very quickly. Between 15 and 20% of the population has a disability and the figure is increasing all the time because of the ageing population. He also wonders if people used to seeing signs stating dont use the lift in the event of fire would be willing to step into an evacuation lift. Time will tell, he says. Prevention is better Michael Spraakman (a risk expert at a large indemnity insurance company) stressed that human action plays a major role in the possible causes of fires. Im referring to things Like smoking cigarettes and working at places with high fire risks. Overloading electrical systems and their insufficient maintenance can also have dire consequences. To prevent fires, you need a good building design, a safety policy, clear working procedures, regular inspections, maintenance, and training and education. He emphasised that everything hinges on proper compliance. Finally, he urged compartmentalisation and adequate fire safety by means of sprinklers and an evacuation system. He questioned whether a firefighter lift would then still be necessary, except in the case of very high buildings, of course. Sprinklers or evacuation Lifts? Peter Saaman (safety expert at Liftinstituut) addressed this question further, explaining that the choice of firefighter and evacuation lifts should be based on the fire brigades plan of action. For buildings higher than 40 metres, the fire brigade will prefer to have reliable firefighter lifts at their disposal. For buildings higher than 70 metres, you should be able to evacuate via the stairs, at least in part, but in that case you must fit sprinklers to control the fire. If complete evacuation is necessary, the need for evacuation lifts is very likely. He emphasised that the evacuation lifts must meet stringent requirements. They will be used in dangerous situations where the development of smoke in the lift and failure of the lift must be prevented. Butthere are also other ways of meeting the fire brigades requirements, according to Saaman. For instance, you can divide floors into two compartments, with one or more lifts at both sides of the compartments. On the fire-free side, the ordinary lifts and a firefighter lift will continue to be available for supervised evacuation and for fire fighting. Lively finale As customary at a Liftinstituut conference, the forum discussion provided a lively finale. One attendee wondered whether lifts should be available to the disabled as a matter of course in the event of a fire. The fire brigade was in YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 96 favour of this idea only if sufficient safety could be assured. And that depends on engineering aspects as well as constructional aspects. Another attendee urged devoting attention to hoistway ventilation in the event of fire, calling for the provisions contained in EN 81-1 and 81-2 to be incorporated into the EN 81-72 standard. Impossible to meet all requirements The forum discussion revealed that opinions were divided equally on the proposition of whether it was impossible to meet all fire safety requirements laid down by Law. A building owner mentioned as a complicating factor that requirements in the Netherlands are not imposed obligatorily, citing the maintenance of alarm systems as an example. Forum member Harry Boschloo responded on behalf of the Dutch authorities that this was indeed the case and that a difference existed between legally required constructional measures and more general user requirements. However, he emphasised that the users side was equally important. Another forum member, Paul van Soomeren, stressed that not everything should be viewed purely through from a technical angle. We must place a lot more emphasis on controlling emergencies, he said. Getting opinions of conference visitors. Visitors were able to give their opinions on several matters by means of a poll. The main outcomes were: * 91% shared the fire brigades wish to make a firefighter lift usable for 60 minutes; * 72% considered evacuation lifts necessary in high buildings; * 88%thoughtfire safety regulations made insufficient allowance for human behaviour. Informal survey The Liftinstituut also conducted a more informal survey by asking visitors for their opinions. Asked for their reason for attending the conference, a majority stated they wanted to be informed of new fire regulations and how these affected them personally. Many said they were particularly keen to learn more about the use of firefighter lifts and evacuation lifts. Most people recognised the outlined picture of human behaviour in the event of emergencies only to well: This is exactly what happens in our evacuation exercises. The internal and external emergency services have an important controlling role to play. The use of evacuation lifts during a fire was an eye-opener for several visitors. One of those present commented poignantly: If theyd been there in the WTC on 11 September 2001, there would probably have been far fewer fatalities. Instead, people jumped out of windows in blind panic. Evacuation lifts can be vitally important in such situations. The Lift Institute is an internationally active Notified Body involved in the realisation of European and ISO Standards through CEN & ISO. Page 4     ");
array_files[9]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax95.pdf","2008-02-12","489K"," NZLFAX95.PDF    ","","","January 2008 Issue 95 EDITORIAL. CAN THE DBH GET IT RIGHT? Does the buck stop here? For 16 years since the Building Act was introduced with a promise of a more efficient, effective governance of the building industry , we have seen the demise of the Ministry of Transport, and the process of consistent certification of lift equipment decline under the promise of a more effective process, but w e patiently wait. And in the meantime a lifetime passes; new players emerge installing lifts without a consistency of inspection process in place to guide them, and bad habits become entrenched. With disdain reflected in the bureaucratic DBH, with their proposed utopian elitist control of industry through their ever delayed Licensed Building Practitioner scheme based on certification and fine as the motivator for all without a certificate or profession, one questions the solution, as the unknowing public remain compromised. Consider the number of deaths of people who have been able to step into lifts shafts when the lift wasnt there; of an experienced Auckland installer under pressure to finish being crushed in his workplace ; of users of escalators with trolleys being killed or maimed for life in Christchurch; of a 7 year old in Tauranga still smiling after a chainsaw is necessary to free his hand from the lift he was using; like the locally engineered goods lift in Nelson being used by a passenger when it crashes to the pit severely injuring the user, and these accidents all happening under governance of the Building Act. So where are the published reports on which to learn? In the belated judges files; in the Department of Labour files spread throughout the country ; or in the recesses of minds afraid to attract the promulgated wrath of OSH. There are simple experienced solutions to turn the tide; it requires the encouragement of confidence in the industry to take on the responsibility of providing these efficient, safe processes within the present Consent and Compliance Schedule structures. The Certification Board for Inspection Personnel (CBIP) already has certified members and an international recognised process of certification of inspectors, as well as a lift expert group capable of producing efficient inspection processes for the Building Act, it just needs an enlightened DHB to recognise this, and CBIP funding. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH WHERE TO NOW PETER: One would think, to take responsibility for the South Island office of KONE would provide all the challenge necessary for an ambitious middle aged manager, especially one who enjoys the challenge of this work and people he works with. But no, to everyones surprise, Peter Loader has just announced he is giving up his position with KONE and returning to Otis, only back in the field. Petes main comment was that he wanted to be free to travel now that the kids are older, and he would be much freer to do so, as well as be able to work in the industry more flexibly by keeping up his technical skills. Your dream is there to be followed, and most only wish they had, but it looks like Peter wants to live his dream, so how can we do anything less than wish him all the best and wonder why we may have not! FAREWELL CELEBRATION FOR NOEL MONTGOMERY: 12:30pm on the 17th December 2007 at the Tai restaurant opposite George Henry in Manchester street saw a cross section of the Christchurch lift industry meet for a typical Liffties feed for a good price at a good venue and an opportunity to say farewell to Noel Montgomery. WHERE IS ERIC DARMENIA? Mark Hughes kindly passed on a copy of the NZLiftfax to Eric Darmenia who is now based in Shanghi with Schindler Management , Asia Pacific Ltd as PLM ­ NI Director after 15 years in Hong Kong. Mark Hughes and Mark Korkmann have also joined Eric in 2007, strengthening the ANZ contingent in China who covers Japan to Thailand, Korea to NZ in new business from product acquisition to deployment. I was waiting to get a story out of Mark Hughes involving motorcycle sidecars, but the office workload must be too heavy! YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Noel wished to gather some of the people who had played a part of his experience in the industry of over 40 years or so, and to each he gave a memory; a bottle of drink; the meal, and to Gary Neilsen a bottle of wine. Bert Watson who also retired recently was there along with Peter Loader Ong Keong - Neil Mason - Kerry Houston - Robin Eskew - Karen Makenzie , and yours truly to witness the occasion. To those worried as to why Gary got the wine, it wasnt for best looking, it wasnt for policemans favours, but because his name was under his seat! Page 1 January 2008 DESIGN COMM IN AUSBERG IN 2007 It looks like Laurie Hogg through his association with Design Com Technologies in Australia, is bringing his NZ T.L. Jones international lift industry Expo experience to Design Com, being spotted at the last Ausberg Interlift Industry show. Issue 95 Also resulting from the show was the complimenting of technological association through DesignCom Technologies being selected by the German manufacturer, Hennings GmbH; who manufacturer the latest load weighing and measuring systems, to become an authorised distributor in Australia and NZ. Hennings patented rope load measuring system saves maintenance by enabling consistent rope tension to be measured and adjusted within a few minutes through a USB interface at the evaluation unit. It achieves this by fitting single load sensors on each rope that compare total rope load against individual rope load to give a preferred average to adjust to. Four user programmable make or break outputs enable empty load, full load, overload and slack rope to be monitored. When Combined with a Henning acceleration sensor, mobile diagnosis is possible with the braking effect on the lift at empty and full loads being measured and recorded removing the need to carry out weighted brake testing. These devices enable accurate rope/sheave status to be determined and easily maintained ensuring sound and safe maintenance of what can be a safety critical part of any traction lift installation. It seemed DesignCom was prepared to provide quality complete solutions for this southern most market as it gradually stepped forward by proving its product acceptance in this market before making its next complimentary step forward. DesignCom Technologies maybe has realised it can broaden its boundaries and associations through attendance at industry shows such as Ausberg, so will we see Laurie Hogg in Thessiloniki at ELEVCON 2008. Keep your eyes out . . Papers have been called for ELEVCON 2008. http://www.elevcon.com/2008_THESSALONIKI/GRAPHIC/2NDCALL.pdf Page 2 It is understood that the industry was most impressed with DesignComs innovative and wide range of product developed in the Southern Hemisphere, with their eScreen TFT lift indicators and brand new colour LCD lift information screens. These screens are now able to bring fast remote update of information to lift users along with the latest video streaming, all through their 2-wire system and a wide range of protocols to fit most lift systems. Design Com used this years show to announce their new range of lift intercom systems, the LX-8 and LX-2 to compliment their EL100W 12v down lights, along with their new EL-80 electronic fluorescent lamp driver. These units invert a 12v emergency battery supply into a continuous 80W electronic fluorescent driver output that can run for over 2hrs providing significant light for passengers. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 2008 IN MEMORY OF A GREAT BLOKE: 26/4/48 ­ 24/12/07. It was with sadness that I was to attend the funeral of Graeme Francis Cox right at the end of 2007, along with my wife; Barbara and Ross Gillespie and Laurie Hogg and his wife representing T.L Jones. Graeme, as the Accountant for T.L.Jones Ltd Christchurch up to and during the sell off at the start of the 90s of the T.L Jones lift division by Ross Brown the Director of the Aotea Electric Group to the multinational Swiss Schindler Lift Group. This brought an end to the era of the early family owned lift companies in NZ. Issue 95 COMMERCE COMMISSION UPDATE: Our laws give some government institutions the right to intrude into our private and public lives with little restriction under the premise of public good. But shouldnt they be accountable for their actions where their intrusions create havoc and cost both financial and personal, and their investigations prove inconclusive. It seems if a person is raped, or is exposed to mental trauma, the caring side of our society provides services to assist those affected. But if an over zealous government institution causes havoc in peoples lives, but over reasonable time cannot justify it actions, surely they can begin by admitting their mistake, and possibly apologise by providing assistance to those castigated. The Commerce Commission acted in good faith, but in hindsight probably acted overzealously in targeting individuals in the lift industry in Christchurch when suspecting collusion based mostly on misinterpretation and hearsay. And yet they seem to be quite happy to let time pass, and just leave a dark cloud to hang over the heads of those indicted, and their wider families, let alone the industry. It is now nearly 2 years since the first accusations were made under protection of immunity by a lift company managers interpretations of past staff practices; when raids were carried out on company offices, files carried off by intimidating CC officers, and seemingly hundreds of staff and associates investigated to try and produce evidence for prosecution. But what has transpired following the initial rush of blood. . . . . Silence! And in the mean time the accused and their families identities are narrowed down, and where once families proud of their lifetimes of dedication to their work and companies, bravely hold face to the innuendo and open questions created by the resultant CCs actions and subsequent inactions. Whos accountable? The naive mistaken accuser acting in a climate of international suspicion, or the over zealous newly formed Commerce Commission geed up also on international happenings at the time. Whatever, it is time to stand up and bring a stop to this folly and hurt, to allow those accused to reinstate their lives before it is too late, and to bring fair closure and maybe compensation to those effected. You made a mistake Commerce Commission, it is time to rebuild the respect of your community for the good work you can do. Ed. LIFTS & ESCALATORS EXPO 2008 IN INDIA: International Lifts & Escalators Expo 2008 will be held on August 2-4, 2008 at the Pragati Maidan Exhibition Centre in New Delhi, India. The expo will focus on elevator and escalator technologies and opportunities created by the recent mall and shopping-plaza boom in the country. The show will also feature a concurrent seminar on the impact of technological advancements in the vertical-transportation industry. For more information, contact sponsors Media Expositions & Events at 112 A, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065 (India); phone: (91) 11-26445191/92; or email: marketing@themediaexpo.com. ESCALATOR INCIDENT INJURES SEVERAL IN BEIJING: The Shanghai Daily recently reported that nine people were injured when their path was blocked by a row of shopping carts. The incident occurred November 28 at a Beijing store. A store employee was returning the shopping carts, but they became stuck, which blocked the exit from the down escalator. As the escalator continued to run, the riders were pushed against the carts. According to the report, most of the injured passengers were more than 60 years old. In the confusion, one lady was jarred from her wheelchair. Page 3 At that time it was my pleasure to work alongside Graeme, who always retained his respect and friendly disposition for all in a time of added stress within the company. Graeme is survived by his wife Noeline, 2 children and grand children in Spain who will sorely miss their husband, father and grandfather. A special person, who will always be remembered by those who crossed his path in life. 2008 SPACE ELEVATOR BEAM POWER CHALLENGE: The organizers of the 2008 Space Elevator Beam Power Challenge have set the goal for the event at 1 kilometer travel at a minimum speed of 5 mps. The prize is US2 million. An intermediate prize of US900,000 will be given for any entry traveling 1 kilometer at 2 mps. Team registrations are now being accepted by the Spaceward Foundation. The event is tentatively set for the week of September 8. For more information, contact the Spaceward Foundation at website: http://www.spaceward.org/. ELEVATOR COMPANIES RESPOND TO AUSTRIAN COURT DECISION: Schindler Management AG and KONE Oyj have responded to the recent decision reached by the Austrian Cartel Court in regards to the imposition of fines for anti-trust activities. These responses were posted on the companies websites: www.schindler.com and www.kone.com. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 2008 CBIP STATUS: Understandably the Xmas & New Year break brought NZ to a halt once again, so what has happened to the status of the CBIP (Certification Board for Inspection Personnel), and the Lift Exam body you may ask? Chairman John Wilson has informed me that a board meeting is due in early March with the DOL (Department of Labour) representatives attending where the longer term through to 2009 will be outlined, along with the programme for accreditation to ISO 17024. It is understood the DBH position is still not fixed regarding LBPs in this area, but any action will be reconsidered following the March meeting. Issue 95 CONSENT TESTING OF LIFTS: At a time when Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) are being touted by the DBH as they make up (implement) their structure for occupational licensing of people who want to take pride and responsibility for the work and people they supervise, one wonders how the lift industry sees its role in setting the standard of inspection, or will it just continue to leave it to others to formulate. The only examples of process we have in NZ are the past couple of prescriptive codes and standards, that clearly layout the responsibilities and processes necessary for inspection of lifts under the era of the Ministry of Transport, but that was disbanded under the 1991 Act, and those tests are nearly irrelevant today due to changes in the equipment design. In the interim, as repeatedly pointed out in this newsletter, anything goes under the Consent system. Consistency of inspection can see a few qualified inspectors going through the motions, but there is no accountability of process in NZ under the Building Act Consent process, and so the vast majority of inspectors issue a simile of the past MOT in car certificate, and a Producer Statement or two as their record. Where is the record of test? Where are the safety compliance certificates? Where is the recommended compliance schedule documentation? Let alone who is to provide the scrutiny of competence. Dont think the LBP process is going to change much under the administration of the BCAs and DBH, as they seem more interested in handing out licenses to the professionals and spin doctoring than efficient, competent and cost effective lift inspection. CALL FOR PAPERS: February 28th is the early registration close off date for ELEVCON 2008 this year to be held in Thessaloniki on 11-13th of June 2008. The international Association of Elevator Engineers is this year holding its 17th International Congress on Vertical Transportation Technologies. LEC will be in Canada May/June this year so it would be great if some representatives from New Zealand could be there to catch up with the sun in Greece and report on where European lift industry technology is taking us in 2008. Find out all the detail you need either at go to www.elevcon.com . or email/fax Katrin_Pust@elevcon.com. +49 6925 577350. A SOCIETY OF GREED & PRIVILEGE: Since the time of the Canterbury Association in the 19th century, the development of social structures in New Zealand has been based around privilege, which has consistently undermined the development of an inclusive society that encourages all to participate. It is one thing to recognise and reward intellect to make ones self feel better than; or to feel less of others to satisfy ones ego, but if we are to address the social issues of out society we need to accept that privilege beginning in education through all walks of life undermines inclusive social endeavour, and depending on circumstances, the degree of individual self respect. Without self respect you tag, you steal, you disrespect other life, but most importantly you find little aspiration in life. And yet with aspiration and self respect you can cope; you can achieve; you can participate more positively in your society. Why is our education system and distribution of wealth still based on privilege? Why do we accept destruction of peoples individual worth to satisfy the ego of the most able? Surely the human characteristics of greed, and privilege so obviously growing in our society should be discouraged to build a society where all can attain self respect in whatever their endeavour. If we are to evolve a society that all want to participate in, so that tagging, stealing and negative actions are replaced by productive self esteem, we first need to address why privilege and greed is acceptable. Ed YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY The opportunity for a revamp of the lift inspection process to ensure an efficient, cost effective national process is fast fading, unless you believe the LBP structure is a revamp. The lift industry should be now discussing the issues of what constitutes a single safe inspection of all equipment and national record under D2 to ensure an efficient process can be implemented throughout NZ. Otherwise the 2004 Building Act revamp in the area of D2 will be a waste of time. The NZ lift industry needs:1. a national database of installed equipment of consistent record that is publicly accessible through the internet and updated through the Consent & Compliance Schedule process. 2. a single auditable process of inspection and record for each type of D2 equipment in the market. 3. a single process of certification of industry competent inspectors. (CBIP) 4. accountable funding through a building levy collected at Consent application and Compliance Schedule update. Page 4     ");
array_files[10]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax94.pdf","2008-02-12","607K"," NZLFAX94.PDF    ","","","November 2007 Issue 94 EDITORIAL. THE PRESSURE OF CHANGE: This months article on page 2 reflects the pressure on TAs brought about by our conservative nature when it comes to adopting change, and how the Department of Building & Housing seems hell bent on using this to distance itself from the grass roots building industry in case it is seen as a collaborator in the problem, and taint its gigantean Building Act overhaul and accreditation program that could fizzle into just another unnecessary, inefficient bureaucratic overhead cost. Leaky buildings has suited the Professionals cause to reinstate their position in the building governance hierarchy following their initial conservativeness toward the Building Act ,and now with much waving of professional certificates and promotion on accreditation of everyone else in the industry, fading hope of a partnership in any solution is likely. The 1991 Building Act was a step out of many peoples comfort zone, as Performance evaluation requires up-to-date front line experience that cannot be easily canned into a `One Stop Shop of general qualifications. Inexperienced interpreting of old codes undermines the whole philosophy of the Building Act unless used with discretion, as it was shown to be as; the problem to be resolved, in pre Building Act days that became the impetus for seeking this more dynamic solution. The legislated solution identifies what needs to be achieved in; the performance code; who administer; the process to ensure the process remains consistent and is suitably documented; the TA, and who is competent to confirm; the solution ; the industries or professions involved in design. It is when the performance code is dismissed; the administrators portray themselves as the solution experts, and the experienced designer or industry expert is dismissed as non-conformist, that we end up with where we seem to be heading today. If we are interested in real solutions, there needs to be partnerships; protection of privilege and vested interests does not make for good governance in an egalitarian world, they only perpetuate divisiveness and difference as we see everyday on our global television. Ed. is no need to be connected to a computer to set up, adjust or interrogate recorded data on site. Up to 64 optically isolated non-polarity sensitive I/O channels can be logged per input module and date stamped at a scanning rate of 10/sec. The modules can be serially daisy chained to log up to 1024 inputs. All data is recorded on compact flash cards for ease of transfer to computer, leaving the unit on site to continue recording while data is downloaded and categorised for the specific job using secure supplied PC software, and where data can be analysed using XL for everything from intermittent faults to response times and number of trips etc. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH 100 YEARS OF SERVICE TO BE BROKEN: Bert Watson 68c, Noel Montgomery 66 and Louie Smolar 65 are the 100 year backbone of service to Otis in New Zealand that is soon to be broken when the most senior of the gentlemen of the industry; Bert, retires early in the New-Year. With approximately 32 years of service in Wellington, Christchurch, and a few years overseas, Bert I understand spent some of his time learning his trade at Scott Island; the NZ Antarctic Base, before beginning with Otis in Wellington some 35 years ago. These men have experienced an era of change in this industry, and so I encourage them to put their experience on paper when they get the chance so that we dont loose their story that can never be experienced again. INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS Ltd: Lyall Senior, better known for his lift Consultancy services as Lift Solutions Ltd, has set up a separate company; Infrastructure Analysis Ltd to address the need for a dedicated on site lift system data analysis solution. Lyall engaged software and hardware engineers to produce a unit suitable for easy connection and recording of any lift data, and has now reached a stage where he was able to kindly demonstrate the advantages of his units to the market. The unit is Bobs lunch box in size with an onboard status readout, so there YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 I understand some of the lift companies have acquired units and LEC is keen to employ the unit as soon as a client needs accurate analysis of their lift system. If you too are interested but need to know more, just call Lyall on:021 472 400 and Im sure he will fill you in on all additional details. November 2007 WHEN IS AN EXPERT NOT AN EXPERT? When he is deemed to be part of the design team! It makes you wonder, whether or not the following is now the TA criteria for Consent assessment? Step 1. Reject all independent industry experienced by deeming the submitter as deemed part of the design team. Step 2. Apply an acceptable solution. Step 3. Point to some vague part of the Act that mentions a Compliance document such as Clause 119. Step 4. Get department managers to all concur with the above. Step 5. Suggest the applicant goes to the DBH for a determination. Issue 94 And so when a lift design size of 1.1m x 1.4m is presented to the local TA, unnecessary hold-ups are inevitable. Firstly NZS 4121 is applied and justified by NZS 4332, until it is explained that NZS 4121 is not compulsory. Next a past determination is trawled up to confirm a 1.1m wide lift design was rejected at the local airport terminal in Queenstown, and so the solution is rejected again, all the time with expert advice being given to the contrary. This clearly confirms as to why the Territorial Authority should be about the administrative process of Consent, not see themselves as the solution expert. They seem to mix-up their Council building inspection services with their TA Consent responsibilities of ensuring good process. If the council has concern over independent expertise, it should be proactive in assessing the expert, not being a pseudo expert in just interpreting prescriptive solutions; otherwise we havent learnt from the past. Of similar interest is the use of Determinations by TAs. Where there has been a dispute, under the Building Act a determination is used to resolve it, and like Acceptable Solutions they are great guidelines for industry experts who are up with the play, but should not be applied verbatim by TAs against every future solution, as they are a single determination based on specific circumstances set in a single point in time, and may also have become dated. Because they are unchallengeable does not mean they are all right, they are not law, just the best resolution on its day on which the TA must act. Remember Clause 18. Building work is not required to achieve performance criteria additional to or more restrictive than the building code. And last but not least, this is not a comment of disrespect on all the efforts the TAs put in under difficult circumstances where submitters provide little support documentation or effort in their submission, but hopefully the points raised promote discussion, consideration and even response if need be, as long as in the end working together will result in a more efficient process; respect for all parties, with an aim to grow together and not stagnate through the use of solutions that perform. Ed. Page 2 If so, this may be where the bottlenecks begin and where inefficiency in process causes so much frustration to submitters for solution approval. The Building Act is a Performance based Act implemented to simplify the process of compliance and to remove the obsolescence of single solution codes that stagnate the minute they are written in this continually changing technological society. The 1991 Act was implemented to specifically address this issue and make the process more efficient, but in the hands of some TAs, old ways of applying their lack of expertise to the solution, instead of being expert in the process once again raises its inefficient head. Admittedly past prescriptive codes & standards retain a store of past knowledge and are great guidelines; in fact some were adopted under the act as acceptable solutions to enable the Consent submitter an easy path through the bureaucratic process. But what they were not intended for was to defeat the purpose of a performance Act by allowing Territorial Authorities to fall back on them as their personal yardsticks of pseudo expertise for evaluation of any Consent submission. A case in point is the NZ lift Standard NZS 4332:1997 that back in 1989 as the Power Lift Rules set disabled access lift car minimum sizes as 1.4m². Now no technical assessment has since been carried out, but at that time 1.4m² was the standard size preferred by the lift manufacturers, and so it entered the codes. Since then world wide evaluation has been carried out with a 1.1m x 1.4m disabled access minimum today in world production, along with ISO DIS 4190, US-A17, and Australian standards AS 1735 adopting this preferred size. But still in NZ the now obsolete standard contains 1.4m² along side the disable access standard NZS 4121. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY November 2007 Issue 94 KONE INC. WILL NO LONGER MANUFACTURE HYDROS: As part of its environmental commitment, KONE Inc. has announced that it will no longer manufacture hydraulic elevator systems. The company made the announcement on November 7 at the 2007 U.S. Green Building Councils Greenbuild Expo. According to KONE, the oil used in hydraulic systems can leak into the earth, which can contaminate the ground. The company will market its EcoSpaceTM machine-room-less elevator systems in applications in which it formerly offered a hydraulic system. RECORD RESULTS FOR INTERLIFT 07: VFA Interlift, sponsors of Interlift Augsburg 2007, reports the highest figures ever for the biennial exposition, held on October 16-19 at Augsburgs Messezentrum. In addition to a record number of exhibitors and space occupied, this years event boasted approximately 18,500 visitors (up from 17,679 in 2005) representing over 60 countries, with nearly 500 participating companies. The Interlift-Forum, which consisted of a series of short lectures and discussion after each, registered over 1,000 attendees. The organizer is making even larger plans for its 2009 event, for which it intends a new exhibition hall. Construction on it was announced October 16, and the sponsors expectations are that the added space will lead reluctant companies to expand or begin exhibiting. SPACE-ELEVATOR COMPETITION RESULTS: Technology challenges to work toward building a space elevator to transport supplies from the Earths surface to space without expending or using expensive fuel or batteries took place on October 17-22 in Salt Lake City. The Spaceward Foundation hosted the competition that required teams to attempt to build a robotic climber and vertical tether that could one day comprise a workable space elevator. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration sponsored the competition and provided prize money that has accumulated to some US1 million over the past three years. No winners have been seen thus far at any of the annual events. Eight teams participated in the contest this year, and the Spaceward Foundation is hopeful due to the improved performances when compared to previous events. OTISLINE® RECOGNIZED WITH AWARD: Otis Elevator Co. recently announced that its OTISLINE call center had been recognized by the Chinese government. The company was presented an award for operating the most efficient and effective call center in China among similarly sized companies. The recognition came during an Asia Pacific call center summit in Beijing. The call center is Otis 24-hour-a-day response line that serves as an initial contact for customers and is used to dispatch mechanics to service elevators. According to the company, OTISLINE representatives in Beijing answer customers calls an average of 60% faster than the standard set by the China Ministry of Information Industry. KONE THIRD QUARTER INTERIM REPORT: Strong growth in orders received and profit were highlights of the third-quarter interim report recently issued by KONE Corp. The company reported orders received growth for the period including January-September was 15%, while net sales grew by 13%. Operating income for the period was EUR170.4 million (US243.1 million), compared to EUR236.7 million (US337.6 million) for the same period last year. Operating income excludes a EUR142-million (US202.5-million) fine levied by the European Commission (ELEVATOR WORLD, April 2007). Page 3 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY November 2007 FINALLY A 2nd LIFT FOR OTAGO MEDICAL SCHOOL: Issue 94 It took until 1964 some 37 year later that the following was drafted to the school. This story began The present lift in the Lindo Ferguson Block of the Medical in 1903 and School is inadequate for its main function of transferring came to a close bodies from the basement of the building to the second floor with the and visa-versa where they are used for dissecting by completion of the medical students. On occasions between 30 and 40 of installation of an these bodies are in use. The minimum requirement is to be Otis Gen2 lift into able to wheel them into the lift laid out horizontally on a the now historic 6 trolley, but at present this is impossible because the lift is level Otago Medical School building in Dunedin in August too small. It is necessary to man or woman-handle them at 2007, and through the application of the latest Motorthe loading stage and prop them up in the lift. The same roomless lift technology, it was able to serve all floors procedure is reversed for unloading. including the roof without virtually any noticeable change to In addition the lift is antiquated and near the end of its the existing building. unnatural life: is hand operated by rope; and recently has been causing concern with frequent breakdowns. It is also It was 1903 when Architect Edward Anscimbe and open to view and does not comply with Marine Department Associates was first commissioned to design the brick safety standards. and concrete building to become known as the Lindo Perhaps the rope frayed, but Ferguson Building for the school, and true to today, for £16,000 later the letter many reasons it seems, to achieve the best at the medical achieved its desired effect school, you need to be patient. and the lift was replaced by Outside Disused Lift Shaft Otis/Waygood with a much Now the reason I say this is because the first redesign more suitable design that to began in 1905, then 1907, 1911,and 1913, and of course date has lasted some 43 st World War, and yes, as we all know, along came the 1 years without a reported loss labour and funding issues intruded before redesign in of a cadaver, nor another 1919, 1921 and finally 1924 before a stone was turned. It draft written. It was said; the took around 4 years until 1927 to when the doors were dissecting room technicians finally opened. dont know how lucky they are. Although on the other The final design was for hand, I suppose their work gives them enough reminder! two lifts, one goods lift for the transportation of The able pressed on with the stairs, up and down, down `bodies from the and up until the 1991 Building Act was written, and so nd floor Basement to the 2 history once again repeats itself. In 1994 the draft to the dissection room in the powers to be once again is written to read. main wing, and a Cupboard in Ground Floor of Lift Shaft passenger lift for the west The building wing. It so transpired that does not meet two lift shafts were disabled access constructed but once requirements of Looking Up Unused Lift Shaft the Building Code or lifting again finances stepped of heavy in and the non-ambulant objects took precedence over requirements of the able, so only the the health and goods lift was installed. Safety in Employment Act. Office in top of Shaft YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4 November 2007 FINALLY THE 2nd LIFT DESIGN IS APPROVED: With funding delays to start, the design inched forward in 1998, only to be further delayed until 2002 when the concept plans were prepared. The order to prepare a specification was given in November 2002, followed by Tender issue on 8th January 2003 for a six level lift, with a letter of acceptance to proceed issued to the successful tenderer Otis in September 2003 for a sum of 92,500. And in keeping with the traditions of the Otago Medical School historical record, from the first Architects concept that acknowledged the need for a passenger lift, to the order for the passenger lift specification until the handover, saw some 104 years transpire. But as the wise would say: The question is not how long it took to build but the quality of the result achieved. Issue 94 Gen2 Belt Drive Completed Lift Shaft Gen2 Design Top of Lift Car Old Lift Pit New Lift Pit New Lift Car Old Machine Space New Roof Level And in this instance, from the extra effort reflected in the finished product, the answer is in the pride of those who partook in the journey. Design and Project Management: The Otago University Property Services Department. New Ground Floor Sadly I cannot name all involved, but for the record those with key responsibilities were: Department Head: Barry MacKay. Engineer: Dave Lyttleton Facilities Manager: Bruce McLennan. Structure Contractor: Matt Harris - Naylor Love. Installation Supervisor: Kelvin Irvine Lift Contractor: Otis Elevator Pty Ltd Installer: Adrain Smeehuyzen Lift Consultant: Lifteye Consultancy New Roof Level YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 5     ");
array_files[11]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax93.pdf","2008-02-12","319K"," NZLFAX93.PDF    ","","","September 2007 Issue 93 EDITORIAL. LICENCING DRIBBLING OUT: It is clear from the issue of the first LBP licensing categories this month that three levels of certificate are preferred by the DBH with the announcement that Site Design and Site Carpentry will soon be able to be applied for, and are to cover the roles of:? category 1 ­ builder. ? category 2 - site supervisor. ? category 3 - construction manager. To see what is involved, go to www.dbh.govt.nz and look up Licenced Building Practitioner Rules 2007. Now as far as lift inspections are concerned, possibly one of the most overlooked areas of inconsistent practice that has crept in since restructuring of lift compliance under the 1991 Building Act, the pushing out of mandatory licensing to the 30th Nov 2010 will only delay necessary change even more. On the bright side, I suppose it gives the DBH 3 more years to realise that efficient structure and processes will only come from employing experienced lift industry people to certify competence and to structure efficient processes. On the other hand, off the shelf Civil aviation accreditation processes and non-industry candidate evaluation will more than likely achieve a bureaucratic paper trail of manipulated irresponsibility , than ensure a consistent, competent and efficient means of inspection. The industry representative CBIP inspection-certification and processes using 3 categories of inspector, combined with a web-accessible data-base of equipment updated through the Consent process, will provide:? consistent national inspection. ? useful centralised records for ease of update and public access to Compliance Schedule details for WOF purposes. ? the need only for TA administration. ? an accountable inspector certification process. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 The solutions are there, but will the performance efficiencies of workface responsibility enshrined in the Building Acts be utilised, or will good governance stagnate under the vested interests of `professionals, or misinterpretations of rule bound bureaucrats? WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH DAVE GARDNER NEW THYSSENKRUPP MANAGER: Another Kiwi in Peter Passman heads to Aussie and Dave Gardner moves on from NZ Engineering Services and takes up the challenge for ThyssenKrupp, in this latest roundabout of management moves in Auckland NZ. Thyssen has kept a reasonably low profile since entering the market, so maybe with Davids lift industry and local experience we could see a stronger presence emerge. GAVIN POLLARD STEPS IN TO OTIS WELLINGTON: Back in the industry he was born into, ex EPL/KONE master tech and past Manager, Gavin Pollard emerges from a past heart rendering experience of an employee death on his watch, to take on Service Modernisation Sales for his old competitor Mike Jennings at Otis Wellington. Peas of a pod, these two could write a book on their industry experiences and should fill the threatening void left with Hanks departure. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY TERRY KARIPA PLAYS LAST ROUND: It was quite a shock to hear that Terry passed away suddenly in August, but typically he was on a Wellington Golf Course at the time. Since setting up his electrical business Terry always retained one foot in the lift industry as an IQP, and participated in the first attempt in the mid 90s to set up an open NZ lift industry association. A good heart will always be remembered by many. JOE McMAHON FAREWELLS OTIS AFTER 34 YEARS: It is always sad to see disappointment in the eyes of an employee moving along after 34 years of service to a company. But for Joe McMahon he feels he is going to a better place in warmer climes by joining Schindler working the North Coast of Brisbane. Page 1 September 2007 STEP BY STEP CREMER ENGINEERING GROWS: When I first started LEC in the early 90s I needed to get to know some of the smaller providers in our market to see how they ticked, what was important to them, what were their dreams? One thing that stood out to me was their passion, and one person especially who I related to instantly was Dave Cremer. www.stairlifts.co.nz Issue 93 With high demand for home and two stop disabled access lifts, Dave turned to the off the shelf indirect hydraulic drive manufacturing the CDL25 in 7 ranges of product sizes from 0.8m x 0.8m to 1.1m x 1.4m in single, through and adjacent entry layouts. The European market today is full of highly competitive quality lift solutions, pressured by the emerging Chinese high volume manufacturer, and so it is difficult to compete against mass produced products in a lot of applications, and so the latest stage for Cremer Engineering has been to identify a range of good products to compliment their locally produced products, and incorporate then into a one stop shop for mechanical access solution. For home, additions like the Pollock through floor home lift, or Artico home platform lift, and for disabled access in the office the Artico A1 fully enclosed platform lifts fit well in new and existing buildings. For the higher end of the market a full range of the Greek Kleemann products that include, the Apollo 375kg-630kg, the Mistral up to 630kg, or the Atlas 2000kg MRL traction lifts. In the hydraulic range the maisonlift 180kg-450kg range comes in a self supporting tower, and for higher duty the Arion 630kg­1000kg. All come with the Kleemann range of `you select latest European interior finishes. Ph: 09 813 0744 Fax: 09 813 1264 Here I found an engineer that not only wanted to practice his practical skill, but to apply it for the better for his customer and for those he employed. In those days Dave had just expanded from his first rack & pinion drive straight stairlifts to the inclined and vertical platform lift. Now over the years Ive crossed paths with Daves boys on varying installations in the South Island, funnily enough they all seems to possess the same Cremer qualities, but it was only recently that I had the opportunity to catch up with Dave himself. Little had changed in Dave, still following the same principles that had done him well, only now with many more staff and further expanding his product line. Gone is the stairlift he honed his design skills on, replaced by the more cost effective mass produced multi-range UK MediTek product ranging from 10k to 30k. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 September 2007 YOUR LIBRARY: At times one wonders if the reason the Building Act has been open to so much criticism is due to the unwillingness by a large part of the building industry to accept change through participation. Since the removal of the old centralised MOT structure, and without the individual at the workface taking ownership of their hard earned experience and bringing it into new processes to reflect an ever changing market, we have instead ended up with a growing inconsistent, unsafe void with regard to compliance inspection. Participation in the NZ lift industry is not only about the bottom line, by taking on the responsibility to better understand the Building Act, and through this knowledge when applied to individual industry experience, evolve processes to play a constructive part in the governance of this industry, we can achieve the efficient, consistent processes we need to maintain a safe industry under this Building Act. If you wish to participate in this changed governance of the lift industry, you need to be aware of, and have the ancillary documents necessary to know this Act. THE ACT: First you can buy this handy size bound copy from Brookers Ltd, Ph: 04 499 8178 or email: service@brookers .co.nz Issue 93 It is here you find D2 the performance requirement for Mechanical Access equipment. Also issued in 2007 was the separated Compliance Schedule Handbook that details all the Annual WOF inspection processes and requirements. It is in here the three sections of SS 8 are found particular to the inspection of the SS 8/1 Passenger Lifts; SS 8/2 Service Lifts and SS 8/3 for Escalators. Once again these can be purchased through Standards NZ or downloaded in PDF format from www.dbh.govt.nz/compliance-docs-get-copies/#freedownload. COMPLIANCE DOCUMENTS: From the same sources you can download PDF copies of all the Compliance Documents the most important for for your lift library is:D2 Mechanical Installations for Access. These documents identify the Acceptable Solutions NZS4332; EN 81 Parts 1&2 for Passenger lifts; An Acceptable Solution for Domestic and Service Lifts, and EN115 the British Standard for Escalator installation and testing. Importantly these documents also detail any additional local requirements or deletions to these codes for use as acceptable solutions. BUILDING (Form) REGULATIONS: Its a bit of a quagmire but with the 2004 update the recommended `Forms we moved from the Act into this separate regulations publications with some updates including the 12a form for annual WOF inspection. www.dbh.govt.nz/userfiles/file/building/pdf/2005170/pdf Well this is a start to your library, you will find much more on the at www.dbh.govt.nz Page 3 Otherwise for a free PDF download go to the Department of Building & Housing Web Site and download the latest PDF copy at :www.dbh.govt.nz/ba-get-a-copy THE BUILDING CODE HANDBOOK: The third edition of the Building Code Handbook was issued in May 2007 and is a must to understanding the association of documents, and provides definitions, reference documents and the critical 45 performance requirements in the First Schedule at the heart of the Act. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY September 2007 Issue 93 INTERLIFT AUSBERG 16-19 October 2007: ACHTUNG ­ FINAL CALL Well you should be well organised if you are going to this years International Trade Fair for Elevator Technology. From all accounts this is the best and if you are serious about supplying this industry, here you will see the latest and the greatest. Ausberg is one hour west of Munich by bus or 3hrs by train from Frankfurt. I wont see you there this year but I understand Dave Cremer is attending. LEC WEBSITE UPDATE: There is still much that can be improved, but just keeping up with expansion of the internet is not easy for an old duffer, but try we must in the restricted time we have, and so I have just updated contact data with the addition of more photos of supplier equipment data and people. So if you havent browsed for a while, check out: www.lifteye.co.nz OTIS AUCKLAND UPDATE: At last we have a lady looking after a NZ branch office with Sarah Bezenie from the UK taking over from Scott Miller in the Auckland office after Scott headed back to Melbourne Aust. after his stint in NZ. DAVE PERRY NZES TECH MANAGER: With Dave Gardner moving across to Thyssenkrup Dave Perry has taken on the role of NZ Engineering Services Technical Manager. Dave brings a wealth of experience to his role entering the industry originally with ECC back in 1982. He headed to Boral in Sydney as an Installation Electrician, and then back to NZ with the Boral move into NZ as their Construction Manager. With Boral being bought out by Otis, Dave headed off to the Islands tuning lifts for Goldstar in Kumagai Gumi, Papua New Guinea and Fiji, before heading off to the States for International Cranes as their Florida Service Manager. By 2001 NZ called once again and Dave returned and settled with KONE Elevators as their Service Team Leader through until 2006. And so in 2006 Dave joined NZES as their Service Supervisor before taking on this latest responsibility. A good head; technically knowledgeable with a variety of experience is the term I use, but in this instance with a good customer appreciation which should do well for NZES as they expand their influence in the NZ market. Page 4 BURJ DUBAI TOPS 150 LEVELS: At 555.3 meters, Burj Dubai has now passed 150 levels, the largest number of stories for any building in the world. The tower already holds the distinction of being taller than Taipei 101 in Taiwan, which at 508 meters was recognized by the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat as the tallest building in the world when it opened in 2004. Developed by Emaar Properties, Burj Dubai has now surpassed the height of Torontos CN Tower, which at 553.33 meters was recognized as the worlds tallest free-standing structure on land in 1976. Reported by M.J. Mohamed Iqbal, EW Correspondent. WALKING PROHIBITED ON SEOUL SUBWAY ESCALATORS: Stars and Stripes recently reported that the Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit (SMRT) will ban passengers from walking on its subway station escalators in an effort to reduce accidents. SMRT operates four subway lines in the South Korean capital. According to the report, Seoul Metro, which operates four other lines in the city, is also reviewing its policy in this regard. Both companies have allowed walking on their escalators since 2002. A SMRT spokesperson stated that there were 16 escalator accidents in its system in 2002, but the number of accidents rose to 87 in 2006. SPACE ELEVATOR WORKSHOP IN LUXEMBOURG: The EuroSpaceward and the National Research Fund of Luxembourg is hosting a Space Elevator Climber and Tether Workshop on November 12-14. The workshop will be held at the Novotel Kirchberg Luxembourg. Reigstration includes access to all lectures and proceedings of the workshop, plus lunch each day of the event. Early registration must be made before September 30. For more information, contact EuroSpaceward at website: www.eurospaceward.org. DESIGNS FOR THREE WTC TOWERS REACH FINAL STAGE: According to GlobeSt.com, the designs have been finalized for three of the towers to be built at the site of the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City. The buildings are known as Towers 2, 3 and 4. Developer Larry Silverstein reported that construction on Towers 3 and 4 will begin in January 2008, followed by work on Tower 2, which will begin in July 2008. All three towers are expected to be completed by late 2011 or early 2012. FATAL ACCIDENT IN VANCOUVER: According to The Vancouver Sun, a man doing maintenance on an elevator in a Vancouver building died as a result of injuries sustained when he was pinned between the car and the hoistway wall. The elevator had been reported out of order. The August 21 incident was discovered when the elevator company for which he worked sent a second man to the site when the victim did not respond to paging. The British Columbia Safety Authority and WorkSafeBC are investigating the incident. Is this the result of the risk taken with single man maintenance. Ed. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[12]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax92.pdf","2007-08-09","192K"," NZLFAX92.PDF    ","","","July 2007 Issue 92 EDITORIAL. WHAT DOES D2/AS1 MEAN?: The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 I know its a silly question, anyone in the lift industry knows its the Building Act Acceptable Solution for passenger lifts in NZ. So why ask the question you say? The reason I ask the question as to `what it means?, is because when carrying out Consent tests of late Ive had statements made like, we dont do buffer tests, and if you insist well do them only on LEC jobs. With the inference, just to keep me happy. This is why I think it timely to emphasis the responsibility when writing D2/AS1-1.0 for NZS 4332:1997 compliance, or D2/AS1 2.0: for EN81 Part 1 or 2:1998 with amendments on compliance documents, because you need to know what it means if as a lift company you are to achieve compliance. Once the document is submitted to the Building Consent Authority (BCA) through the Consent Application process, it should result in a written response on the Consent Approval document issued by the Territorial Authority that details the inspection and documentation necessary to confirm compliance with this solution. The inspection process required to be completed for compliance to EN81:1998 for example, is found in Annex D of this European lift standard, which it so happens lists the processes and tests necessary to be demonstrated to the inspector to achieve compliance. Importantly, when LEC completes the inspection and test of the installed equipment, it is this document used to determine what test are necessary when suggesting a test of the buffers be demonstrated, not just a whim as it seems some believe. There is a single process necessary to be achieved, so why is it that so may differing processes seem to be used when the industry seems to say, we want consistency in inspection. Maybe its just a lack of training in codes or a laise-fare approach to certification with inconsistent Territorial Authority Consent processes still to be addressed throughout New Zealand! Ed. WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH HANK SLOBB JOINS AMPCO: Another surprise in the reconsolidation of the lift industry sees the technical experience of Hank Slobb departing Otis to take up a position with Tony Skews at AMPCO Lift & Electrical Services Ltd in Wellington. Hank leaves after 24 years in the lift industry totalling 32 year in the electrical industry. The company is delighted to have him join the current team and take charge of the lift divisions day to day operation says Managing Director, Tony Skews. All is not lost says Mike Jennings, Manager at Otis Wellington, as where necessary, it still enables Otis to sub-contract Hanks experience through AMPCO, with Hanks protégé Dan Chatters a Mechatronics engineer now having 2 years with Otis under Hanks wing. Contact Hank on 0800 10 38 38 or direct on 021465469 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY WELLINGTON SALES MGR GEORDIE ALSO GOES: Mike Jennings says they will cope, but with the loss of Geordie Tsorgas as the Otis Wellington Sales Manager, to take up the challenge as General Manager of a paint company, one wonders if this industry disease is incurable. OTIS NZ UNDER QUEENSLAND UMBRELLA: Brett Code; Australian Queensland Managing Director for Otis in Brisbane, oversees the New Zealand Otis branches these days through Area Manager Scott Miller in Auckland, and branch managers Mike Jennings in Wellington and Johnathan Lewis in Christchurch. They also have a dedicated code officer in Chris Jones these days which is a welcome sight in this industry. KONES NEW CHCH OFFICE A HIT WITH STAFF: Peter Loader not only began the year new to Kone as their Branch Manager in Christchurch, but was immediately moving Mike Boydd and staff into their new offices at:Unit 7, 9 Craft Place, Christchurch 8024. P.O Box 9003, Addington. Ph: +64 3 338 3900 Fax: +64 3 338 3917 Mobile: 021 944 568. email: peter.loader@kone.com Page 1 July 2007 COMMERCE COMMISSION UPDATE: Twenty cartels in Commerce Commission sights reads the headlines of a local paper, and as you read the reported comments of Paula Rebstock the Chairwoman of the Commerce Commission, you get a better understanding as to how this body sees its role, and the practices it is using to justify itself to Government. I expect most people say `good on you when they read of cartels that price fix in the market being successfully prosecuted by bodies such as the CC, and rightly so because the people who are usually most effected is Joe public, fighting for every penny he earns and seemingly being scalped every time he puts his hand in his pocket these days. But is there more to this story? Lets look at the tactics our saviours are employing. Since 2004 the commission has provided a leniency policy, whereby the first company in an industry to `dob themselves in for price fixing, gives them immunity and allows open slather on the competitor for the Commission to go to work on. Seven applications have been made for leniency to date. Of course it makes it easier if the `dobbors employee has moved on from the company. Now one might see this as a win-win situation for themselves, whereby the `dobbor is not only immune to prosecution for past coloured deeds, but his dobbing can wreck havoc on his competitor for a while. No make that a year or so, or as is happening in the local lift industry where the CC hit men have been in, the investigation has been carried out on a couple of; for all intensive purposes, good community oriented individuals with many year of past faithful service to their companies and families. Put yourself in their position; no make that their wifes, their childrens, their parents and so ons position. The CC doesnt wait around to investigate; it uses the full power of the law to carry out a lightening raid on any business with the finger pointed at it, and then proceeds to hunt for some facts. Interestingly enough, if the facts are unclear and there is a lot of hearsay, innuendo and personal scores to settle, the tax payers coffers are heavily employed as a black cloud hangs over all, heavily disrupting lives and business associations until sufficient cause for their endeavour is justified. It has now been since early 2006 and counting that the target competitors offices were first hit, and still no substantiation for their actions or prosecution made. So YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 92 one must ask, has the fervour died, are some of the good efforts of the CC being wasted on wild bureaucratic goose chases, where the longer it goes on the less credible the CC becomes - the more irreconcilable the damage done to good people - the more distrust between workmates and the more likely the CC lets the issue quietly go away. Yes as the results have shown, there is always someone ready to `dob in the department manager above them, or add a bit of colour to their suspicions, but if goading people to be in first to `dob themselves in is their solution to price fixing and collusion, I can see the Commerce Commissions budget along with bad feeling and mistrust in the workplace, all increasing with little return to our community other than unnecessary devastation of ordinary employees and their families lives. Industries are increasing in size becoming multinational and dictatorial in our communities, centralising capital and power, and in a world where more importance is being placed on the spreadsheet than the people of our society, it seems we focus on controlling our least able, and ignore the most egregious. OTIS OPENS GREEN MANUFACTURING FACILITY: Otis Elevator Co. recently announced the opening of a new elevatormanufacturing facility in Chinas Tianjin Economic-Technological Development Area (TEDA). The Otis TEDA Elevator Center is located on a 141,643-square-meter site and incorporates energy-saving technologies that the company expects will reduce energy usage by at least 25%. The center will produce Gen2® elevators and high-speed permanent-magnet gearless systems. MUSEUM FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ELEVATING HISTORY: Operating as an online repository for the history of vertical transportation, the Museum for the Preservation of Elevating History was developed and researched by ELEVATOR WORLD founder and industry leader William S. Sturgeon. It was his vision that this virtual museum be an educational tool designed to provide students, researchers and industry members with a broad picture of how lifting has evolved through the ages. It operates as a flexible framework that allows individuals, companies and organizations to continuously contribute historic information. Dr. Lee Gray, who is associate dean for the College of Architecture at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and a regular contributor to EW, is the current museum curator. For more information on this interesting website, visit www.theelevatormuseum.org. TALLEST IN THE WORLD SURPASSED: The Burj Dubai has reached 521.7 m on the 2nd of August 2007 to surpass the Taiwan 101 building at 508m. see www.burjdubai.com Page 2 July 2007 CONFUSION OVER D2 LBP ROLLOUT: With the Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) regime due to start implementation in November 2007, and information dribbling out from the DHB, there seems to be some turmoil in trying to determine what is to eventuate amongst North Island inspection bodies of D2 specified systems, and how it will affect their businesses. There has also been concern reflected in the South Island lift community following the SI IQP Register D2 review expanding criteria as to what will be necessary for future IQP registration, when supposedly the LBP regime roll out is imminent. Understandably with so many councils with so many views in certifying IQPs in the North Island, and carpentry and design practices seemingly more important to the DHB than a safe lift inspection regime, as confirmed in the announcement on Building Licensing by the Honourable Clayton Cosgrove on the 30th of July, one understands the confusion. Even next year there is no light on the horizon with six more categories of external plasterers ­ roofers ­ bricklayers and block-layers ­ specialists in concrete structure ­ steel structure and last but not least, building services which probably doesnt even include lifts. By focusing on chasing `cowboys instead of addressing 15 years of laissez-faire inspection of new lifts under the Consent process in NZ, any accountability for installation of safe lifts has become a hit and miss process. I accept that the market has demonstrated an obvious disdain by many companies in accepting privatised governance under the Building Act, and in some ways deserves to return to an inefficient bureaucratic centralised process of total governance by state run inspection bodies. But it seems it has been difficult for most building industries to change from ingrained prescriptive codes and centralised state inspection, especially because YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 92 inconsistent and unclear processes have prevailed over these 15 years. Its as if they want to be responsible but cannot justify the time to agreed clear processes of which they are quite capable of producing. Then again, most are not irresponsible industries, who I believe would want to and can do better once they take ownership of the issues, and recognise that common and safe standards are achieved through cooperation, not competition. It needs them to be given the green light by the DBH to take responsibility and participate in the process for it to happen under this performance based Governance process. SOUTH ISLAND IQP REGISTER REVIEWED: The Certification Board for Inspection Personal (CBIP) has since 1992 been providing D2 level 1 IQP and level 2 for Consent lift inspection certification in New Zealand, which has been recognised by the South Island IQP Register Group representing South Island Territorial Authorities (TAs), and in obvious ignorance or disdain from the North Island (TAs). This SI IQP Register and CBIP association has seen the lift industry expert group on the CBIP lift exam panel evolve their Standard of Proficiency (SOPs) to encompass the proposed licensing categories for Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) within the 2004 Act. These changes enabled examination of a wider knowledge of Disability Access codes, BA Consent and Compliance Schedule clauses into the examinations process, along with the addition of a lesser qualification category for certifying persons to inspect equipment rated 0.3m/sec. With the likelihood of the IQP registration remaining up to 2009 or even 2010, the South Island IQP Register group reviewed these ideas to also reflect the changes and to try and maintain a consistent process to inspection in their SI area of responsibility. And so from the slightly broader CBIP examination structure evolving, the following SI IQP Register qualification requirement has resulted for all D2 IQPs operating in the South Island.:Page 3 July 2007 Feature H ­ Lifts,escalators, travelatorsor other similar systems. Specified System 8 ­ Lifts Escalators travelators or other similar systems for moving people within buildings. 1.1 Inspection of mechanical access equipment up to 0.3m/sec of speed excluding escalators only need to:? To be endorsed by the manufacturer, manufacturers agent or CBIP level 2 inspector. ? To have demonstrated understanding of the Building Act compliance schedule process and documenting requirements. ? To have completed a basic Barrier Free course. Applicable equipment types:? Stairlifts, platform lifts vertical & inclined. ? Dumbwaiters. 1.2 Inspection of mechanical access equipment 0.3m/sec also needs to:? Have been authorised by a lift manufacturer or agent. ? Have demonstrated understanding of the Building Act compliance schedule and documenting requirements. ? Have completed a barrier free course. ? Have complete a level 1 CBIP examination and been certified. Applicable equipment types:? Goods & freight lifts. ? Passenger lifts electric and hydraulic. ? Inclined roadway lifts. ? Escalators and Autowalks. 2.0 Provisos. ? These qualifications only relate to those skills necessary to copently carry out compliance schedule inspection and it is separate to Consent commissioning of new lift installation inspections. ? On equipment 0.2m/sec, all inspections require the attendance of the buildings contracted serviceman to provide safe access, and to conduct and tests detailed on the compliance schedule for the IQP to witness. Issue 92 WELCOME TO CONCORD GROUP LTD For those who have been around the industry a bit, then the name Nigel Butcher will ring a bell as the name is synonymous with quality lift interior fabrication in the South Island of NZ. Now this story begins with the old family company Farrier Engineering in Dunedin where Nigel learnt his trade and passed his knowledge on to other gentlemen of the industry such as the late Gerard vander Water. From there Nigel took his skills to the larger Farra Engineering and expanded their operations to be the best supplier of lift cars and general fabrication in NZ. Now in reflecting a common story within corporate New Zealand, Nigel gathered his experience and decided a few years back to try and return to his roots where people mattered and innovation and quality were the rewards of his efforts. And so in partnership with Ross Stanton they acquired premises at 1 White Street on the Dunedin waterfront and offered their experienced skills to the market as the:And so for lift car interiors with plain or special finishes and materials, stainless steel, paint, glass handrails and false ceilings, all are possible at the Concord Group. It wasnt long and another post-corporate well experienced lift technician in Richard Buckmaster caught the SOUTHERN bug, and emerged as-. ELEVATOR SERVICES Through agreement he took up residence at White Street to combine lift electrical and control system skills to bring the feasibility of a total lift solution to the market. The Group was expanding with domestic and dumb waiter lifts emerging from the factory, each able to fill a void for specialised solutions in the South Island. The Barrier Free Trust has provided training in New Zealand since introduction of the Building Act to enable interested parties to discuss disabled access issues and compliance requirements in a 2 day seminar that enables attendees to be registered with the Trust as Disabled Access auditors. With disabled access an important part of building through lift access, and many misunderstandings and questions effecting lift inspectors, it was felt that where sufficient interest could be generated, a one day seminar would assist potential lift inspectors to better understand these issues and therefore be better lift inspectors. Because of the infrequency of the courses based on need, the SI IQP Registrar enables inspectors to complete their IQP registration and allows one year for successful candidates to attend a Barrier free course. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY With ample workspace and association with many trade suppliers both local and throughout the lift industry, Nigel, Ross and Richard are able to provide a wide range of engineering solutions for customers. And so if you are looking for basic or unique, these are the boys to see. Ph:03 470 1220 Fax:03 470 1290 Page 4 P.O. Box 149 Mosgiel     ");
array_files[13]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax90.pdf","2007-07-04","615K"," NZLFAX90.PDF    ","","","March 2007 Issue 90 EDITORIAL. COMPLIANCE vs RESPONSIBILITY: We live is a society seemingly hell bent on myopic Compliance. Do this, do that, dont speed, dont hit, it is all black and white to some, and its usually finished with the `or else, and a big stick is produced in many cases in the form of inequitable and often unjustified fines and penalties to try to obtain conformity. Democracy supposedly respects the uniqueness of individual rights and asks that individuals demonstrate their participation through taking responsibility for their actions. But it seems some in out society place significantly more weight on prescriptive compliance to a single way, than encourage participatory responsibility through choice by individuals. In fact I suggest the persistent threat and enforcement of blanket misdemeanours without respecting the need to feel part of the solution in individuals, just conforms the majority to a minorities preference, similar to the gas chambers of Auschwitz, but does it achieve an inclusive respectful society, or just a black hole of insatiable bureaucratic controls and penalties. And so the impasse, a Government wishing individuals to be inclusive and demonstrate responsibility in their everyday actions, but through using its position to mostly focus on control and conformance, it generates an environment of exclusion, discouraging many individuals from self determination and responsible participation in both their work and the community. At this moment in the Building Act inspection structures, the balance hangs on an edge, as to whether or not to add the considerable overhead of accrediting everyone and everything involved in the building inspection process through building a single impersonal bureaucracy to oversee it, or to respect the existing experience of individuals and industry groups, and through providing guidance and assistance, adopt clear process and encouragement of responsible experienced participation in the area of inspection, and to achieve a stake in self determination and respect for the building industry to take it into this 21st century. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH A FINE OF 1.85b IMPOSED ON EU LIFT INDUSTRY: Does it ring a bell when we hear that Regulators of the European Union fined 5 multi-national lift operators for price fixing, and then our own Commerce Commission is inspired by unidentified industry persons to investigate local industry personnel. The EU regulators confirmed a cartel had worked to rig bids, fix prices and share the market in Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The companies fined were (Kone 142m; Mitsubishis Dutch subsidiary 3.8m; Otis 225m; Schindler 144m, and Thyssen 479m as a repeat offender). The commission noted that no company contested the facts, and none requested a hearing to answer the initial allegations. I understand the local Commerce Commission decision to prosecute or not is imminent, but mums the word at the CC. With the hearsay building we must be careful not to misinterpret mutual cooperation to service a small industry spread over a wide area, and mistake it for non-competitive collusion. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY SUB-CONTRACTOR LOYALTY DEMANDED: First there was the agent to provide local 24hr lift maintenance representation in areas too uneconomic to be serviced by a local branch, and so it was usually a local electrical agent providing the service. As more companies entered the market and local skills where scarce, it was more efficient for the local agent to provide maintenance services for all lift companies in the area. This remained the status-quo for many years and whereas in the past a branch would emerge, with the advent of more efficient technologies and tighter financial operations, the agent was left to provide service to ever increasing unit numbers. Skill numbers are depleting due to low replacement and a disenchanted and aging workforce opting to be sub-contracted or leave the industry. The , result is some service companies protecting their dwindling resource with loyalty contracts being written to either retain a semblance of service to outlying areas, or to restrict the competitor. Either way, some customers lose. Page 1 March 2007 3rd SPANISH LIFT EXHIBITION 23-25 MAY 2007. Issue 90 NZ ENGINEERING INTRODUCES THE CIBES A7000: The 2 and 3 level 350-400kg lift access market is on the move with added touches to move this solution from purposeful to elegant. The local provider for this product; NZ Engineering in Auckland, has been servicing the South Island through their local agent Aotea Electric over the past few years and has found good sales because of the flexibility and quality of the product. For around 50,000 all it requires is a hole in the floor as it comes with its own shaft and automatic doors for very friendly disabled access in low rise buildings. CBIP LIFT INDUSTRY EXAM PANEL TO MEET: The CBIP lift industry Exam panel met at the Schindler offices in Auckland on the 3rd of April 2007 to consolidate the Examinations and to update progress regarding D2 Building Code inspection & certification as part of the 2004 Building Act Building Code review. The 2007 exam panel are:Chairperson: Grace Wesolowski ­ Schindler Lifts NZ Ltd. Members: Graham Leslie - Otis Elevator Co Ltd. Ralph Abercrombie ­ Vertrans Lift Surveys & Cert. Ltd. Mike McIntyre - Kone Elevators Pty Ltd. John Mardell - Schindler Lift NZ Ltd. Bob Johnston - Lifteye Consultancy. I hope you read and responded to your LBP paper issued by the DBH earlier this year. It is critical that lift industry Managers keep abreast of these happenings and take ownership of their industry, else I suspect inspection will remain as inconsistent as that experienced over the past 15 year under the 1991 Building Act, only this time around with a higher overhead cost and bureaucratic control. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY NZES also agent for the Sematic Group which includes LiftMaterial with a wide range of MRL solutions; Verri Cabs; Tyler Steel work; Computec Electronics; and SKG Service Lifts. Sales Contact: Norm Huggett (back in NZ) Ph: 09 576 0545 Fax: 09 576 0546 email: nzes@nzes.co.nz www.nzes.co.nz Page 2 March 2007 ELEVATOR (LIFT) SITE OF THE MONTH: Whos who on the lift inspectors and consultants on the internet, ask Bob Doysner. How can a Bob be wrong? Even New Zealand got a mention so check it out at:www.elevatorconsultantsandinspectors.com Issue 90 Or is you have some industry photos for Bob try:www.elevatorbobs-elevator-pics.com All LIFTS NZ TO SERVE NELSON AREA: Neil Langford paid a visit in January along with Freddy Pitman of Australasian Stair Lifts to announce Neils new business `ALL LIFTS NZ in the Nelson area. Its selling:o Bison straight and curved stairlifts. o Acorn outdoor stairlifts. o Lotus bathtub lifts. Neil will initially sell in the Nelson Marlborough area of the South Island while establishing the business. With backing from Australasian Stair Lifts who sell the Bison and Vimec platform lift, Neil expects to focus on the domestic market. Some of the Bison range of stairchairs offered are:- BLACK LIFTS LATEST WATER LIFT: With a maximum travel of 1.0m and a payload of 500kg, the Blacks Lifts Ltd platform lift is a nuggety little worker. Installation can be accomplished by a single person, even having its own ground handling wheels that attaches to the lift to transport it from the delivery vehicle to the site. Blacks have worked hard to keep things simple and safe completing a risk analysis of its product each time it is installed to ensure no site factors compromise its safe environment. The frame is hot-dipped galvanised and only corrosion resistant materials and fittings are utilised to ensure exterior weather hardship is maintained. Safety features: o 20 trips possible under emergency battery. o Uncomplicated easily accessible controls. o Lock-off stop button immobilisation at any time. o Isolation key for secured access. o Under platform roller blind anti entrapment. o Automatic fold-up access ramp and safety barrier. o Long life sturdy construction & heavier payloads. Contact: Kevin Bennett Contact: Neil Langford Email: Langford.neil@gmail.com Ph: 03 539 6363 Mobile: 0273 735 654 Email: blackeng@clear.net.nz Ph: 06 323 5975 Fax: 06 323 2158 40 Gladstone St; Fielding. P.O Box 302 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 March 2007 CIBSE CHRISTCHURCH INAUGRAL MEETING: On the 27th of March 2007, CIBSE local chapter chairman Justin Hill opened the inaugural seminar for the Christchurch CIBSE chapter in NZ, ably assisted by Steve Gasgill to help with the proceedings. Some 30 plus members, Justin Hill Chairman associates and guests met around 6pm for a 6:30pm start on level 4 of the Beca Carter offices, located in the Price Waterhouse Coopers Center, 119 Armagh Street, Christchurch. Issue 90 official release in NZ in April 2007. The Rating Tool for buildings is based on a World Green Building Council model of star ratings for commercial building, similar to that seen with hotel accommodation, only it is assessed Alan Barbour ­ Rating Tool Sub Committee on many aspects of a buildings efficiency of design, user comforts, accessibility, environmental impact, use of resources etc. The aim is to have a single rating system to encourage better buildings and Im sure it will reflect in the longer term as a comparison yardstick for prospective building purchasers and tenants which could have strong impact on the marketing of properties. As an associate member of the CIBSE LEC invited local members of the lift industry to participate in the seminar and was interested to learn that KONE Elevator Pty Ltd was a member of the council and was represented at the seminar by Peter Loader their local Branch Manager. This was a great opportunity meet others in building services in Christchurch, and get the inside word on the NZ Green Building Council and the fact that the Green Star rating tool was ready for release on the 4th of April 2007. I understand the next subject to be held on the 3rd of May is on Lighting the Sydney Opera House, so if you are interested in attending just email LEC. Wish to join? Im sure Justin Hill BENG(Hons)CEng MCIBSE will be able to forward an enrolment form if you contact him through Justin.hill@beca.com. But first have a look at all the benefits of membership at the CIBSE website www.cibse.org. Page 4 The CIBSE, or Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (www.cibse.org), encourages members working in building services engineering to invest in their future by undertaking to maintain their professional competence throughout their career through continuing professional development and systematic maintenance and improvement of skills to broaden their knowledge. The topic of the seminar was right on the cusp of change in the building services environment and was entitled, `Green Future ­ Overview of the Green Star New Zealand Building Rating Tool. The topic was introduced by Craig Price, Director of the New Zealand Building Council, and ably presented by Alan Barbour of the Rating Craig Price - Director NZGBC Tool sub-committee who gave us his insight into the goals and activities of the NZGBC, along with an overview of the rating tool due for YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[14]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax91.pdf","2007-07-04","421K"," NZLFAX91.PDF    ","","","May 2007 Issue 91 EDITORIAL. TITANIC HOLDING COURSE: The DBH is probably mid-Atlantic steaming full speed ahead on what seems a clear sky and calm sea as the Captain checks her timeline and an Assessment Agent; ASL (Assessment Systems Ltd) specialising in aviation regulatory assessment, is appointed to act as agent for the Government in the appointment of LBPs (Licenced Building Practitioners) for all inspection, which includes lift inspection. But like all icebergs, its the seven tenths underwater that the DBH is drip feeding to the public that is of concern. This concern is because user pays Governance seems intent to minimise assistance to any trade based group able to provide inspection expertise, unless its cost free. It seems leaky buildings have washed away any trust of the building industry, preferring full Government control at the helm, or nothing. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 And so the ASL, appointed because of it experience in providing aviation assessment services, presumably for Governance of Civil Aviation, is to manage an assessment process for the building industry, appointing experienced assessors to make recommendation to the to be identified DBH licensing Registrar. Now seeing we are talking of a small specialist lift industry here, where are the industry experienced assessors to be drawn from? Are we to be returned to the obviously flawed past use of the `One Stop Shop general inspection services that replaced the MOT (Ministry of Transport)s national governance of the lift industry, or will this opportunity to structure an inspection process based on a single process, consistent, experienced inspection, be lost in the mire of the DBH bureaucracy. The process and players are supposed to be in place by November 2007, only weeks away, and still these fundamental concerns of industry seem not to have been addressed. Has the lookout on watch been stood down and the boilers stoked for full speed ahead? Ed. WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH IS IT FAREWELL OR JUST BON VOYAGE: Yes Im sorry to have to say, another farewell is upon us, this time for a jewel in the lift industry, Grace Wesolowski has tendered her resignation at Schindler, an amicable choice made between accepting an exciting new challenge outside the industry, or to sit and watch an industry succumb to a growing unhealthy PC need to place control on all facets of peoples lives, in and outside work, just to be seen to be squeaky clean. In this instance, maybe it was just a choice to participate or not in a global re-enactment of the Middle Ages holy cleansing of heretics, a world creating mistrust, fear and opening itself to manipulative vested interest. Grace Wesolowski was invited to NZ to bring her intellect, energy, empathy and experience into a predominately male trade based industry, beginning by consulting for the past Vertrans & Associates, and then moving back into the corporate world with KONE, and of late Schindler. She has been a refreshing breeze encouraging excellence in all with whom she worked, a leader of people with total disinterest as to position or role they played in the structure, a person with a job to do, based on respect for others. Farewell Grace, we know you will rise to the new challenge; its whether or not the challenge will remain sufficient. The door remains open. Thanks for all you brought to our industry. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY FAREWELL ALEX VANDER HEIDEN, WELCOME DAVE McBRIDE TO SCHINDLER CHCH: With Queenstown seeing independent lift contractors come and go, it was good to find a person such as Dave McBride settling into Queenstown bringing good communication skills and experience for clients I work with in the area. But unfortunately, with an aging industry, some of the old stalwarts with huge industry experience, such as `Hof for domma- Alex vander Heiden are reaching retirement age, leaving a void that is becoming more and more difficult to fill. But luckily for Schindler, Dave McBride with wife Lynley and a young family, much like Alex and Seska 20 years ago when they first came to Christchurch, are looking to securing the further education of their kids and provide a good solution for both parties by relocating to Christchurch. Dave will take up the role of Team Leader on Installation. I doubt Alex will retire fully as he probably has many projects underway already, but as one who worked with and respected him for his experience and character that kept everyone on the ball, I wish him and wife Seska all the best in their twilight years. And Queenstown! Well that is still a concern, with lift numbers continuing to grow, who will be first to stake a real presence in the area and set up a viable office to serve this growing market? Page 1 May 2007 BARRIER FREE REFRESHER: The 23rd of May saw the Barrier Free NZ Trust meet in Christchurch once again to update past course attendees and BFAs (Barrier Free Auditors). Numbers were down, probably because of the present status of the Building Act 2004 creating uncertainty in the roles of inspection using LBPs (Licenced Building Practitioners) in the market at present. For what was lacking in numbers, there was a good cross section of the building industry and disability expertise, and we were ably lead by disability awareness expert, and past BIA/DBH board representative, Alexia Pickering. The usual discussing of Determinations regarding access in buildings, along with considering solutions from detailed drawings and a walk around of the conference centre DA toilets, demonstrated the positive change in awareness in architect and territorial authority from the early days of introduction of the 1991 Building Act. When asking Alexia for a scale out of 10, to indicate where disabled access for building users has come over the past 15 years of Barrier Free, she responded with a maybe 6. Acceptance that allowance for disability in society can affect us all at some time in our life, begs the question whether the Building Code D1 clause that does not require a lift needs to move to the next step and make all new buildings fully accessible. It seems to overlook the largest expanding area of need for disabled access, being in low rise buildings. Whether its 2 or 20 floors, the same obstruction to a wheelchair bound; injured sportsman or elderly person exists. Yes, the NZS4121 DA Standard discourages more cost effective lesser lift solutions, but that is only because it was historically adopted as a single prescriptive solution for all types of lifts, rather than encouraging innovative and practical solutions to eventually make all buildings accessible to all. The adage remains true, that prescriptive solutions make great guidelines, but are obsolete the day after they are written. The yardstick is performance, as enlightened through the Building Act. The means of assessing performance is through experienced inspection, such as through specialist Barrier Free auditors, not through adopting a costly bureaucratic overhead to feel good. It is always an enlightenment to go on one of Alexias rides; she identifies the obvious, not necessarily more costly, but if adapted at the design stage would achieve a viable solution, rather than mere conformance to an singular minimum. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 91 A suggestion for the Barrier Free group was to focus on their guidelines, such as those attainable through the DBH published documents on `Accessible Reception and Service Counters or `The International Symbol of Access, and expand them for other areas such as:? Swimming Pool Access. ? Where to Display your DA Sign. ? Simple Points on Lift Access Design. ? Critical Location of DA Accessories. ? What a DA Auditor Looks For. Solutions should be preferred solutions rather than specifically minimum, and its appropriateness confirmed by a BFA rather than a council officer. In fact, maybe all installations need a stamp of BFA DA approval before Code Compliance is issued, rather than just bang inappropriate DA stickers on everything. The discussion turned to mindsets and positioning of assistance tools such as handrails etc; pointing out critical considerations for all involved for good assessment. eg. ? Horizontal location. ? Distance between. ? Vertical location. ? Reach for Balance. ? Strength of user. Lets discourage the uninformed comment; `it will never get used; it may be you who needs it tomorrow, and you dont have to be in a wheel chair. From my experience the feedback from building owners even after disgruntledly installing a disabled access device, has always been positive, even when it only moves the office boxes of printing paper most of the time, its there when needed. Page 2 May 2007 ITS A PC WORLD WITH MANY VESTED INTERESTS: You check the company logo on the building today, but then when you enter a multitude of providers and associations make up corporate structure. But best be careful, for such are the sensitivities of association that one may also find a competitor who has agreements to use the same product, but prefers the public to not so blatantly know of the association. Such was the article in last months NZLFax issue 90 on NZ Engineering Services that identified their many associations on a group sales brochure, but attracted a friendly but deserved chastisement. And so here are the preferred local NZES sole agencies. NAEC 58th ANNUAL CONVENTION: Atlantic City New Jersy welcomes Lift Industry KIWIs to join them for the NAECs 58th Annual Convention and Expo to be held in the Atlantic City Convention Centre. You can stay at the Sheraton Hotel for 4 days beginning with a Golf Tournament and registration and 7pm Presidents reception on the first day. Issue 91 CBIP LIFT INDUSTRY EXAM PANEL UPDATE: It has been a tumultuous 2 months following the early April Auckland meeting of the Panel, to be told that the CBIP (Certification Board for Inspection Personnel) structure in NZ could begin to be wound up in mid-April due to the noncommitment of the DBH (Dept of Building & Housing) to the CBIP certification process, in favour of a new structure under the LBP (Licenced Building Practitioner) regime. This was followed by the DBHs seemingly press statement appointment of a private assessment agent (ASL - see editorial), for assessment of LBP s, and a press release from the CBIP Board in mid April, announcing that in a meeting that included representatives of the Department of Labour (DOL) and the Ministry of Economic Development (MED), that due to no confirmation of future funding by the Government to continue in line with industry, regulatory and public safety requirements, the Board was resolved to commence winding up the CBIP in accordance with its constitution. The lift panel being the industry representative expert group involved with lift inspector exam preparation and marking of papers since introduction of the Building Act 1991, and who of late have been involved in preparation of a single structure for D2 equipment testing to address the void in the Consent system administered by the Territorial Authorities over the past 15 years, was being left up the creek without a paddle. Since 1993 we have gone from a centralised, consistent, accountable means of Governance of the lift industry, to a liaise-faire, inconsistent, non-accountable uncoordinated user pays system, with the only guiding light of continuity being the unrecognised efforts of the CBIP certification body, now to possibly be shut down. And what seems to be the Governments yardsticks on identifying certification providers emerging from the 2004 Act:· if not a Government body it must be user pays. · if a government body if must have no public input or control. And so from being offered a workable industry represented compliance process that covered:· lift industry recognised certification and participation. · competent experienced inspection. · central internet accessible industry records for Consent & annual WOF requirements. · a singular auditable processes for all types of D2 equipment to be used nationally. · efficient minimal cost governance of the lift industry. · a solution that addresses all the short comings that emerged under the past and present Building Acts. We looked to be ending up with another bureaucratic `fete au complait. Finally in late May a glimmer of common sense emerged, with the announcement by the DOL that funds were to be freed to retain the CBIP structure. Hold your breath if you can and keep your eyes peeled for more `press releases. Page 3 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY May 2007 AUTOWALK FRENZY BUILDS: With the drawn out Coroners inquest still to hand down its verdict on the Riccarton Mall Autowalk accident last year, there must be something significant to emerge, as gauging from calls across my desk it seems Authority agencies concerned are taking a more than normal interest. It would be good if the industries involved were kept in the same loop so that when the TV crew turns up they will be just as informed. On top of this another incident hit the headlines the other week when a lady was presumably using an Autowalks fixed balustrade to guide the front wheels of her shopping trolley up the incline. She became concerned when the tyre of one wheel began to peel off into the mechanism. Because of the friction against the balustrade the tyre eventually peeled off, and the resulting now uncontrollable trolley eventually turned and jammed between both sides of the balustrades. We have to remember these are the reported happenings and all facts are not available, but still the initial questions seemed to focus on the safety or not of the Autowalk and what damages can be claimed. A similar scenario would be to drive your car along the edge of a gutter and then be aghast as to why unexpected loss of control of the car resulted. When does the user become responsible? Autowalks with trolley use have been around some 30 years, and yes when inexperienced users first come across them, unfamiliarity creates the highest potential for accident. It is much the same as with a new driver, where the best solution is experience and education. From my experience, whenever Autowalks are new to a community they experience similar; but usually not so devastating accidents, and each time they go through the same criticisms, but in the end once the community is experienced in their use, reported problems drop off. Or maybe our accident reporting just relies too much on the press. Death as is being investigated in this Coroners inquest is rare, but still the issue nags, maybe where Consents are approved for new installations, Mall owners and equipment provider need to be more proactive in educating possible inexperienced users. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 91 ELEVCOM 2008 CALL FOR PAPERS: Join with the IAEE in Thessaloniki, GREECE. STILL NO WORD FROM THE COMMERCE COMMISSION: We live in a world run by the clock, were technology makes business run faster and faster, where decisions are expected to be made accurately almost immediately and yet in the exclusive world of Government Institutions you would think they still use an abacus and quill pen. Being a cynic, one wonders if the too hard basket has been reached in this investigation into the lift industry, and now justification of cost is the real question to be answered causing the unwarranted delays in making any credible announcement. In the mean time, peoples lives are ruined. But hey, as long as justice it seen to be done! Page 4     ");
array_files[15]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax89.pdf","2007-07-04","325K"," NZLFAX89.PDF    ","","","January 2007 Issue 89 EDITORIAL. BUILDING CODE REVIEW SYNOPSIS ISSUED: It was with interest that I opened the latest Building Controls Update No 52 New Years reading, to find the wheels are turning with this lastest release detailing the Departments Synopsis on its Review of the Building Code. You can access your own PDF copy on the departments web-site www.dbh.govt.nz. Its a lengthy read and in searching for how the Building Code was to address the Lift Industry certification quagmire after some 15 years of the Building Act, I found one reference under Q21 regarding Emergency Egress in Buildings for People with Disabilities where a design solution was proposed for an external lift system alongside exterior stairwells. Of a flickering hope maybe, Q44 requested input on accessibility objectives and even noted mechanical access, but sorry no comment recorded. The next took a lot of reading to find until Q129 where it requested any overarching principles that should be considered in the code resulting only in a suggestion that a best practices guideline be incorporated into the building code. Q 130 looking for comment on performance criteria suggested that acceptable risk needs to be identified in performance criteria. But Im sorry to have to say, that squillions of hours of effort and the majority of suggestions synopsed, are probably summed up in a response to the last question134, requesting comments on the document which profoundly brought forth :The work being done in this review will certainly take the building industry into the 21st century in a much more positive way and will go a long way in restoring public confidence in the industrys to be professionally competent and driven. And that says it all, the professional institutions not desiring to participate in the 1991 Act were feeling unwanted, and so they found a leaky building and rather than just fix it, decided to take back the Governance of the Building Industry. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH SIMON WARD RETURNS TO OTIS: Simon completes his circumnavigation of the Christchurch lift industry gaining knowledge on company processes and equipment at each stop. Beginning at Otis as an apprentice around 1988 he moved on to Schindler for around 5 years; a 3 year stint to find out what the wider electrical industry is about at Carter Holt Harvey, and then on to learn about the Monospace® at Kone. With Kerry Houstons move from Otis to Schindler mid last year and Simon always up to a technical challenge, the lure to work with Richard Strong and to take on more responsibility with Gen2TM now dominating the Otis portfolio, Simon will bring a strong technical keenness back into the Otis fold. Maybe the prodigal son will return for good. Are we finally seeing this great revolution of industry personnel either sub-contracting their skills or moving within the industry to address workplace frustration, or is this the new industry? YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY DBH TO START LBP CONSULTATION: The DBH has confirmed it will begin public consultation early 2007 on IQP licensing along with a work programme to improve the building WOF process and to achieve LBP (Licensed Building Practitioner) status for independent qualified persons by 30th November 2009. A consultation paper will be available soon on the DBH website. see www.dbh.govt.nz KONE INVESTIGATES CARTEL CHARGES: In a statement on its website, KONE reported that its Austrian subsidiary has been notified by the Austrian cartel court of the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of fines against companies operating in the Austrian elevator and escalator market including KONEs Austrian subsidiary. The case relates to alleged anticompetitive practices in the local market before mid 2004. KONE has immediately initiated a thorough internal investigation. Elenet Issue 409. Page 1 January 2007 ANTI COMPETITIVE PRACTICE: Interestingly the Elenet® news item on page one raises the question: Are these investigations orchestrated by anti-competitive practices or global competitive practice using the gullible of our PC world? Its easier to compete with a competitor hanging under a cloud of innuendo and chasing his tail than face to face. You eliminate those accused and maybe the instigator will come to light! An update on the local Commerce Commission investigation, other than for the many in the industry interviewed by the commission, sees little happening other than a growing number of people being threatened with legal action if discussing the issue. Mums the word! ANNUAL WOF RAISES ITS HEAD AGAIN: I was approached once again and asked as to who was available locally to complete annual WOF inspections on lifts in NZ. It was only when I came to understand that the intent was for the lift company to not have to provide maintenance staff during the inspection as seems to be the norm up north, that I stopped babbling, SGS, Plant & Building Safety Ltd; etc. I must admit that I thought the lift industry because of the work involved and safety issues associated with single persons in shafts, let alone the bredth of knowledge necessary to be familiar with not only the many and varied types of lifts in the market along with the controlled access to diagnostic tools on new lifts, but the many evolved codes and age of equipment an independent person would have to be closely familiar with. The WOF is an audit of an existing installation with hopefully a set test processes to carry out and record as detailed by the Building Compliance Schedule. The IQP registration confirms the person is competent in understanding the building compliance schedule process and tests applicable to the specific equipment. Its an audit; a confirmation all tests are carried out successfully and maintenance and repairs have been completed satisfactorily over the preceeding year, and then confirmed on the 12a form. I believe the safest and most consistent way to achieve accurate annual WOF inspection of lifts, is for the YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 89 maintenance provider most familiar with the equipment to attend and control the lift for the IQP, and to demonstrate compliance for him. I might be wrong! We are in a quickly changing world of high technology that requires consistent updating of knowledge to remain competently familiar with it. We are experiencing a change in lift service and control design where the system is becoming smart through having an ever expanding onboard fault monitoring, diagnostics and lift status facility, lessening the need for high skill on the site. Some systems; and I believe they will increase to provide 24hr remote monitoring of the lift status including safety functions. The question then needs to be asked, if this is so, then are we heading to a point where design is diminishing risk to a point that safe operating parameters being 24hr monitored can takeover the physical re-test of each function once commissioned. Is it that the sophisticated engineering and high reliability is requiring less frequency of service, diminishing the need for the processes, procedures and skills of the past to retain good maintenance With automatically logged reports on maintenance and breakdown available to an IQP, can a site can be safely audited without the need to complete physical tests of every safety circuit as in obsolete past codes. These are the issues a responsible industry needs to address to ensure of full input and agreement if these past practices are to be discarded for a more efficient audit structure. With the change in the wind regarding the certification of equipment, maybe now is a good time to talk, even revitalise an industry association so that it is elevant in the market to show direction and leadership. DOES YOUR LIFT WELCOME YOU WITH USEFUL INFORMATION EVERY DAY Page 2 January 2007 Issue 89 3.0 Financial Assistance Package. In order to become accredited, any organisation needs to firstly be accredited by IANZ, and secondly to be formally registered by the DBH. To help council accreditation, the Minister, Clayton Cosgrove announced a DCAAPAP (BCA Accreditation Preparation Assistance Programme) of 3 million dollars over 3 years funded out of the building levy. 52 submissions were received including Local Government NZ, the Master Builders Federation, the Plumbers Gas Fitters and Drainlayers Board as well as from I presume all local authorities. Training. The department is to run initial training courses from February to April 2007 to explain the accreditation standards and criteria, which of course include quality assurance management systems and processes, along with providing advice on how to achieve compliance by self assessment, before starting the programme delivery in March 2007. So if your industry group has a constructive need for funding for assessing potential BCAs under the new regime, these courses are a must. Interestingly no dates are given and its now mid February. An assessment pilot scheme being carried out by the IANZ has been underway with a sample of local TAs since Nov.2006 through to Feb 2007. Comment: It all sounds good but there seems to be the continuing trend to only recognise the academic and the accredited over the trade skilled, further dividing our once egalitarian society. One must ask when it will be necessary to accredit our government department heads, or politicians for that matter if this is the solution to governance within our society. Little seems to be being done to assist the specific industry based solutions with input to improve processes and procedures under the 2004 Act, its as if the saviour has arrived in the form of the DBH to create a new tier of overseers waving their accreditations to confirm their allegiance to the cause, as the experience of the building industry is relegated back to serfdom. Page 3 THE DBH GOES FULL SPEED AHEAD: Three important areas of the 2004 Building Act have been announced over the turn of the year as the department becomes more confident and continues to build its monolith to leaky buildings. 1.0 Accreditation of TAs. Now you may have noticed the a slight increase in the queries coming back on consents for buildings with lifts from council officers, this is only the first wave as TAs respond to the DBH pressure to get their act together. The accreditation structure presently being imposed on the Territorial Authorities, (BCAs Building Code Authorities), sees the IANZ (International Accreditation New Zealand) body overseeing all, in the departments desire to accredit everyone as the only solution to achieving its preferred tightening up on Governance of the Building Industry. Accreditation Standards & Criteria Regulations. The result of this DBH drive was The Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006 that came into force on 1st February 2007. These 19 regulations set out a mini building act of all the applicable forms, procedures etc. necessary for accreditation to ensure the integrity of Council BCAs, as well as anyone contemplating independent registration with an emphasis on demonstrating adequate means to meet any civil liabilities. Dè je vous, as a past D2 Building Certifier, this little clause rings a large bell, because insurance companies from the mid 90s up to day still cannot agree on the BA definition of suitable insurance. Over my term I paid out 10s of thousands in professional cover insurance, and the DBH has still not resolved this issue. What the DBH did to solve their dilemma back then, was to shutdown all past independent Building Certifiers, and grab their bonds amounting to many thousands of dollars, presumably to use how they wish for as yet Ive still not received an explanation as to what happened with my bond money, nor how it was to be used. Maybe `accreditation of the DBH would solve my concern for their integrity. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY 4.0 2.0 January 2007 Issue 89 City nightclub when an altercation occurred between club employees and the celebrants that resulted in the man being thrown into the elevator doors. The February 4 incident is being investigated. TWO BODIES FOUND IN PIT OF HOISTWAY: On February 4, the bodies of two men were found at the bottom of a hoistway in a residential building in the Queens section of New York City. According to Newsday, they may have fallen more than 10 stories. The building is part of a housing complex that includes 20 18-story apartment towers. It was reported the two men, who were halfbrothers, aged 23 and 25, respectively, were involved in a fight that may have caused them to crash into and through the elevator doors. The incident is being investigated. Comment: The above three articles in the same issue of Elenet® may mean nothing and be relative to locality and age of equipment, but the odds of this happening where three elevator doors presumably give way to unin1tended mechanical force rings bells as to why? WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® TL JONES INDIA OPENS OFFICE IN NEW DELHI: Protection- and information-system specialist TL Jones has opened an office in New Delhi. The company reported that the new office was established in response to increasing demand within the Indian elevator industry. The office will cater to Indias northern market. POLICE RESCUE MAN FROM HOISTWAY: According to the OakBay News, a Victoria, Canada police officer held onto a 44-year-old man until firefighters could pull him from an elevator hoistway. The man was riding a powered scooter down the hall when it ran into the thirdfloor elevator door in his apartment building. The man fell into the hoistway and was left dangling until his rescue. The incident is being investigated. FATAL FALL IN NEW YORK NIGHTCLUB HOISTWAY: A man celebrating his 35th birthday died as a result of falling through an elevator door and down the hoistway. He fell four floors. According to the New York Daily News, the man and family members were celebrating at a New York YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[16]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax88.pdf","2007-07-04","267K","Nzlfax88.pdf    ","","","Late November 2006 Issue 88 EDITORIAL. INDEPENDENT LIFT INSPECTION: With the TAs (BCAs) in the accreditation stage at present improving Council administration of the 2004 Building Act, and with the Licensed Building Practitioner (LBP) structure seemingly being resolved in the back rooms, those Independent Inspection Bodies hoping to secure their place as `One Stop Independent Inspection Shops are endeavouring to fill the void in lift experience in Consent inspection, by rooting out the few independent CBIP lift inspectors in NZ to form individual alliances with them. This would look good to the DBH I suspect as it may provide a solution for them in how to accredit so may varied skills to meet their LBP scheme objectives, and would be much easier and more cost effective than setting up a monolithic DBH accreditation of all building skill groups by leaving this task to these private One Stop Shops. They can also leave the insurance issues, still unresolved since introduction of the 1991 Act that decimated the independent Building Certifiers, by not having to appoint independent BCAs. This is all very well, and it may work for other building trades, but without continuity of structure between the lift industry, the skill of inspectors, and consistency in examination, documentation and inspection processes nationally in NZ, the fragmentation of multiple `One Stop Inspection Shops working alongside TAs I fear will be no different than that achieved under the 1991 Act. When is the Government going to realise, that by giving assistance and guidelines to achieve the level of Governance it requires, the lift industry can quite capably provide the necessary national inspection processes to ensure competent, accountable and credible inspection under the Building Act, and that wastefully spending of millions on accrediting existing worker skilled in their trades adds massive overhead with little to no likelihood of an effective inspection structure. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH KONE APPOINTS PETER LOADER AS LOCAL MANAGER. With Alan Wilby returning to Auckland to join Schindler last month and Peter Loader leaving Otis to set up a contracting business, it was a surprise but not a shock to hear Pete had decided to take up an offer from KONEs NZ Manager Ron Perez to retain his sales experience in this local market. Peter starts in December, so it should allow him to get his feet on the ground and practice not driving to the wrong office before the New Year. You may laugh! CHARLES KELLY GRABS XMAS OPPORTUNITY: Otis Sales Account Representative in Christchurch; Charles Kelly has grabbed the opportunity to take a quarter share in a new Advertising company, and so departs the new Otis team after Xmas on the 19th of January 2007 to take up his new challenge. It has been a pleasure to work with Charles over this relative short period, but this is the new world of business it seems as individuals seek more than employment, but a viable path to grow in their work environment. We wish you and your family well Charles. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY MERRY XMAS FROM LEC: It has been my busiest year yet after a slowish start and as you can see Im still a bit behind by the lateness of this issue going into Xmas. The past year has seen a mix of upgrades and new lifts with MRLs dominating the market with the exception of a 4000kg 6 stop hydraulic vehicle lift an interesting project to say the least. A wide variety of project reviews along with the effects of Building Act changes beginning to pressure Building owners into completing consent documentation and compliance schedule inspections is on the rise. The New Year seems it will be just as busy with movement in the medium rise buildings in Christchurch and a few LEC proposals that stagnated over the past couple of years beginning to move. LEC will close down early on the 21st December for Xmas in Melbourne, planning to open the doors around the 13th of January after a well deserved break. And so thank you to all who I have worked with this year, it has once again been fun. Seasons Greetings to you all, and see you refreshed in 2007. Bob. Page 1 Late November 2006 DESTINATION SYSTEM QUESTIONED IN MARKET: When the automobile first came on the market, it too was subjected to comparative examination by conservative opinion in highlighting the perceived shortcomings of the motor vehicle to the horse and buggy, thereby overlooking the future possibilities. But this technological evolution was an unstoppable step forward that was to significantly change the means of human transportation within our society. Maybe not as significant, but a conceptual change within the control systems in lifts is presently seeing the first evolution to the way peoples use lifts since they first became automatic, whereby the user inputs the actual destination, rather than just the direction of preferred travel up or down. The conservative opinion is once again strong, but like the automobile and the mobile phone, designers will embrace this change because of its fundamental efficiency and flexibility in being able to more efficiently process demands and dynamically update and allocate them up until the lift starts. In the Destination system, more flexible demand inputs need to be considered because theoretically a single input is necessary for each user to get to their destination, and for groups of people it is easier for one user to place an input and others to follow where going to the same destination. The worst case scenario would be for a large group to enter the lift after only placing a single destination on the system. This could significantly effects the capacity of the lift to respond to allocations ahead of the lift , so it is therefore essential to continually and dynamically monitor loading of the lift to identify any allocated load imbalance and adjust allocations accordingly each time the lift stops at a floor. Of course this should only be a problem in times of heavy use, but this is when efficiency in performance is most critical. With users of existing lift systems and once in the lift being able to walk into any lift and decide their destination, a problem arises when they confront the destination system, YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 88 as they cannot control where the lift is going, similar to getting on the wrong train. They have to get out and input their destination from a landing to ensure an allocated lift is going to their floor. My initial response is that being humans they will soon learn how to use the system, but in reality you cannot take this lightly, because anecdotally from a prestigious China Hotel Ive heard the proprietor had the destination system removed, because of the number of confused guests wandering throughout the building trying to find their rooms. With such a change in concept for first time user to confront, I suppose the concern of the hotel owner is understandable, and so in the interim these issues need to be addressed before the building is opened or similar experiences may arise. The key issue from my point of view, is to address the cause of the problem not the misuse, by easing the transition for unfamiliar users by either making them more aware of a new system and how to use it, or through providing a smarter interface between user and system. eg. When guests first enter the hotel through reception, provide each with a programmable smart card like that used to unlock their room that also gives access at the lobby station up the building through the lift directly to their floor. Once familiar, they can then venture to other floors using the standard landing keypad and use their card to return to the lobby and room until they gain confidence. For International hotels, maybe when they book in at reception, their preferred language could be noted on their smart card, so when used to access the lift, the lift system can respond in their preferred language with which lift to use. To make it even easier for new guests arriving, why not have the receptionist through her remote keypad input the demand for the guests, then direct them to the indicated lift, and upon arrival it will take them to their room without having to put a bag down. I am already hearing of hybrid lift systems that try to address real and perceived user problems using a mix of Up/Down and destination concepts, but in the end, to keep the user interface simple; educate the user, and smarten the system to combat misuse seems a simpler way of solving any problems is preferable than redesigning dedicated hybrid systems. Remember the biggest deterrent to inefficiency caused through misuse, unless you want to start issuing fines, is by using the power of the computer to be technically smart to discourage misuse of any system. Page 2 Late November 2006 SHOPPING TROLLEY ACCIDENTS UPDATE: Issue 88 Last months report on the Riccarton Mall shopping trolley death of a year ago to which a Coroners report is to be issued but with little likelihood of publication, it was presumed it happened exiting the travellator at the comb plate transition, but I now understand it was in mid travel, which is highly unusual. For this to happen the trolley would need to move laterally on the pallets suggesting one if not both wheels have not set in the tread plate, allowing the trolley to move laterally and mechanically strike the static balustrade. Now you would think if it was the rear of the trolley that moved laterally it would tend to brush off the balustrade, whereas the front end may catch a flashing or similar, that seems to have 1. To only have automatic braking on the rear fixed wheels would encourage users to continue to walk their trolleys onto the pallets until the rear fixed wheels lock in place. This would mean only the fixed rear wheels support or hold the load; inhibit lateral movement of the trolley once set on the pallet, and provide sufficient force from the back of the trolley for comb plate transition. 2. Only rear wheels should have discs fitted to align the trolleys locked wheels with the pallets. Discs on the front rotating wheels if set before the rear ones, mean the rear of the trolley cannot set without the need to be moved laterally to align them with the front wheels to provide the preferred exiting push from the rear. 3. If jamming is still considered a risk, to stop trolleys from jamming between the balustrades causing an obstruction, 4 horizontally fitted guide wheels fitted at the extremities of the trolley and at a height able to roll along the balustrade should fix this. I would expect this possibility to be a terribly rare occurrence and only as a result of misuse. caused this loss of control. But if I remember right, the rear wheels are fixed and if locked on the pallet would inhibit lateral movement of the trolley. Without trying to solve this specific problem through supposition in not having all the facts, the key areas to focus on as I see them are:YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY I suspect most manufacturers have gone for more braking on all wheels to lower the risk of brake failure, whereas it opens the opportunity for the more critical rear brakes not to set and thereby allow any comb transition problem to be responded to by the instinctive response of the user rather than the preferred push from the rear brakes. Page 3 Late November 2006 OUR LOCAL MALL MANAGERS EXPERIENCE WITH EXPOSURE TO TRAVELLATORS: There are two types of accidents that can occur on travelators. During my investigations it became apparent that these are widespread nationally with most centres experiencing problems in the months following installation until customers get used to the machinery. I liken using a trolley on a travelator to disembarking from a chair lift on a ski field, it takes a bit of practice to get it right and inattention or poor preparation can be disastrous. One of the big issues facing the industry at the moment is that there is no legislation covering trolleys on travelators. There are New Zealand standards for trolley construction and the international EN115 standard for travelators. Trolleys used off travelators are generally safe if used appropriately and similarly travelators carrying only pedestrian traffic are very safe. The problems arise when the two are combined. Malls and other public spaces work hard to provide a safe environment for their users. This can perhaps lead to a somewhat false sense of security (in fact most malls are probably safer than most peoples homes). What a lot of people fail to realise is that when you combine a loaded trolley which may weigh 100kg plus with a large piece of inclined and moving machinery extra care must be taken. The first type of accident is when a trolley skews sideways part way up a travelator. This can sometimes lead to the front rubber bumper catching on the side glass of the travelator further jamming the trolley or causing it to tip. In my opinion this is generally caused by the trolleys front wheels not locking when it is first loaded on. I believe that locking front wheels are a necessity to help pull the Trolleys on, for without them many customers would struggle to push a loaded trolley up the roughly 12 degree slope to engage the back wheels. If however the trolley is loaded at a slower speed or there is a hesitation then, due to the trailing steering axis on the front wheels, they will start to pivot around and could end up stopping at an angle without the brakes engaging. This then makes the trolley susceptible to swing around part way up. The fix for this type of problem is customer education on correct procedure for loading the trolley onto the travelator (i.e. straight and assertively). YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 88 The second problem encountered is when a trolley stalls at the top comb plates. Factors contributing to this could include transition length (the distance of flat travel leading into the comb plates), type of front wheel locking mechanism, and effectiveness of the rear wheel locking Mechanism and load distribution in the trolley basket. Unfortunately one common reaction amongst customers upon encountering such a problem is to lift the trolley handle thus bringing the back wheels off the travelator and removing the one force which helps get the front wheels up over the comb plate. This scenario often leads to the trolley tipping forwards and or sideways. When combined with the movement of the travelator this can result in crush type injuries to the customer as they get caught up in the tipping trolley. Front heavy trolley loads make the trolley more susceptible to this sort of nose diving and reduce the downwards force on the rear wheels necessary to transmit the travelators motion to move the front wheels up and over the comb plate. Lower profile comb plates, 10 degrees rather than the standard 14 degrees may help but in this scenario the traditional aluminium comb plates may need to be replaced with stainless steel to endure the extra leverage that the extra length creates. This is turn could alter the breakaway characteristics of the normal aluminium comb plate fingers. Educating customers on correct usage also plays a large role in reducing serious harm or injury with key points including using both hands to guide the trolley off (i.e. dont hold a coffee in one hand or a child on the hip) advise that the infirm do not attempt to take trolleys onto travelators (some trolley loads will weigh more than an elderly person). Not lifting the handle is another key point to be communicated. In supermarket situations where it is the customer who packs the groceries then it would be advisable to have signage advising that heavy items be kept to the middle or rear of the trolley cage. Ultimately we can but hope that some industry or governmental resources are focused on this issue and a set of standards covering trolleys on travelators are drawn up. Jason Marsden B.Sc (Physics) Centre Manager The Hub Hornby Thanks Jason, Merry Xmas. Page 4     ");
array_files[17]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax87.pdf","2007-07-04","319K"," NZLFAX87.PDF    ","","","Late September 2006 Issue 87 EDITORIAL. THE COMMERCE COMMISSIONS LIFT INDUSTRY ANTI-COMPETITIVE BEHAVOUR FIASO: These investigations sound good to the consumer as it makes a Government look as if it cares about the people in our society. But you look a bit deeper when you know the people involved, and you wonder why a Government agency would investigate specific upstanding citizens of the community, who are or have been employees holding responsible positions within large corporations for many years, and have their lives raided like criminals. Surely they deserve sufficient respect to not have to be subjected to seemingly ruthless investigations based on the innuendo contrived by secret witnesses. At least when you get a traffic ticket from a policeman, it might be unfair, but you know who to argue with, whereas this reaction is more like the Mongrel Mob suggesting they had been slapped, and the Swat Squad (in suits), ransack the premises for clues. It seems to me that if one took a second to discretely check the competitive nature of the market and the people fingered, little credence could be given to the preposterous charge of price collusion. Sometimes you wonder if the power given through Government to institutions is much more insidious than any power a single employee may wield commercially. But then a company may have more to gain by sowing the seed of anti-competitive behaviour of a competitor, hide behind a screen, and revell as the politically correct force goes to work to protect the community. As usual the innuendo takes but a moment, but the longer it is let continue, the personal effect on any individual, family and friend may affect the rest of their life. But who cares? ­ Governance must be seen to be done! Ed The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced rbimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH WILL IT EVER END ? The greener grass of home sees Alan Wilby from KONE accept an offer he says he couldnt refuse, especially since Auckland beckons for both him and his wife after 3 years in Christchurch. He departed at the end of September to join Schindler to take on their Maintenance department. As yet there has been no announcement of a replacement for Alan, but we should know by next issue. Alan built a good repour with his SI client with his affable style, and will be missed, especially his Guinness & golf. Of course you dont have a position created without a vacancy in the lift industry, and this was caused with the retirement of Noel Moslyn after many years with Schindler in Auckland. Noel I understand has a number of pokers in the fire, and will also assist with inspection around Auckland. Another out of the blue to depart Schindler Christchurch branch was Mike Flanagan who initially retired last year, returned part time, and then very suddenly up and retired again a week or so back to join Lift Solutions Ltd in Christchurch with Lyall Senior. This should be a good team to expand the range of independent lift consultants for NZ. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY SINGAPORE REPORTS FEWER MRT-ESCALATOR ACCIDENTS: According to a report in The Electric News Paper, the number of accidents on mass-rapid-transit escalators in Singapore has decreased in recent years. Singapore Mass Rapid Transit Ltd., which handles 1.13 million passenger trips per day, reported 112 escalator-related injuries in 2005, down from 157 in 2004 and 174 in 2003, while SBS Transit Ltd. reported about one accident per 10 days for its 247,000 daily passenger trips. The statistics were gleaned from a July report in the Straits Times, which also found that an escalator accident occurs in Singapore on an average of once every three days. No 1 SON KELVIN MARRIES DELIGHTFUL DEBY: Its not every day you have a special occasion in the family to brag about, but Kelv and beautiful wife Deby tied the knot in Taichung their home town, along with 100 other couples, to celebrate their marriage on the 10th of October 2006. The celebration continues in Melbourne at Xmas. Page 1 Late September 2006 SCHINDLER DESTINATION SYSTEM IN WELLINGTON: Issue 87 The destination control system has been around in concept since the late 60s, but is only now through the higher computing speeds and information displays that it is able to bring its efficiencies to any building. In fact it is showing a 20% to 25% improvement over existing directional demand systems during the heaviest traffic periods. Whereas older systems only measured their performance in average waiting time, these systems measure performance in time to destination as well, which incorporates the entire time from when you input your destination call, until the time you arrive at your destination. Its not until you look a bit closer when you go to use the lift in this new installation in the 18 level Delloite Building in Wellington that you notice the landing call station is different to what you are used to in NZ. The station consists of a keypad much like the prolific telephone key pad but also incorporates a small display screen. The key pad is to input the floor you wish to go to, and the display indicates which lift to use. Is this big brother bullying us once more into compliance? Well it depends on how you look at it, for when the lift arrives all you need do is walk into the lift and await until you arrive at your floor level, then leave. Yes, big brother again, only this time he took note of your initial request, selected the lift that will take the least time to get you to your destination and directed you toward it, and then programmed the lift to stop at your particular floor without you having do anymore than walk in and out. Easy. The in car control panel is minimal, with only the necessary door controls, alarm etc., but the 3 ­ 3.5m/sec Varidyne gearless machines are well able to cope with the high demand, its just a pity the interior finishes are so bland. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY As with all new systems there have been the detractors not able to see beyond what they know, and hesitant to change, but from the time I first discovered the efficiencies of the concept first proposed by Sydney engineer Leo Port, I knew it would one day make the directional only demand systems obsolete. Admittedly there is still a way to go to utilise the many benefits that the concept opens up to the control designer, mainly through the means of inputting demands, utilising smart directories for users to determine where they are going, minimising misuse, and utilising higher capacity double or multiple deck lifts. Layout of buildings can also change, removing the need for side by side or adjacent lifts, directing passengers when they enter the building to the specific lift bank most suitable for where they are going. As you can see from the views, there are not many lift machine rooms in the world that lift mechanics would compete to look after, but this is probably one of them. With views all the over beautiful Wellington waterfront, Schindler should be conducting tours. Page 2 Late September 2006 ESCALATOR PHOTO WINS FIRST PRIZE: Craig Plesteds picture of the escalators in Village cinema in Queens Street Auckland took first prize in the NZ Herald.co.nz Auckland Architecture Week photo competition. His entry was one of more than 260 that were submitted. Architect Lindley Naismith, one of the judges in the competition, said of the photo, The geometry and patterns of the architecture of this space have been captured in a painterly composition of texture and color that makes for a compelling image with a dynamic, urban feel. Architecture Week is sponsored by the Auckland branch of the New Zealand Institute of Architects. My wife and I attended one of their functions this year highlighting the amazing story behind the design and construction of the London building renown as The Gerkin. The story provides a fascinating picture of the concept, design and construction of the building seen through the eyes of the design management team. As you can see, the designers rotated the floors providing a unique geometry to all levels with through floor atriums enhancing an enthralling working environment. The cap to the building is a large glazed cone able to be seen in the photo giving 360º views of London from the top level restaurant. The only disappointment was in not seeing any of the KONE lift installation, reflective of an architects perspective of a building, as significant as the plumbing! YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 87 THE CBIP LIFT INDUSTRY EXAM PANEL CONVENES: The 10th of August saw the first meeting of the newly expanded CBIP Lift Industry Exam Panel to address the changes necessary to bring the CBIP qualification in line with the 2004 Building Act and emerging Licensed Building Practitioner structure. This group will also enable a lift industry expert group to consider the documenting and procedures associated with inspection of all D2 equipment in New Zealand, with the aim to provide a good resource for implementing a single and consistent Consent inspection process into New Zealand. The CBIP lift inspection qualification emerged from the 1991 introduction of the Building Act, to replace existing Ministry of Transport (MOT) inspectors, most of who were only involved in the site test of new lifts and annual ongoing inspection. The main design, code certification and documenting of new lifts was carried out by the Central engineering office of the MOT in Wellington. In the past Local Councils were given the authority to oversee Consent inspection of lifts as Territorial Authorities, and the privatisation of inspectors saw the past annual inspection of lifts change to the WOF structure with Independent Qualified Persons appointed by local Territorial Authorities registered throughout NZ. Since 1992 change we have seen a virtual total dysfunctional process emerge in new lift inspection and commissioning under the Consent process, and an inconsistent annual inspection of existing lifts under the WOF process. It was this lack of experience and consistent lift inspection process that finally made the CBIP and the lift industry through its involvement in the CBIP Exam panel, realise that a revamp of the now established CBIP certification process, and the Department of Building & Housing (DBH) D2 Consent and WOF process, was well overdue if Governance of this once safe industry was to be regained. Day to day business sometimes gets in the way of small businesses and large corporations recognising the effects of changes in Governance, especially when evolving from years of being told what to do, and what form to fill out. And only now with Territorial Authorities being better resourced and having their structures and processes questioned are these deficiencies being recognised and a semblance of the 1991 Act begin to be implemented to a degree that industry is also beginning to recognise it has a role to play. The question most in my mind at present is, is the lack of knowledge of the specific processes necessary to ensure an efficient, auditable process of experienced inspection in these two deficient areas going to be addressed through a focus on those whose interests are vested in securing a new form of income, or those whose interests are in ensuring an efficient, experienced inspection process. With the CBIP structure able to provide a sound solution, this critical choice seems up to the DBH, and in who they choose to provide the solution under their Licensed Building Practitioner structure presently being determined. Page 3 Late September 2006 CORONERS REPORTS DUE OUT: Issue 87 An Elderly lady returning to her home town of Christchurch nearly a year ago was tragically killed at Riccarton Mall when the shopping trolley she and her husband were returning to the roof top car park with on a travellator, over turned causing her to fall and subsequently die from her injuries. Investigation was carried out by OSH and property managers with I understand the trolley wheel brake questioned as not setting to provide the necessary push to overcome the opposition of the exit comb plate when reached. From my past experience, the users initial reaction to the trolley stopping against the comb plate is to push against the trolley handle, which are invariably on up travellators above the users hands, and results in lifting the back of the trolley removing any rear wheel brake force necessary to roll the trolley over the comb plates. The suddenness of the obstruction compounded by any relieving of trolley weight on the rear pushing wheels, can result in this type of accident causing serious secondary harm as in this instance. The question I pose here is why does this still occur, as there are presumably thousands of travellators used throughout the world daily for this exactly same purpose, and I can remember being involved with some of the first use of trolleys on travellators in Australia around 1980, where automatic brakes on the rear wheels and education of users was deemed the solution. Maybe our education problem begins with this world of blame and prosecution we have created, too supposedly conform those irresponsible into compliance. For instance, as an inspector and consultant in the lift industry, I know the local companies and a significant number of those people in them well, and yet I was totally surprised to hear in the paper a few days back that this accident had even happened, let alone a year or so ago. Why is this so? I suspect it reflects this perception of having to protect oneself or corporation from any unwanted blame that naturally concerns people more under a penalising system than keeping industry accidents such as this open for discussion, and maybe for others to learn from. We have seen this with opposition from pilots and many other professions where silence provides the necessary security from blame, when except in extreme circumstances, no person intends to have an accident, but they can always learn from one. or not, as there is no process in New Zealand to ensure those most able to consider the cause and effects of such accidents, learn from them, and do something constructive about it, in the local manufacturers and agents. And as I have said, you can be working alongside those associated with the accidents, and still have no idea it happened. Why? Because it seems more important to penalise than educate. Interestingly Code Words a building industry publication put out by the DBH ran an article in its August 06 issue highlighting this particular accident for its deficiencies of process under the Building Act which was heartening to see. On the other hand it suggested it had had discussions with the Department of Labour who investigates such accidents, to undertake steps to publicise the importance of meeting Building Act requirements where lifts are installed. The only problem with this as I see it, is as pointed out in a past article, OSH as the workface face of the DOL has no responsibility to disseminate any of its final accident reports around its own branches, let alone to someone who may learn something from the report. Isnt it time such regulatory bodies became proactive in lift industry accidents by maintaining a database of manufacturers or agents in NZ and ensuring that any accident or incident under D2 are automatically recorded and details made accessible through either hardcopy or email notification providing direct access to all accident reports. People then know what goes on in their community and are more encouraged to participate. Like traffic policing, you use blanket penalty as the tool of governance and you lose the respect of those you are trying to encourage into participation, and thereby you lose credibility leading to diminished responsibility and finally impotence swayed only by increasing force. Industries that are valued are keen to do well and participate in the community; those that are ignored or continually threatened with penalty dive below the radar and provide nothing for the wellbeing of the community. If we are to achieve and maintain a safe work environment using all the skills of our workforce, we need everyone to take responsibility for their part in the process, and not just rely on the authority of a few as in the past where people have found an excuse to remove themselves from obligation. You hear it on the site all the time, why should I care, its not my problem! And so we seem to take months if not years to investigate what seems obvious to the experienced under a cloud of self imposed suppression, and then put it in a file for no one to see and no one to learn from. Another accident that no one will know about except by stealth or this fax was the recent death of a person using a small two stop platform lift. It is around a year since the accident, and once again still awaiting the coroners report, but it doesnt make a lot of difference whether it comes out YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[18]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax86.pdf","2007-07-04","214K"," NZLFAX86.PDF    ","","","July 2006 Issue 86 EDITORIAL. AUSSIE LIFT INSPECTION UNDER FIRE: An article that caught the eye of my brother in Melbourne in the Sun Newspaper of 3rd July 2006, looked into the number of accidents (99) reported in Victorian Hospitals relating to lifts over the 3 years to mid 05, when over the same period the local Work Cover (similar to OSH) numbered only (6) recorded accidents. Over the last one year period in 2005-06, the hospital numbers recorded 35 lift and escalator related accidents, in comparison with 10 years earlier where there were 2/3 less recorded. Is this a disturbing fact, or just better records as the Australian Elevator Industry supposedly claimed in the article? WorkCover this year intends a blitz on about 400 lift sites, after issuing 570 safety notices in the past 3 years, but the reporter points out, there are thousands of lifts in Victoria! The questions posed were:- Are there no longer dedicated experts routinely inspecting lifts full time in the city? And are claims that general building staff now service lifts true? Like in Victoria, in NZ the processes of inspection are determined by the local Territorial Authorities, and accident reporting is the responsibility of the building owner, with investigation, prosecuting and recording up to the local area office of OSH. Also in NZ, there is no national correlation of lift accident records; no notification of accident numbers, causes of accidents, or even reporting back to the lift industry by OSH of investigated accidents. The observation is that the past 1991 Building Act mushroom approach is evident; what we dont know we dont have to worry about! With the present Building Code under review, you would think it an opportune time to implement clear processes to address these issues, but unless the focus is on industry solutions rather than issuing certificates to everyone, I feel the status quo will remain. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH Lift Industry Restructuring Still Ongoing: Peter Loader; Technical Sales Consultant for Otis over the past years, was well know throughout his patch in the South Island of NZ for his exuberant personality, industry knowledge, and personable approach with his clients. And yet once again he has voted with his feet and stepped out of the industry to take the family to Europe, hopefully only for a respite, but its farewell to Otis, so watch this space. Kerry Houston, Team Leader Construction for Otis, a gentleman of the industry, knowledgeable and keen to do well has also decided to part with Otis, only this time he takes all his Otis experience to Schindler, whom I am sure would have received him with open arms. Kerry Starts in August in Christchurch. Glen Jarvis; An electrical apprenticeship trained Otis employee from Melbourne, crossed the ditch in October 2005 and brings a sound industry and product knowledge installing Gen2s to the Christchurch market. Like me, Glen is another case of a travelling Kiwi, winding in an Aussie `lifty hook, line and sinker, and bringing him home. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Dave Shaw and Beven Fleming have joined the Otis ranks of late with Warren Farrow; Ex-Schindler maintenance technician, another import from the UK employed nearly a year ago, and I understand the search overseas by Otis is still on. Colin Montgomery; my old friend and maintenance person with Schindler for near on 20 years, I hear has just finished up with Schindler. I suppose this just reflects the times we are in, as retirement looms and . Keith Bank; I understand had 14 years with KONE in the UK, before venturing to the Southern Hemisphere with his family to join KONE in Christchurch earlier this year. Ben Kersten: Now this is another shock, KONEs long time Customer Service Manager has just announced his departure from Auckland office in a few weeks. Once again this piece of gold in the KONE sales office informs me he has just found a property opportunity outside the industry that fulfils a dream, and although he cannot say he wont be back, he just has to give this opportunity a go. If you know of Bens excitement in sales, you can only wish him all the best, and hope the venture doesnt curtail the fishing. Page 1 July 2006 Neil Trotter: After 19 years with Schindler in Hamilton, and as Branch Manager over the past 8, another well respected member of the lift industry moves on to seek new challenges. Employing the trade and management skills learnt with Schindler, Neil is heading out into the Electrical Contracting business, but retaining his contacts through sub-contracting back installation and modernisation work to Schindler, and sub-contracting to Corona Consultants carrying out Annual D2 WOF inspection in the greater Waikato region. If Neil can help you, contact him at:FLAGSTAFF ELECTRICAL LIMITED P.O Box 21180 Flagstall Hamilton. Mobile: 021 452 594 Fax: 07 854 3410 Email: the-trotterz@xtra.co.nz Independence Ltd Update: Technician Bruce Francis has just returned from a month overseas training with their equipment suppliers in Germany, Italy and the UK. With smaller but growing NZ lift companies like Independence Ltd, it is necessary, but just that bit harder when key staff are off training, and the everyday operational demands still have to be met by Director Rob Douglas. But there is light at the end of the tunnel, with the excellence of Marlene Woonton joining the company as office assistant in June. Contact: INDEPENCENCE LTD P.O Box 12-592 Unit N ­ 657 Great South Road, Penrose Auckland. Freephone: 0800 926677 www.indepencence.co.nz Issue 86 Lift Statistics: If you wish to gain an insight into the economics of the NZ lift industry you can check out Garth Wyllies NZLEA site at www.lifts.org.nz, but dont be too disappointed when you find the statistics stopped in 2003. This has arisen, probably because of the new wave of management into the industry, that although very competent in managing the bottom line for their prospective corporations, are either unaware of the need or see little reason to provide their annual figures publicly for the good of the industry locally and world wide. Ive always understood the need for privacy regarding commercial detail, but of late it seems the words commercial confidentiality goes beyond the bounds when annual figures useful to all in a society are suppressed. A Commerce Commission investigation presently underway concerning the lift industry in NZ is a good example of where not being open where you can, can lead to innuendo and misinformation that undermines the credibility of the industry in the eyes of your clients, to a point where rhetoric starts to be believed. LEC, on behalf of Elevator World who endeavors to compile annual industry statistics world wide has only received two NZ lift Companies responses, one providing the requested data, and the second at least responded to inform me that its against company policy. Why is this so? Im pretty sure the EW World Source when its issued each year provides lots of interest as a useful industry comparative resource, but it sure is disappointing when New Zealand cannot bother to put something together. If you would prefer you can sent the detail directly to the following contact: Alyssa Camery, Statistical Report Coordinator Elevator World, Inc. P.O. Box 6507 Mobile, AL 36660 Fax: (251) 479-7043 E-mail: editorial@elevator-world Page 2 IQP-LBP FORUM: Rosemary Hazelwood, Building Networks (NZ) Ltd, has announced the organising of an IQP-LBP Forum to help building industry inspection personnel to update themselves on the present status of the Licensed Building Practitioner program. This is an opportunity to come out of the dark with the renowned independent Building Act presenter Rosemary Hazelwood, with a good cross section of speakers from the DBH, Christchurch City Council, a discussion panel and South Island IQP Registration representative Robert Wright. The forum is to be held in Wellington on the 21st of Sept.06 running from 8:30am ­ 5.00pm. Lunch is provided and the all up cost is 295 incl GST. enquiries - contact Rosemary on:Ph/Fax: 04 233 9588 Mob: 027 223 5747 Email: rosie@bnets.co.nz To book ­ contact Liz at Events Ltd Ph: 04 473 6210 Fax: 04 473 6209 email: liz@eventsdivision.co.nz YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY July 2006 Issue 86 first few years of operation. To fully understand the space elevator concept, the following quoted excerpts from Dr Bradley C. Edwards NIAC Phase 1 report are detailed. The simplest explanation of the space elevator concept is that it is a ribbon with one end attached to the earths surface and the other end in space substantially beyond geosynchronous orbit (100,000 km) altitude. The competing forces of gravity at the lower end, and outward centripetal acceleration at the other end, keep the ribbon under tension and stationary over a single point on Earth. The ribbon, once deployed, can be ascended by mechanical means to Earth orbit. By releasing at specific altitudes, low ­ medium or high, Earth ordit can be achieved. If a climber proceeds to the far end of the ribbon and releases, it would have sufficient energy to escape from Earths gravity well and travel to the Moon, Mars, Venus and the asteroids. Another easy way to understand the concept is found at www.howthingswork.com To better understand this concept of a space elevator, think of the game tetherball. In this game, a ball is attached to a pole by way of a rope. Think of the rope as the cable, the pole as the Earth and the ball as the weight. Now, imagine that the ball is put into perpetual spin around the pole, so fast that it just keeps the rope taut. This is generally how a space elevator would work. The weight at the end of the cable spins around the Earth, keeping the cable taut. The spacecraft would simply ride up the cable as a train rolls over tracks. As the vehicle rides further up the cable it requires less electrical energy, relying more on the centrifugal force produced by th spinning motion to pull it into orbit. By the time the vehicle reaches the end of the cable, it could be moving as fast as 11kps! At these speeds, a vehicle could detatch from the cable and fly off into space at speeds fast enough to readh Mars in days or weeks instead of months. And yes, people will be able to ride in it. The countdown to the first operational lift has begun, and is due to be in service by April 12th 2018. The Space Elevator Co. exists under the LiftPort Group including:- liftport inc ­ liftport nanotech ­ liftport finance ­ liftport media ­ liftport robotics. See:- www.liftport.com Page 3 What is a Space Elevator? Another interesting article on the Space Elevator crossed my desk the other day that expands on the May 2004 Issue 73 article and fills in a few more holes: Today there is only one way to get into space: a bone crushing, overly expensive, very dangerous ride on a rocket. Years of Government bureaucracy have over complicated the space experience. Those who wish to go into space must pass rigorous physical training and be in good physical condition. The cost today to send someone into space is in the millions of dollars per person range. The technology is based on Chinese gunpowder rockets developed four thousand tears ago. This has been the state of our modern space exploration program. That is until the exciting Virgin Airways boss Richard Bransons and Microsoft co-founder Paul Allens provided backing of the aircraft pioneer Burt Rutans and his 3 person `Virgin Galactic, presently being designed to take paying passengers 100km into space, initially with a fortnight turn around, and for a cost of around 100,000 per passenger. But the Space Elevator is a different beast, its concept can be traced back to Yuri Artsutanov in 1960 and an article in Pravda, the Russian newspaper. The space elevator would allow for the lifting of large fragile structures, such as solar energy satellites which would provide clean renewable energy to earth, inflated stations for manned activities, factories for pharmaceuticals, and payloads for exploration in space. Lifters can be easily tested to ensure reliability, and brought back if there is a problem. The reliability and safety of the space elevator is calculated to be much better than any rocket-based launch system. A second generation, larger space elevator (100,000kg capacity) would allow for extensive human activities in space including a large geosynchronous station (hundreds of permanent residents) and settlements on Mars within the YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY July 2006 Issue 86 Commission Investigates Lift Industry: The Commerce Commission has begun an investigation into the lift industry in NZ following complaints of Anti Competitive behavior. Although only involved in the South Island as a lift Consultant, it surprised me that such a claim could have any substance for varyious reasons:I. The industry is small, and so anything like this conducted on an organised scale would be evident to an independent consultancy like LEC. II. From my experience in issuing and reviewing tenders for clients without favor, Ive found I can rely on the competitiveness of the industry to not only ensure a good price, but whatever the price, the desire to do right by the client, remains the same. III. The number one concern expressed by company managers to me across the board, is that price in the areas of new installation, and maintenance contracts, have remained relatively stable or been forced down through competition over the past 15 years, and that this pressure still exists in the market place. IV. Historically, when company allegiance was paramount in the minds of employees, competitive forces reached an intensity, that if you were seen talking to an opposition employee it was tantamount to treason. V. Of course at senior management level there was the responsibility to meet at a formal association level through the NZLEA, and although termed the club by myself and others, this reflected the perception that it met so infrequently and seemed more of a social event than a productive industry advocacy. VI. Although slowly changing, in the past the specialist nature of the industry has been that the equipment suppliers: designed, manufactured, installed, trained personnel and maintained their product either directly or through an agent. Expertise was retained in house, and so a building owner changing to a non-proprietary service provider, found it difficult to retain a similar level of service performance for their client. VII. Over the past 20 -25 years with introduction of solid state control technology into the market, Otis implemented the first portable - parameter adjustment and diagnostic tool, and immediately claiming intellectual property rights, restricted its access to non-Otis providers. Interestingly overseas manufacturers produced similar products but without restricted access, until of late where Schindler started its claim to similar intellectual property right to retain ownership and control access to their diagnostic software. Although not price control, it does limit third party providers from being able to offer comparative service performance, and could engender bad feeling within the industry and its clients. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY And so without knowing more about who initiated the investigation, the reasons why, and their experience and knowledge of the industry, it is difficult for myself to give credence to the claim of non-competitive practices in this industry. The lift industry in New Zealand, and for that matter throughout the world, has been going through a market restructure over the past 10 years or so because of:? ? ? ? ? ? Global fiscal management of companies. Takeover of smaller companies and local agents. Retirement of a generation of engineering managers. The effect of new technologies on production, product performance and processes. The decline in core trade based skills. The move from engineering to fiscal management of workplace production. And so these trends have seen workface labour skills change from a high reliance on individual trade skills, to acceptance of fewer, broader more general labour skills, installing highly engineered precision packaged products that give a high reliability and require a lesser labour maintenance requirement. From this has evolved a growing dissatisfaction in older well experiences highly skilled trades persons vying to retain decreasing positions in companies, being overseen by younger account based managers, who see different solutions to focus on to achieve good results for their global corporations. The result has seen wide movement of skilled personnel now on the outskirts of the industry, feeding a growing pool of individuals competitively, and possibly naively sub-contracting their services in installation, maintenance, consulting and inspection services to the global corporations. And so you have to consider, is this Commerce Commission investigation into non-competitive practices due to someone ineffectively trying to control pricing, or is it more likely in this tumultuous environment, an uninformed victim with a separate agenda. If you have something to add to the equation, give me a call, or you can contact the media liaison officer at the Commerce Commission, Kate Camp on:04 924 3708 or kate.camp@comcom.govt.nz Ed. Page 4     ");
array_files[19]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax85.pdf","2006-06-28","624K"," NZLFAX85.PDF    ","","","May 2006 Issue 85 EDITORIAL. LIFT INDUSTRY SUPPORTS CBIP: As we should all be aware, the Department of Building & Housing (DBH) is contemplating both the Building Code and Licensed Building Practitioners (LBP) in their push toward filling in the gaps in the Building Act 2004 before 2009. From a lift industry point of view, the ramifications of these changes could secure an efficient, competent certification for lifts (D2 equipment) under the Consent and Compliance Schedule process in NZ, or end up a bureaucratic overhead that sounds good in press releases and is endorsed by the professional institutions, but stymies competent, safe lift inspection. The NZ Certification Board for Inspection Personnel (CBIP) lift inspector qualification, now overseen by the Australian Institute of NonDestructive Testing (AINDT) certification body, is at present expanding its examination panel to provide a highly experienced industry representative panel in the hope of ensuring competent inspectors are retained in NZ. With DBH recognition and backing, the lift industry could be proactive in ensuring NZ a sound certification structure using the present CBIP to enhance the governance process in this area of the industry, so obviously overlooked during the privatisation of certification with introduction of the 1991 Building Act. At present the CBIP board is considering new nominations to expand its lift exam panel from within the lift industry, and has received excellent support from all the major companies, KONE, Otis and Schindler. LEC is a present member of this panel, and has encouraged the South Island IQP Registration body in its recognition of the CBIP certification under the 1991 Building Act, as a sound, representative inspection interface for both the industry and Government in NZ. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH ELEVCON Helsinki 19th to 22nd JUNE 2006 See www.elevcon.com for full details. Elevator Expo ­ Orlando Florida Sept 11-14 2006: The National Association of Elevator Contractors 57th annual convention and World Elevator Expo III is set to go on September 10th to 14th in beautiful Orlando Florida. The Expo is only for three days beginning on the 12th but you are most welcome to attend the conference. Billed as the Largest Vertical Transportation event in North America, this is a not to be missed elevator industry event if heading up that way. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 May 2006 Issue 85 AROUND THE Whats it all about? - Schindler: One may ask! Its A Big Thankyou Weekend to all staff in recognition of a successful year and the contributions made by everyone. A time to meet outside office hours to relax and get to know one other from another perspective. NZ LIFT INDUSTRY: THESE REPORTS ARE PUT TOGETHER BY INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES TO ASSIST COMMUNICATION WITHIN OUR INDUSTRY: My undercover reporter says the weekend was a great success and Staff still speak of the event weeks later. With all the changes of late in the industry, its heartening to see a spirit of fun & camaraderie still endures . . . . Memorandum To: Subject: All Schindler Employees / Partners Rotorua - A Big Thank You To All Staff Itinerary May 12th to May 14th Friday ­ 12th May Make own way to Millennium Hotel in Rotorua (map will be provided closer to the time of where the accommodation is). The afternoon is free for you to relax and have a couple of quiet ones in the bar. Friday night ­ BBQ & quiz night ­ meet in the bar at 6.00pm, to be taken to venue. Saturday ­ 13th May Meet downstairs at 8.30am in the conference room where we will be put into our teams for the day. Lunch will be provided (this is all off-site). We will be returned back to the Millennium at approx 5.00pm where you can relax before the big dinner. Saturday night ­ theme night Roaring Twenties meet in the bar at 6.15pm, in your costume to be taken to the venue for the evening (dinner will be held at the hotel). Sunday ­ 14th May Free day ­ make your own way back home again. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 May 2006 Issue 85 Miller said. These three gents have over 60 years combined Otis experience in New Zealand, and they all understand the importance of strong customer service and communication. Scott Miller added 2006 is the start of the next epoch at Otis NZ, and while our products remain strong and innovative, it is our people that will bring us the greatest success. We foster a learning environment via our Company funded training policy and we are assisting our people with life skills training particularly in areas such as communication techniques and problem solving. Changes at Otis: The future looks strong for Otis New Zealand with some great talent coming into the business in the past 18 months. After a period of departures of Otis trained personnel to other entities within the industry and elsewhere, there is now a strong team across each of the divisional areas in New Zealand taking on the new challenges facing the elevator industry here. Recently appointed New Zealand Regional General Manager, SCOTT MILLER Scott Miller remarked With appointments at Management level and a rejuvenation of our field graduate program across New Zealand we have brought in a diverse new range of skills to complement the retained experience in our workforce. It is great to see the Generation Ys working with and learning from the Baby Boomers. The industry is desperate for new talent, and we are proud to be leading the way in investing for the future. Otis has reverted to a management structure of three branch managers reporting through to the General Manager, with the Branch Managers being; Scott Clenaghan in Auckland, Mike Jennings in Wellington, and Jonathan Lewis in Christchurch. Its a great mix of talents with Scott coming through the field in Otis Australia and adding a successful stint in new equipment sales to his industry résumé. Jonathan has recently moved his family from England to sunny Christchurch, and brings with him a diverse range of new ideas via six years in Otis UK in various product and sales management positions. Mike achieved 30 years service with Otis last year, and his industry JOHNATHAN LEWIS knowledge and technical experience rounds off a strong team. We have placed added focus on the Management of our Maintenance and Repair business in 2006 with Peter Casey (Auckland), Murray Fowke (Wellington) and Dave Johnstone (Christchurch) accepting greater responsibility YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Some notable recent departures from Otis include Peter Loader in Christchurch and John Andrews in Wellington. Both are off on new adventures, with Peter taking his family on the trip of a lifetime over to the UK, and John taking a well-earned break after many great years at Otis. We wish them both well and look forward to seeing them around again soon. Otis on Site - CDHB Diabletes Building: The new Diabetes building on Hagley Avenue and St Asaph Street Christchurch, is well on program says Fletchers Constructions site manager Simon Chambers, and that means a clean shaft all ready to go, which will please Dave Martin who is to install the 4 level 1.0m/sec 13 person Otis Gen2 TM. The Building will provide the Canterbury District Health Board with an all purpose built Diabetes facility, and a secure patient 24hr dialysis facility. Page 3 May 2006 Issue 85 delivery. They see communication as critical in business today and while they are addressing part of this through regular customer updates, they recognize the ability to contact the KONE Call Centre can be delayed at times. They have therefore addressed this through the introduction of two new 0800 numbers. They see every customer call as important, and so have split these into 2 categories to priopise them. Calls from lift cars generally relate to passenger entrapment therefore they must take priority, as Im sure everyone agrees. Calls from outside the lift are usually to report breakdown, so these will be answered next. First of all the number to report faults on is changing to :0800 KONE (0800 77 5663). In conjunction with this, all lift phones will be programmed to a different number where possible. Obviously there are a large number of makes and models of phones and some connections are `hot lines, so KONE personnel will contact property owner should any assistance be needed. Currently KONE is reprinting alarm labels to reflect these changes and are looking forward to a substantial improvement in this area of service. KONE Wellington Restructures: Kone introduces its Wellington Branch two team leaders in Karl Drahohs and Darren Blackhurst. The two teams are lead by Karl overseeing the CBD and Darren Blackhurst responsible for the metropolitan areas of the NZ Capital City, Wellington. Karl brings 12 years of elevator industry experience to the team and has always provided technical support fro the Wellington region. He has been involved in aspects of elevator repair, maintenance and tuning. Karl is experienced in modernization and new lift installation so his expansive knowledge of lift and escalator systems is critical to the goal of improving service delivery. Darren is new to KONE but has 18 years experience in the elevator industry. He has worked on all types of lift and escalator equipment throughout the UK and NZ and brings a wealth of experience to assist Karl and the local maintenance technicians. We are pleased to have him onboard. The combined experience of Karl and Darren is substancial. They will work together and draw on each others experiences to ensure that they achieve the branches goal of improved service delivery to all customers. Local Manager Russell Appleton is keen to emphasis that KONE is not just local experience, but that they have a great national and international support network in their Technical Support Group (TSG). Should it be necessary, they are able to bring these people in for further support and training of local staff. KONE CALLING: Kone is constantly reviewing performance looking for areas that allow them to improve their daily service YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® STUDENTS INJURED IN ESCALATOR ACCIDENT: Twelve students from Vermont were reportedly injured while riding an escalator on a field trip. The incident occurred May 5 at the convention center in Ocean City, Maryland when the escalator reportedly lost power, causing the students to fall. Witnesses said there were about 25 students on the escalator at the time, many carrying musical instruments for the music festival they were attending. The incident is being investigated. HITACHI DEVELOPS HIGH-SPEED/HIGH-CAPACITY ELEVATOR: The development of a large-capacity 300-kw AC motor has enabled Hitachi Ltd. to create an elevator with a 5-ton capacity that can travel at 600 mpm. The company plans to market this high-speed elevator in high-rise buildings, particularly in China, where it believes there is a market for efficient building-transportation systems. Plans call for the core components of the system to be manufactured in Japan and assembled by Hitachis joint venture in China. Page 4 May 2006 Issue 85 Now in the new restructure there are only 4 replacement sections:Safety - Health - Wellbeing - Sustainable Development: But these come with 15 sub-sections forming a total of 179 performance objectives. BUILDING CODE REVIEW: As announced in the Editorial, the latest DBH press release through the Minister of Housing, the Hon. Clayton Cosgrove, has announced the release of a discussion document as part if the Building Code review. This process is to supposedly review the Code, but from the documentation provided, replace and rename everything to open up a whole new array of bureaucratic experts is probably closer to the reality. It has taken 12 years or so under the 91 Act; a third of the size, for some to get a grasp on the original document, and I still have TAs (BCAs) interpreting it to suit their own misunderstandings let alone those within the industry. Yes there was need for clearer process in areas of the Code, but the main problem was people not using the processes already detailed in the 1991 code, and using their ignorance to cop out of taking responsibility to understand it. Any issues have been consistently discussed and identified since introduction of the 1991 Act, but to rename everything with subtle changes begins the whole confusion over again. A cynic would suggest confusion enables bureaucrats who have both time and access to funds at their hands, to consider all ramifications of each change, and under the guise of these reviews, substantiate their own existence. I say again, the Building Act is about empowerment of those responsible at the workface to participate in the process of Governance, not to empower the bureaucrat to run rough shod over those who wish to achieve excellence in their workplace. The key word is TRUST. For a start, the rewording makes it that much more difficult to comprehend at first, but the base structure regarding lifts hasnt changed significantly. That begs the question, are we updating and improving, or is this opportunity being commandeered by just adding multiple more words to appease those who wish to reflect a building industry that can be seen as politically correct. These are the reasons for my concerns with the direction being `press released, but that aside, the reality is that we are a democracy and the powers to be in our society have led us down this path, and so how do we best participate. Do you remember the present Code started with 8 sections A ­ H, 37 performance objectives of which Access contained two: D1 Access Routes and D2 Mechanical Installations for Access. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY And so the relevance of this document reflects in a first stage restructure of the performance requirements and expansion of the verification methods. These are now to be known as:D1 Under Safety in Use as SO3.6.1 ­ Mechanical Installations eg. Lift, Escalators, Cable cars, Moving Walks. D2 Under Wellbeing as WO1.1.1 ­ Access Routes and WO1.1.3 - Mechanical Installations for Access eg. Lifts, Escalators, Cable cars Moving Walks. The below diagram depicts the structure of the Building Code within the Act: Have a look and even make your comment by accessing the following hyperlink: http://www.building.govt.nz/publish/subjects/code/bcrevie w-news.php You can download a copy or if you would prefer a hardcopy, please phone the DBH on 04 471 0798. Page 5     ");
array_files[20]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax84.pdf","2006-06-28","379K"," NZLFAX84.PDF    ","","","March 2006 Issue 84 EDITORIAL. The Demise or Rebirth of an Association: Is it now too difficult for small countries like New Zealand to have a representative body that truly reflects the local lift industry? Change in the market products and process has seen the gradual move from a reliance on local knowledge and expertise, to significant acceptance of overseas corporate direction. Does this mean we no longer need to associate to consider our local perspective; our local opinion? Is our environment only to exist within corporate global policy? What of local standards and codes? Do we leave it to the Government of NZ to implement a bureaucratic process to determine what is acceptable risk, safe process, and who is qualified to inspect and test lift equipment in NZ? Surely the industry needs to address this issue. As Executive Managers in this industry, that have seemingly stood by and watched the standard of safe commissioning and inspection of lifts deteriorate to possible third world standard, can you claim no bottom line responsibility where there is no consistency of process nor auditable documenting of installation since introduction of the Building Act into the Governance of this industry. Yes they are only words and to you they may sound angry, but they are purposeful. If they have raised your ire then ask why they upset you? Is it because these issues are unimportant to you, or is it because your global corporate responsibility outweighs any responsibility to the local market? Remember, you give direction, surely these issues fall within your responsibility as a designated leader. Decisions made today will reflect the quality of this industry tomorrow, this industry needs good direction at present, the challenge is, are you prepared to stand by and watch the local association die through lack of interest? E d. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH Dave McBride in Queenstown: With Steve Cox and Darrin Blackhurst departing Queenstown, Dave McBride has set up there as DLM Electrical Ltd providing electrical and lift maintenance services for Otis and Schindler. Dave came from KONE in Auckland where he was Installation Manager over a year ago now. Contact: Ph: 03 409 0192 Mobile: 021 757 440 Kim Pederson Expands in Napier: Ex-Otis PNG Manager Kim set up in Napier in 1999, and now provides Sales, Installation and Maintenance services to provide a full range of equipment to the local market. Water Hydraulic Platforms, Scissor Lifts, Oil hydraulic, Traction and Drum drive lifts; Domestic and Service lifts make up the range he provides. They also manufacture an inside / outside low rise wheelchair hoist. Representatives for IGV, and Acorn stair lifts, the company also provides small control systems, write their own software and design using 3D CAD. Contact: Tech Elevator Co Ltd, P.O Box 869 Ph: 06 843 6010 Fax: 06 843 6013 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY PANDECT Expands Product Travel to 1.5m: The local Christchurch low rise platform lift manufacturer; Pandect Electrical Solutions Ltd, has been putting a lot of effort into improving its design, documenting and certification processes to reflect 2004 Building Act changes. Part of this is due to the subtle but higher risks associated with expanding the platform travel from 1,0m to 1.5m. This has been brought about by market demand for more flexibility in travel for cost-effective disabled access solutions into new and existing buildings. Contact: Lloyd Mearns Commercial Director. Ph: 03 338 5188 Fax: 03 338 2551 www.pandect.org Hard to Believe, but OTIS Restructures Again: Its just on a year since Scott Miller arriving from Aussie took over the Otis Southern operations, and 2 years since John Aulert arrived to look after the north. But now I understand Scott has volunteered to do week about - North and South and manage the whole of New Zealand. John in the meantime has returned to Aus only this time to Sydney, and I didnt even get to meet the gentleman. Mums the word, but everyone seems to be coping. Thank God for the local Kiwi spirit ! Page 1 March 2006 Issue 84 LEC INVITED TO KONEs PRODUCT UPDATE: To get the full story you will have to read Elevator World in a few months. In the third week of February 2006, 55 Australasian lift Consultants were invited by KONEs Queensland MD Ron Watson to Surfers Paradise to stay and explore the newly opened Q1; the tallest apartment block in the world, with two of the fastest lifts in Australasia at 9.0m/sec. How could we refuse! NZ Manager Ron Perez, along with Greg Brown and Russell Appleton led the NZ contingent, with guests Jon Williams, Keith Johnstone, Lyall Senior, Murray Barr, Roger Tringham and yours truly on a fascinating tiki-tour of Brisbane and Surfers Paradise to visit some of the latest equipment and tallest buildings in the KONE portfolio. It began in Brisbane at 307 Queen Street where we were able to inspect a Resolve 100 upgrade of a Thyro111B VVDC installation, followed by a tour of Brisbanes newest 307 Queen St and tallest ; the EcoDisc® lifted Aurora Building. The third significant site Aurora Bld was a new 2.5m/sec, 24 level Monospace® installation in the Saville Suites Building. The product seminar was presented by the exuberant Johannes de Jong, Saville Suites KONEs Products & Technology Major Projects Manager, along with technicians Robert Bergamin, Graeme Hill, Chris Downing and Niko Miletic. It was held in one of the Q1 conference rooms, followed by lunch and a tour of the latest KONE EcoDisc MX 40 and MX 100 high speed lifts that service the Q1 building. There were too many people to catch up with who I had grown up with around the Aussie industry before moving to NZ, but it was great to catch up with, Ron Watson, Roger Haig, Trevor Stephenson, Steve McGloin, Jad Vinko (Rocky), Karl Barker, John Lockwood, and Brian Fulcher, all past and present KONE C on C employees. On our day of departure we visited the latest Gold Coast Sunland Group / KONE project, the mighty twin towers of the Circle on Caville where we had the opportunity to visit the lifts under construction, to ride the latest ECO3000TM TransVario Planetary Gear Chainless escalators, and inspect the largest 4000kg MonospaceTM+PLUS goods lift installation. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Q1 WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® KONE SIGNS AGREEMENT WITH HP: KONE and Hewlett-Packard (HP) have signed a sevenyear agreement concerning information-technology (IT) infrastructure services. Under this agreement, HP will consolidate and maintain KONEs servers and local area networks, operate help desks and harmonize desktop computing environments in KONEs global network. According to the terms of the agreement, approximately 100 KONE Global Information Services employees will move to HP worldwide. KONEs most extensive IT operations are located in Belgium and Finland. The transition is to be finalized by the end of June. 12-YEAR-OLD BOY INJURED IN ESCALATOR: ACCIDENT: The Middleton Guardian recently reported that a 12-year-old boy was seriously injured when he fell about 40 feet from a shopping-center balcony after his shoelace was reportedly caught in an escalator. The report stated the boy was one of several children playing on the firstfloor balcony at the Middleton, England shopping mall when the incident occurred. The incident is being investigated. HITACHI DEVELOPS CIRCULATING ELEVATOR: SYSTEM: Hitachi Ltd. has announced the development of a new elevator system that allows cars to move sideways, meaning that up to six cars can operate in the space where previously only two cars could operate. When a car reaches the top floor, it moves horizontally, then down the hoistway. The company has already performed trial runs in a prototype system. The trial runs involved six cars controlled by six cables. The cars operated in pairs, and each pair was controlled by two cables. Hitachi is hoping to market the system in buildings with 10-20 stories. SCHINDLERS NEW CORPORATE IDENTITY: Schindler has announced it will introduce a new corporate identity in March. According to the company announcement, the new logo is intended to convey more emotion and self confidence. The new corporate identity will replace the logo Schindler introduced 20 years ago, which included three vertical red stripes. FATAL FALL FROM SEATTLE-AREA ELEVATOR: A man reportedly died as a result of injuries he sustained after he fell from an elevator car stuck between floors in the parking garage of a retail and entertainment complex in Bellevue, Washington, a suburb of Seattle. The 25-yearold man was one of five people who had been trapped in the elevator. Someone in the group pried the doors open after reporting the incident. Four of the passengers safely exited the elevator, but the victim reportedly fell backward into the hoistway when he attempted to escape the stuck car. The complex where the elevator was located opened in November 2005. A fire department spokesperson reported that he did not know of any previous problems with the elevator. The incident is being investigated. Page 2 March 2006 Issue 84 global says more about how we behave than about where we can be found. . . . .Globalisation in KONE is about harmonisation to high standards rather than geography or market coverage. So what effects are we seeing in our local lift industry in New Zealand? The effect of corporate takeover and the impact of technology on the major companies has been quite significant over the past 20 years through:? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The movement of local management to global management philosophies. Local senior management being more account focused rather than engineering focussed. The workforce being reduced while carrying out the same amount of work. Lessening installation times. Higher movement of persons between companies. Less trade training. An increase in reliability and consistency in performance of new equipment entering the market. Restructuring of middle management roles. Increasing sub-contracting of installation and maintenance. A significant loss of senior expertise through `redundancy. An increase in the number of peripheral lift industry based companies. An overall decrease in job satisfaction. Lower maintenance returns. Lower installation costs. An increase in non-proprietary and single contractor institutional maintenance contracts. . An increasing instability in job security. A more competitive market. Lower returns to investors. GLOBALISATION OF AN INDUSTRY: Like it or not, believe it or not, the reality is that through the advances in technology, and unequivocal acceptance of its adoption into every facet of daily life, absolute control over people in the workplace, and for that matter in our daily lives, is fast becoming achievable under the guise of market globalisation. In the past, because of the logistics, complete control over people; whether in the workplace or socially, has been impossible because of the inefficiencies in the bureaucracy needed to achieve it. The lift Industry is a good example of past limitations, where companies were structured to reflect their reliance on the expertise of the employee to provide the skill to sell ­ design ­ acquire - arrange delivery - install the equipment and to maintain it. The success or not of a company depended nearly totally upon its ability to locally inspire and manage its large employee resource. International companies were few, but they too were mainly only providers of product, or partook in the distribution of profits, and were basically independent to the every day operations of their national namesakes companies, because of the same logistical limitations. But since the hugh technological advances in computers, computer design and production, data storage, communication and organisational structures over the end of the last century, we have seen the logistics of running a global company narrow to nearly that of a past local office. Through an era of corporate acquisition and seemingly unquestioned adoption of technology into all facets of the business process, we are seeing centralised global control of corporate capital and operations under the guise of efficiency and stakeholder profit, seemingly for the sake of it and with the minimisation of local control as the goal. Some would argue this drive is to maximise the wealth of the world to ensure a better future of opportunity and security for all. The cup runneth over principle! Others may decree that it is just the bigger is better; survival of the fittest attitude, focussing only on the means, and let the next generation look after the end. Little philosophical consideration seems to be given as to the long term effect on the betterment on human societies. Past president of the KONE Corporation Jean-Pierre Chauvaire stated at the turn of the century; Globalisation is not an option for KONE, it is a must. We are serving global customers, working with global partners, and fighting global competitors. We cannot do these things successfully unless we, too, are thinking and acting globally. We are mistaken, however, if we believe that being global just means being present in a lot of countries. In fact YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Good or bad is not the point, as it is the sum of the present Western society human endeavour, but where is it leading us, what of our future? If we dont stop now and again to consider the wider effects of our actions on the lives of those who make up our society; if we only consider the short term benefits of job survival by diminishing our self through unequivocally handing responsibility to those above in this global reorganisation of power, without considering the long term ramifications of our actions, we may no longer be able to reverse corporate control of our future. We may think Hitler an aberration, but this is a simile as there are reducing numbers of more powerful people in our corporate world, and yet global corporations are increasingly playing a more significant role in our everyday lives. Are the effects of globalisation already experienced in our own industry in NZ, improving our lives, or have we already lost our say? Ed. Page 3 March 2006 Issue 84 continue to delicately separate the outer scene from inner mass to produce a free inner ball of ivory. Working through the holes created in the subsequent rotateable scene, they produce the next smaller version down six to ten independent layers within the outer ball. Why? Because they can. And the result is an art form. A LAST GLIMPSE OF CHINA IN 2005. Unaccustomed as I am to travelling upmarket, and being in China, I must admit I was prepared to rough it a bit to experience the real China, but if this is the real China; I live pretty poorly at home. The White Swan Hotel looked a little flash, but the exterior did nothing for its interior. With gold; hopefully plated bathroom fittings, and large atrium foyers with waterfalls, beautiful plantings and quiet corners, which for me was unexpected opulence to the extreme, but surprisingly it was unobtrusively pleasant. Of course the usual souvenirs were to be had, but at the White Swan there were no trinkets, only many zeros and magnificent porcelains, jade, ivory, silk tapestries and river pearls. Today we were heading back to Hong Kong by the mighty Pearl River, but first a look at some of the other exquisite handicrafts. Of course temptation is constantly questioning, do I want it? Do I really need it? Thankfully the answer was mostly no, but it was always a great experience to banter with the shop assistants who interestingly, some still preferred the abacus, but used the calculator only to show the result for duffer to read. The single most significant ingredient on display in Chinese souvenirs; and that is probably a crass word, is the artisans skill. When I see a piece of Ivory I think of scrimshaw, but not the Chinese, they create a ball of Ivory and begin to delicately carve it with a myriad of natural scenes in their environment. They dont stop there though, the cut outs on the surface scene they have created, they YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Similarly with silk, both subject and material seem to harmonise and provide a unique insight into China not found elsewhere in the world. But the mighty Pearl calls, its time to board the high speed ferry to take us down river under the massive bridges that today link West and East banks and the many tributaries, that feed S/E China past Portuguese Macau on the right and Shenzhen on the left, out the delta past the new Chep Lap Kok Airport and under the Tsing Ma Bridge, and back to Kowloon nestled beside Hong Kong island. Ed. Page 4     ");
array_files[21]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax83.pdf","2006-06-28","352K"," NZLFAX83.PDF    ","","","January 2006 Issue 83 EDITORIAL. Schindler NZ Ltd DUNEDIN Closes Office: Is this the beginning of an end for Provincial NZ? Schindler closed the door on their Dunedin office at the end of 2005, not a slam shut mind you, just the first move in this lift industry to subcontract existing proprietary maintenance in NZ to try and retain corporate returns. As we have seen installation services have had a big bite taken out of them in the smaller areas to subcontracting by all of the significant NZ lift suppliers, but this is the first established maintenance office closure. Schindler may have been pressured a bit with their Dunedin manager preferring a change, which has ended up in an sub-contract agreement at present to continue to provide maintenance and call services for the area. I understand Otis or Kone do not have any immediate plans to close their Dunedin offices, but the question is, if the restructure works for Schindler, will the seed be sown? Schindler seems to have sufficient installation work on at present and has been busy in the area. So is it the effect of loss of contracts through a market keen for competition in bulk contract maintenance, and the losers are feeling the effect, or is it Corporate restructuring to more `efficiently retain suitable returns on investment in a global market. Whatever the cause, with the institutions pressuring cheaper maintenance prices, the short term result may be in lesser contract costs for the institution, but with global service providers also being bottom line managed, more efficient service or reduced overhead cost is the only result. Without a change in corporate philosophies, I only see service reflective of price, not quality or maybe even safety. As we have seen in so many other service based companies, capital withdrawal takes time to see an effect over the long term! Ed The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH MORE MOVES & NEWS: Jonathan Lewis arrived from Otis in the UK over Xmas to take up the position as New Equipment Sales Consultant for Otis Christchurch branch. Jonathan had previously worked in Otis Sales for 5 years and as a Project Planner for the Construction industry. Jonathans wife Lindsey and 10 month old daughter Amelie accompanied him to begin their NZ experience and so we welcome them and wish them well. Darrin Blackhurst who has been working with Steve Cox in the Queenstown area maintaining and installing lifts as Total Tech over the past years has established himself into KONE in Wellington under Russell Appleton. Darrin is well know as a sound technician and will help fill the void left with Gavin Pollards departure last year. Robert Hallsmith settled in NZ also from the UK back in 1989. He began in field installation and remained at Otis Wellington for 10 years before taking a break at Honeywell and Colliers Jardine, but the transfusion had worked, and in 2004 he returned to the lift industry and now enjoys looking after contracts in Wellington for Schindler. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Richard Buckmaster who has steered Schindler Dunedin through many a storm over the past five years has decided to focus on some broader challenges and has set up as Southern Elevator Service Ltd. From weapon systems for the Australian Navy, Richard spent 15 or so years in Sydney with 9 years at Schindler and 3 years at Thyssen before crossing the ditch to good old Dunedin. Richard brings a sound experience and enthusiasm to his new company beginning with a full book of sub-contracts to complete. NEW SUB-CONTRACTORS: Derek Scott ­ a well experience fitter has just moved along from Otis to join the old master Jim Toesland ­ Elevator Installation Services Ltd in Wellington to expand his sub-contracting services. John Faint I understand is concerned I havent noted his presence in Wellington, but Ill use this to remind all, all it requires is an email and a few details. John is known as Mechanical Contractors ex-Schindler Wellington and is able to provide lift installation services Richard Buckmaster ­ Southern Elevators Services Ltd. Mobile: 021 322 241 email: rich@southernelevator.co.nz Page 1 January 2006 Issue 83 BE THERE IN 2006: CHINA WORLD ELEVATOR, ESCALATOR EXPO 2006: The China Elevator Association is to sponsor this Expo at the Langfang International Exhibition Centre in Langfang China from 18th ­ 21st April 2006. Contact: CEAs Zhang Lexiang. info@cea-net.org Ph: +86 316 2012957 THE INSTALLATION SUB-CONTRACTOR: Would I be right in thinking the first persons to independently sub-contract installation of lifts in the 90s to any of the big three in NZ, would be the likes of Steve Gilbert of Leam Lifts in Auckland, or JimToseland in Wellington? Maybe its something you can clear up for me. As you have seen reported over the past issues, there is an increase in numbers of late of past lift installers previously employed by the three main lift contractors in NZ; Otis, Schindler and KONE, that are taking up the offer to sub-contract their skills to their past employers and competitors. Some are even working as sub-contractors to subcontractors where the increasing demand requires higher numbers, but the question must be asked, in whose interest are these changes being best served? In the South, and its probably reflective elsewhere in the country, most of the corporations have gone through an era of non replacement of employees through natural attrition, or not expanding service numbers to meet increasing portfolios sizes over the past decade. When we look at individual companies, some of late have lost senior employees to competition companies, seemingly through the frustration of working within a changing work environment, but they have usually replaced these, and resorted to sub-contracting only in installation. Others now seem set on a policy of non-replacement, possibly growing from difficulties in sourcing skilled staff, where they mainly sub-contract installation skills to service fluctuations in demand. Interesting this year, the first subcontracting of maintenance services has resulted with closure of Schindlers branch office in Dunedin. Kone as the newest corporate player on the block, still has lower numbers of employees in the South, and so although still building, has still used sub-contractors mainly to flatten peak demands. It seems the older higher experienced past employees in most cases are being encouraged to leave the security of a company to take on the many challenges of self employment, but with presumably little administration exposure to run a business, nor guarantee of work. I cannot recall Ive ever heard of corporate redundancy assistance in setting up individuals before leaving a company in the NZ lift industry, especially with field staff, just a farewell drink with colleagues, and even sometimes, there today gone tomorrow being the norm. From my own experience in small business, the first few years can draw heavily on reserves while setting up and any superannuation is the first to go. So are we effectively relying on an ageing workforces retirement funds, and using the tattslotto-carrot model of encouragement in the twilight of an employees working life to retain their skills and squeeze the last bit of profit for the overseas corporation. Food for thought. Ed. Page 2 NAVTP in Seattle 2006 Forum: The National Association of Vertical Transportation Professionals annual Business meeting and Technical Presentations forum is to be held in picturesque Seattle on 4th ­ 7th May 2006. Contact: see Curtis Forney curtisnavtp@fusenet.com Ph: +1 513 533 3500 ELEVCON HELSINKI 2006: The International Association of Elevator Engineers (IAEE) is to hold its annual conference in Helsinki Finland this year from 19th ­ 22nd June 2006. The IAEE is celebrating 20 years of activity in promoting the communication of knowledge within our global community and once again brings together a full presentation of discussion papers and associated product exhibition for attendees. see: www.elevcon.com for full details on:? the list of speakers. ? Accommodation. ? stand reservations. ? program. Contacts: Admin: iaee@elevcon.com Stands: katrin.pust@levcon.com Reg: katrin.pust@levcon.com LIFT 2006 originally posted for March 15th ­ 18 in Milan has been changed to 8th-11th November 2006 at the Milano Exhibition Centre. I understand this delay is due to the newly decreed requirement for all Italian lift installations to meet EN81-80 safety standard, and the manufacturers requiring time to implement the change. Contact: see Paolo Mastromo pmastromo@fmi.it Ph: +39 02 48550-407 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 2006 Issue 83 XMAS CALENDER WINNER FOR 2006. WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® DUBAI PLANS FOR SEVEN MONORAIL SYSTEMS: Dubai is likely to get at least seven monorails in addition to the Dubai Light Rail project with the development of new master-planned neighbourhoods, according to regional developers. The privately funded and developed monorails will primarily cater to these neighborhoods and operate as feeder services to the Dubai Light Rail system, which will be completed in two phases by 2012. Three such feeder systems will be located on The Palm Jumeirah, a second in Dubai International Financial Centre and the third in the City of Arabia at Dubailand. The other four are likely to be built in Dubai Waterfront, the Burj Dubai complex, The Palm Deira and Dubai Festival City. Nakheel is working on a multi-mode transport mechanism for approximately one million residents at Dubai Waterfront, and a number of traffic solutions are being studied. Reported by M.J. Mohamed Iqbal, EW Correspondent. KONE ACQUIRES SHARE OF FUJI LIFT & ESCALATOR: KONE Corp. has acquired an 80% shareholding in Fuji Lift & Escalator. The remaining 20% will be held by Fujis current management. The agreement includes an option for KONE to increase its shareholding to 100% at a later date. Execution of the joint-venture agreement will follow approval by the appropriate authorities. Fuji Lift & Escalator annually delivers almost 500 units to customers in Malaysia and overseas, and maintains approximately 1,400 elevators and escalators in Malaysia. KONE CHOOSES AT&T: As part of its ongoing information-technology (IT) project, KONE has selected AT&T to provide a global network. The consolidated network is designed to provide for voice and data transmission, and can prioritize different types of data. The AT&T Internet Protocol Virtual Private Network incorporates the latest multi-protocol label-switching technology. KONEs global IT unit is located in Brussels, Belgium. ESCALATOR INSTALLATION FATALITY: The Australian Broadcasting Corp. recently reported that a man died as a result of injuries sustained while he was installing and testing an escalator in Adelaide, South Australia. He reportedly became entangled in the mechanisms. The coroner and workplace services are investigating the incident. ELEVATOR DEVELOPED TO AUTOMATICALLY START AFTER QUAKE: The Nihon Keizai Shimbun recently reported that Mitsubishi Electric Corp. had developed a new elevator that would automatically restart 30 minutes after it was put out of service by an earthquake. Before restarting, sensors would test critical components of the elevator system, and if no damage or other problems were found, the elevator would return to service. The restart would eliminate the need for a mechanic to physically visit each unit to get it back in operation. First unit are due in October 2006. Page 3 The independent judge brought all the way from Amberley has considered all entries and made her final decision as to which lift calendar adorns her wall for 2006. KONE has been strong for the last few years but at last the global economy has had a look-in and the magnificent SCHINDLER Mountain panoramas takes pride of place. KONE NEWSFLASH 01/2006: Changes are underway I understand in Wellington to improve overall service delivery and customer communication. The team at KONE have carried out some organisational changes with responsibilities as follows:Russell Appleton - Service and New Installation. 021 395 416 Haidee Hemsley - Service Contracts and Customer Communications. 021 512 619 Marc Geerlings - Upgrades and Modernisation. 021 512 620 Phillippa Ashton (Pip) ­ Branch Administrator. Office: 04 381 4330 Fault Calls: 04 385 1812 ( l-r ) Pip, do you think you could encourage Rus to smile next time . . . PS. If other branches would like to send a photo of their teams throughout NZ, LEC would gratefully publish them. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Russel Appleton ­ Branch Manager Haidee Hemsley Marc Geerlings January 2006 Issue 83 Chinese symbols on signs giving away Guangzhous association to China. A few blocks and we enter the tree line boulevard leading to the monument and memorial hall dedicated to the memory of the 1911 revolution and nationalist Dr Sun Yatsen. Growing up in the 50s and 60s meant all these names like Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedung, Deng Xiaoping and events of Chinas modern history through the early `Long Walks of the Communists, to the Japanese invasions, and finally in 1949 to when The Peoples Republic of China under Mao Zedong came to be. An approximate 40km trip S/E brought us to the beautiful Panyu countryside and the Lotus Mountain, site of rustic Buddhist temples and delicate Pagoda, and a unique 200 year old Ming Dynasty stone quarry. Today spectacular high cliffs of the quarry have been restored into a picturesque and A GLIMPSE OF CHINA IN 2005: Another early start from Shenzhen railway station, only this time we were to take the High Speed train to Gaungzhou, in Guangdong or Canton Province. This is historically well known to be the major gateway to China through the mighty Pearl River, and home to the nationalist who lead China out of the era of the Dynasty; Dr Sun Yatsen. With just under 7 million inhabitants, Guangzhou dates back to 200BC and is one of the most prosperous of Chinese cities. This has evolved, due mainly to it being on the main sea pathway into greater China, during the era of European expansion into the Pacific. It resulted in the establishment of the Portuguese port of Macau in the 16th century, and the British attempt to colonise China beginning in the 17th century, and finally leasing Hong Kong up until the end of the 21st century. Although supposedly not rated as the greatest area for tourists, we found the small coach tour around the sights in the area a great way to maximise our 2 day overnight visit to Guangzhou. Mid 30s and muggy is the forecast as we depart our airconditioned train and climb aboard the waiting minivan. We say farewell to Linda who returns to Shenzhen and Hi to Joanna who will be with us until we return to Hong Kong tomorrow night. Once again I feel I could be in any western city, traffic is morning busy, vehicles predominately look the same, with initially only the YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY peaceful garden that over looks the mighty Pearl River. An afternoon of tranquillity and majesty reflects this beautiful area, but it had to end and so few words can ever capture it. But a taste it is and so we raced back across this spectacular delta to the mighty Pearl, arriving early evening to the equally majestic White Swan Hotel, with its gold taps and exquisite food. Ed Page 4     ");
array_files[22]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax82.pdf","2006-06-28","346K"," NZLFAX82.PDF    ","","","November 2005 Issue 82 EDITORIAL. MCE in Town: Motion Control Engineering paid a visit showing an interest in expanding their Australasian and New Zealand market this month. Schindlers second entry into the NZ market saw some of the first MCE controllers brought into our local market through big Jim Stirling in the early 90s, and although well received for its performance and reliability, we saw Schindlers Johnny Lockes local ULP controller and PDL drive provide similar performance & reliability to take over this role. MCE sees itself as a product supplier rather than a proprietary package supplier of lift equipment, providing drive and control solutions and engineering backup not aligned with any particular proprietary company. Its emphasis is on open solutions ensuring training and support to any service provider maintaining its equipment. This has become an issue in the NZ market where the major manufacturers seem to only play lip service to technically assisting building managers where they dont have a service maintenance contract with them. This, along with an increasing complexity in the technology, and restricted access to proprietary fault diagnostic tools playing a more significant role in maintenance contracts, the MCE solution may look inviting to some large portfolio property managers. Further detail on MCE products can be found on their web-site www.mceinc.com. Ph: +61 3 9555 9655 Or Barry Crooks - Power Voice Data - Mobile +61 419 873 363 www.powervoicedata.com.au. Ed The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH JUST WHEN YOU THINK THE DOORS SHUT: If you are not asking why yet, then the effect of globalisation on your local industry has just about removed its heart ­ the people. We say auvoir to two more Northern leaders of our industryRoger Tringham - Schindler Wellington ­ Roger is to take over Fraser Clarkes old position at NDY. Neil Trotter ­ Schindler ­ We may not have lost Neil, just strengthened our experienced lift Consulting base in Hamilton I understand. Maybe these changes will see some good, in enabling sound independent industry experience to be available to the inspection side of the industry, following its decimation under the Building Act. DISABLED ACCESSIBLE APARTMENTS! The Building Act 2004 section 118(1) defines the buildings that must be accessible for people with disabilities. The exceptions are: private houses, private apartments and small industrial buildings. The question I always get asked is: Does the lift in the Apartment Building need to be suitable for use by the disabled. The answer is YES. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY XMAS CALENDER COMPETITION HOT: The lift industry calendar entries this year are magnificent with a new submitter from Phoenix Elevators Ltd raising the stakes with some beautiful NZ Scenes. Aunty will be excited, I hope at Xmas dinner it is not all too much to make a decision this year. THE JUDGE MOBILITY FOR INDEPENDENCE LTD: Robert Berger Managing Director - Mobility for Independence Ltd 51a Hibiscus Coast Highway, Silverdale, Auckland New Zealand National Phone 09 421 0086 International Phone 0064 9 421 0086 National Fax 09 421 0087 International Fax 0064 9 421 0087 The web site address is www.mobility.co.nz Page 1 November 2005 T.L.JONES APPOINTMENT IN INDIA: Dinesh Musalekar has joined elevatordoor safety specialist TL Jones as Technical Sales Manager at the recently opened TL Jones India Pvt Ltd facility in Mumbai. He will be responsible for all sales and marketing operations and technical engineering activity relating to TL Jones business in India. Beginning his career in marketing positions, Dinesh has worked in a range of sales, engineering, marketing and project management roles across the computer hardware, scientific equipment and elevator industries. He was most recently in charge of a modernisation programme for the Western States for OTIS Elevators Company India Ltd. We are delighted at Dineshs appointment and to have Dinesh heading our India operations, remarked Chris Stoelhorst, TL Jones Managing Director. Dinesh draws on more than 10 years experience in senior sales and engineering roles in the elevator industry, and both our present and future customers in India will benefit enormously from his extensive knowledge. Dinesh graduated with a B. Eng. in Electronics and Communications from Karnataka University and completed post-graduate studies in Management at Mumbai University. Issue 82 INDUSTRY CONTACTS UPDATE: Electronic & Electrical Technologies Ltd Lift maintenance, Modernisation & Repairs Contact: Chris Brake P.O Box 101 426 North Shore Mail Center Auckland Ph: 09 444 4038 fax: 09 444 9501 email: enquiries@eet.co.nz www.eet.co.nz Fire Security Services Ltd Fire Engineering Services Wellington Regional Manager Contact: Fraser Clark 027 480 7015 Ph: email 04 589 0758 fraserc@firesecurity.co.nz fax: 04 589 0783 Instant Access Ltd Electronic and Electrical Controls Contact: Gavin Pollard 0274 467 617 P.O Box 33 032 Petone 66 Waione Street, Petone Wellington Ph: email Web 04 589 1244 fax: gplllard@instaccess.com.au www.instaccess.com.au 04 589 1344 MICROSCAN D RANGE SEALED TO IP65: As a result of enhancing the ingress protection of its Microscan range of elevator door protection systems, TL Jones has reported that incidents of water-induced failure of its products have now been virtually eliminated. The Microscan D series has an IP65 rating, meaning that its transmitter and receiver units offer complete protection against entry of dust and protection against low-pressure water jets from all directions. The electronics of many of the elevator door protection devices currently available are liable to suffer damage should they become exposed to water. Such water damage is generally caused by building maintenance staff when mopping or polishing elevator cars or entrance hall floors. The slide-in lens design of these units, coupled with the requirement that their lens be removable to facilitate installation, precludes a practical waterproofing solution. Andy Price, TL Jones Sales Manager for the Pacific Region, comments: The TL Jones Microscan D range has achieved its IP65 rating through a combination of special over-moulding processes for the cable entries and the use of innovative gaskets to secure the end caps. Similarly, the aluminium and polycarbonate extrusions have been designed to ensure the highest possible level of sealing while still allowing ease of manufacture and assembly. Contact: chris.stoelhorst@tljones.com www.tljones.com YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Hi-Spec Elevator & Electrical Services Ltd Lift Installation and Registered Electrical Services. Contact: Ian Soult 467 Halswell Road, Halswell Christchurch. Ph: email Mobile 021 101 8952 hi-spec@ihug.co.nz Hm: 03 322 8349 Tech Elevator Co Ltd Lift Installation Services: Contact: Kim Pedersen 69 Niven Street P.O Box 869 Napier Ph: email 06 843 6010 fax: 06 843 6013 pedersenmills@exra.co.nz Well experienced Otis service technician with 15 years in Christchurch, and as General M anager in PNG. Company set up in 1999 expanding from service work to manufacturing water hydraulic platform lifts - scissor lifts - service lifts both dumb waiter and domestic and short rise wheelchair lifts. Manufacturing control systems and CAD design. Agent for IGV hydraulics and Acorn Stair lifts. Page 2 November 2005 A GLIMPSE AT CHINA JUNE 2005: This part of the story began early morning at the Hongkong Railway station in Kowloon. Two Aussies from Surfers joined us to complete our 3 day venture back into mainland China via the Kowloon-Canton Railway through the New Territories. Entering China at Shenzhen Issue 82 heart in this city, of sleaze and the unwanted beggars, of crime increases and pollution. To us it was another metropolis, but there were the few unique oases. The tranquillity of the Chinese water features, the controlled but honest toil of the manual labourer in the garden, the spirit is not dead yet, but will Shenzhens young leaders rise to the occasion, or will their thirst for the Western utopia succumb to the creeping coldness of the southern dragon, not experienced in the warmth of the people of Beijing. The commercial draw of the Luo hu Shopping Plaza is renown to the cash ready tourist. With its hugh range of goods it is the heatbeat of tourist Shenzhen. The real China is sold as only an hour or so train ride from Hong Kong. But then where is the real heart? It is difficult to find. You may find it at Splendid China where the highly choreographed spectacular early evening musical extravaganza is a worthy experience. Or the China Folk Culture Village is a beautiful way to feel the diversity of the 24 ethnic minorities in China, through wandering the beautifully laid out models of their villages. The two Aussies didnt have a Visa arranged but could easily arrange one; (100yuan), for the few day visit to Shenzhen and Guangzhou in the SE Province of Guangdong (Canton). The temperature was 28 and rising and it was to take about an hour, so while we waited we slipped into air conditioned comfort, and gorged ourselves on a whole new taste of China through coffee at a local breakfast bar. Very `McD like! It was difficult to tell who was the most interested! Us in the morning breakfast crowd, or the morning breakfast patrons in us! Interestingly it felt a little cooler when I took a photo. Free at last, as the temperature moved into the 30s we emerged into the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, which only some 20 or so years earlier had been no more than a sleepy fishing village, but now, Wow! Well over a million and climbing through money poured in to compete with Hong Kong on its Eastern boundary, and competing it is. A Young and vibrant architecture, the results of a rampant expansion in infrastructure development and business power is intertwined with freeways, and crass commercialism to obliterate the storybook China in concrete and steel. Shenzhen or Auckland, its hard to tell, the influence is the same. There is talk of a dying YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY A Jade boat adorned the foyer of the Hotel and some models of imperialist Brittans square rigger era in China seep some history to you, but maybe more exploration is necessary, and we havent the time with only a taste.! Page 3 November 2005 2006 ­ WHAT SHOULD WE FOCUS ON: It has been an interesting year, with the main issue confronting the lift industry other than the bottom line, being the impact of the 2004 Building Act. Ive sat back and waited, and waited to see the real issues of lift Consent compliance begin to be addressed. But nothing! A whole year added to the preceding 11 and absolutely nothing! Ziltch!. Amendments to the Act were hastily posted to carry over the inept North Island IQP registration structure and Building Certifiers were treated as kicking bags because the DBH couldnt get their head around the insurance issue. And still cant. The DHB wallowing in leaky buildings had to face the might of the Territorial Authorities, who were ensuring they didnt end up in a similar position to the BCs, following an abysmal record of in-consistent administration of the 1991 Building Act process throughout the country, over the preceding 11 years or so. And all this time the people that are the building industry in New Zealand seem to be given a voice, but not listened to. The bureaucratic solution seems to focus on cleaning the slate, consolidating the control through proposing a reaccreditation and re-qualification regime for all. Appeasing the establishments of Professional Association and Consultancies seems to prevail, with a seemingly confused concern over dissention brought about by frustration over consistently not demonstrating any understanding of the relevant issues. But 2005 is nearly gone and 2006 is before us, so let us leave these issues to die in the hope that working together with a little more respect for specific trade experience, rather than solely on academic qualification, will see better progress made. Although most opinion has probably been given, we are on the verge of seeing the present disorganised lift industry certification process become the status quo, or reengineered by Consultants that in New Zealand have little to no experience of the industry. 1.0 Lift Inspector Certification Structure in NZ. 2.0 Issue 82 Lift Inspection Consent Process for NZ: At present it is disjointed, inconsistent and non-existent is some cases. The lift industry is well situated to provide a single, efficient and auditable process for consistent inspection in New Zealand, but firstly it requires approval of a single check list process to be adopted by all BCAs to use whenever they receive a Building Consent application to ensure consistent results. Secondly, it requires a body of industry recognised and respected lift inspectors, competent to carry out a consistent testing and inspection of all first time and upgraded installations. And thirdly to retain consistency through the Compliance Schedule process, it requires a single internet accessible data-base record for all D2 installation that includes:? A categorised base specification (lift particulars). ? A recommended frequency of service. ? Identification of the pertinent IQP check list or manufacturers recommended check list. ? The manufacturer and service provider details. ? BCA records and Building Compliance Schedule location. These details would need to be forwarded by the BCA as part of the final Consent Compliance record process directly to the DHB central DB. 3.0 Annual Licensed Building Practitioner Process: A single accessible centralised LBP registration body needs to be in place that administers a categorised list of LBPs This needs to be internet accessible and able to source the above lift Consent data at any time, anywhere to provide D2 LBPs with accurate, up to-date data on all building lift systems requiring inspection. This data base should also provide an accurate, accessible industry resource for historical and statistical purposes, long lost since introduction of the Building Act 1991. 4.0 And Last But Not Least, A Viable Association. We begin with a need for confirmation of the only structured peer reviewed certification body in NZ, the CBIP / AINDT testing and certifying structure. To ensure this is still relevant under the new Building Act, a re-confirmation of the exam and certificate process needs to be reviewed by the lift industry representatives, and finally proposed to the DBH, for acceptance as a suitable lift inspection certification process. This is up to the lift industry. With these changes to the certification structure in NZ, it is critical that the NZLEA become a proactive and representative body of the complete industry, to provide leadership, assist with the industry record and to provide a communication and experienced resource for all who put their hand up to wish to work within this industry. The occasional industry representative lobbying of the DHB may also not astray, rather than just have to berate them in print as a frustrated industry concerned individual, that I feel I just have to do. Ed. Page 4 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[23]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax81.pdf","2006-06-28","297K"," NZLFAX81.PDF    ","","","September 2005 Issue 81 EDITORIAL. The BA 12a Debacle Continues: Following the article in the July issue regarding Compliance Schedules and Lift Maintenance, the NZ Lift and Escalator Association wrote to the DBH Process Design and Compliance Manager Mark Scully, to request a clarification as to whether or not the Building Act 2004 required Lift Maintenance people to be D2 IQP registered as being suggested in ignorance by some TAs and Independent Inspection bodies. The response was clear, It; being the Building Act, was not intended that a person had to be a registered IQP to undertake maintenance on a lift. As pointed out previously, lift maintenance is carried out by a lift industry service provider contracted to a Building Owner and has nothing to do with Governance of the Building Industry. The WOF process provides the means of auditable Governance of the specific specified system feature by combining expertise and responsibility into one person who signs the BA12a, the registered IQP. Not a representative of the company who services the equipment, not the `One Stop Shop corporate inspection body who administer the properties compliance, but the IQP who carries out the CS requirement. But still the word maintenance dominates the minds of some, or is it the pockets. Those who dont mind being registered to tout their skills, but prefer to steer well clear of responsibility. And so this debacle will continue until the DBH, as with the BIA, update C8 in the Handbook and the Act, so the words regarding `maintenance more clearly reflect the intent of the Act, rather than an ill-informed interpretation of the words. Ed The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH QUICK! SHUT THE DOOR: The procession continues as we seemingly flush those with years of experience down the gurgler. Is it just the changing of the guard, a reflection of a changing management espousing new directions, or old heads losing the will to be managed? This past couple of months we say farewell to:John Moore ­ Operations Mgr ­ Otis Wellington. Gavin Pollard ­ Operations Mgr ­ Kone Wellington. 30+yrs Mike Flannagan ­ Technical Mgr ­ Schindler ChCh. 40+yrs FRAZER CLARK DEPARTS NDY WELLINGTON: Its 5 years since Frazer Clark moved out of the industry as KONE Wellington Branch Manager and over to Engineering Consultants Norman Disney Young. But now the lure of new challenges will see him start with Fire security Services on Monday 17th October as their Wellington Regional Manager. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY CBIP EXAMS UNDERWAY: The week starting the 10th October saw some lift CBIP examinations held throughout NZ under the organization of the new AINDT (Australian Institute for Non-Destructive Testing) structure. A few hiccups resulted with changing venues; Yes it was me that held up the start of the Wednesday Morning Exams, turning up at the main ChCh Polytech building instead of a couple of Kms away at the Engineering campus. Lyall Senior (Lift Solutions Ltd), John Phillips and Mike Rogers (Plant and Building Services Ltd) were on time, and by the banter after the exam, all seemed happy with only a couple of the questions; like the minimum distance between handrails on side by side escalators, hard to find. For those contemplating this certification, make sure you have got up-todate copies of NZS4332, EN81 1&2, EN115 and a copy of D2 of the NZ Building Act. For a two hour exam, most seemed to get through in 90min, with 30min to search for a few answers they found difficult to find. Page 1 September 2005 BA 12a PROCESS ABUSE CHALLENGED: With the Building Act new 12a form being issued by the Department of Building & Housing (DBH) to bring more consistency into annual IQP WOF documentation, and with Building Compliance Authorities (TAs) being much more proactive in following up this documentation under the 2004 Act, we have seen an upsurge in peoples awareness as to the Compliance Schedule process, and subsequently misinterpretations arising. I alluded to these misconceptions in the July issue seeing some TAs and independent inspectors requiring Lift Maintenance companies to be IQP registered and sign off the 12a forms to confirm maintenance had been carried out. It has been necessary to point out that the Compliance Schedule is a means of audit, and not of certification, and that the experience of the IQP is used to confirm that a consented installation has remained compliant over the following year. The responsibility given to the individual IQP by the BCA under the Building Act, is to confirm that the requirements of the Building Compliance Schedule have been met, no more, no less. In the case of D2, by ensuring any specified checks are completed; that appropriate maintenance is being carried out, and that suitable documentation is in place on site. This cannot be achieved by simply sitting in an office and signing the 12a, IQP registered or not, as it is not the intention of the Act that anyone else can sign a 12a, other than the registered IQP who completes the inspection and is competent to confirm the status of the installation at that date. Also, as indicated in the July article, the Building Act does not require a lift maintenance person or company to become IQP registered, simply to sign off the maintenance status of a lift. The NZLEA took this on board after hearing of a BCA officer requiring local Lift Maintenance Personnel or Companies to be registered IQPs, so that they could issue 12a forms. They subsequently wrote to the Manager, Process Design and Compliance, Mark Scully, asking for clarification of the DBHs understanding in this area. Mark Scully wrote in response:In summary then, until November 2009: o An IQP is approved by a Territorial Authority as a person being qualified to carry out the inspection, maintenance, and reporting procedures required for a specified system. A specified system is listed in a Compliance Schedule for a building An IQP for a specified system in a building must issue a Form 12A for that specified system The IQP must confirm that the procedures that are described in the compliance schedule have been adhered to. It was not intended that a person had to be a registered IQP to undertake maintenance on a lift. Issue 81 MORE LIFT SUB-CONTRACTORS IN NZ: NIRVANA SYSTEMS: Bryce Vivian ­ mobile: 021 727 377 O800 727 381 Auckland ELECTRONIC & ELECTRICAL TECHNOLOGY: Chris Brake ­ Ex Schindler. mobile: 027 290 3402 Auckland ELEVATOR CONCEPTS LTD Greg & Shona Newby ­ Ex Otis 09 444 4914 Auckland HI-SPEC ELEVATOR & ELECTRICAL SERVICES Ian Soult. - Ex Schindler Installer ­ Technician. mobile: 021 101 8952 Christchurch INDUSTRY EXPERIENCED: ACTION REWINDS LTD Neil McLean CAD work on contract . . . . . . 09 826 4338 mobile: 025 217 8516 WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ®: INJURIES IN FLORIDA INCREASING: The number of passengers injured while riding elevators and escalators in Florida have reportedly increased 60% since the state switched to private inspections in 2002. The Tallahassee Democrat reported the change increased the number of inspectors from 28 staff inspectors to more than 200 private inspectors, which has reduced the backlog of inspections, although nearly one third of the units in the state do not have a certificate indicating they had been inspected in the last year as required. A state official who oversees the Bureau of Elevator Safety noted there were 42,731 elevators and escalators in Florida at the end of the last fiscal year, a 20% increase from 2000-2001. He also attributed the rise in reported accidents in part to increased awareness and more people involved in the process. AIRSPACE WAIVER RECEIVED FOR SE LIFTER TESTING: LiftPort Group, a space elevator (SE) company, has received a waiver from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to use airspace to test its robotic lifters, prototypes for ferrying cargo into space through a commercial SE. The tests are set for this fall and will simulate a working SE by launching a model of the elevator cable up to a mile high. The lifters will then be set into place to see how well they travel up the free-hanging ribbon. More information can be found at website: www.liftport.com. o o o o The full letter is provided further in this issue. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 September 2005 DBH RESPONSE TO NZLEA QUERY: 2 September 2005 New Zealand Lift and Escalator Association P O Box 8749 Christchurch Attention: John G Davies. Issue 81 There is nothing in the Building Act 2004 that requires that the IQP for the specified system must physically carry out all the inspection, maintenance, and reporting procedures themselves. The role of the IQP is to confirm that the procedures that are described in the compliance schedule have been adhered to. The Building Code Handbook The Department is aware that some people may be concerned by an apparent contradiction between the Act and the wording in the Building Code Handbook, which under CS 8/1 states that: The above inspection and maintenance procedures shall be undertaken by independent qualified persons When the Handbook was written it was not intended that a person undertaking repair work would be anything other than a competent technician. In the early stages of the Building Industry Commission and the Building Industry Authority, the phrase `independent qualified person was used to denote any person accepted by the Territorial Authority. Over time, the term has evolved to denote a person who has been through a specific Territorial Authority approval process and entered in an IQP register, and who possibly operates as a consultant. Planning is currently underway at the Department to update the Handbook in line with the new Building Act and Regulations. When the new draft is being written, industry groups, including the New Zealand Lift and Escalator Association will be consulted about the proposed content, and changes will be made where required. Dear John, I am writing in response to your letter of 11 August 2005, in which you seek the Departments view on the role and qualification requirements of an IQP inspector as against those of a lift service contractor. In your letter you request that the DBH issue a ruling to define the requirements. The Building Act 2004 does not provide for the Department to issue a ruling on this matter. However, I have outlined below the Departments views on the relevant provisions of the Act and regulations relating to this matter. Approval of IQPs Under the Building Act 2004, section 438(2)(b) an IQP is a person: .... accepted by the (Territorial Authority) as being qualified to carry out the inspection, maintenance, and reporting procedures required for a specified system stated in the compliance schedule. Section 438(4) provides that a Territorial Authority may accept a person as an IQP until 30 November 2009. This means that until November 2009, approval of IQPs is a Territorial Authority function, and should operate in much the same way that it did under the Building Act 1991. Issue of the Form 12A Section 108 of the Building Act requires the building owner to provide a copy of the building warrant of fitness to the Territorial Authority, with certificates (Form 12A) from licensed building practitioners (or IQPs until November 2009) attached. Form 12A must be completed in respect of each specified system that is listed in the Compliance schedule. Specified systems are defined by the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005. Schedule 1 of these Regulations contains a list of specified systems, including: Lifts, escalators, travelators, or other systems for moving people or goods within buildings Until November 2009 an IQP for a specified system in a building must issue a Form 12A for that system. The Form 12A contains the declaration that: The inspection, maintenance and reporting procedures of the compliance schedule have been fully complied with during the previous 12 months YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY In summary then, until November 2009: o An IQP is approved by a Territorial Authority as a person being qualified to carry out the inspection, maintenance, and reporting procedures required for a specified system. A specified system is listed in a Compliance Schedule for a building An IQP for a specified system in a building must issue a Form 12A for that specified system The IQP must confirm that the procedures that are described in the compliance schedule have been adhered to. It was not intended that a person had to be a registered IQP to undertake maintenance on a lift. o o o o Yours sincerely, Mark Scully Manager, Process design and Compliance Page 3 September 2005 A GLIMPSE AT CHINA - JUNE 2005: Following the Elevcon Asia 2005 Conference in Beijing, there was only one full day left before sadly having to head on to Taiwan. But thank to Jasper, my email China.COM personal guiding light and his delightful English speaking guides, we were able to arrange a slightly cooler heat -hazed morning at a section of the awe-inspiring - roughly 2000 year old Great Wall of China. Rising some 1000 meters and 70kms from Beijing, the Badaling section of the wall is tourist accessible after providing hundreds of years of protection to the Chinese Dynasties from the marauding Mongol tourists of the N/W. 8:30am and it is already 30 deg and climbing as we head north east along the latest 6 lane freeways that firstly disperses us into the wide avenue bonkity-bonk concrete slab roads reminiscent of the US, and finally onto the narrower ­ windy - variable pavement country roads that lead up to Badaling. It takes approximately one and a half hours passing a multitude of empty walled farms, dusty villages, small enterprises and silently deteriorating factory buildings that all seems to have been sucked dry of any significant number of people, before we make the final winding climb up to this awakening tourist mecca. Out of the 8 seat air-conditioned van, the hot air carries a mix of fair and livestock aromas to flood the nostrils. As we prepare our cameras and water bottles the first touts close in, and distract us from the towering wall above the few buildings that form the base of a lower section, and, inhibit any further sight of the ramparts we saw on the route up. I peer up through the haze as we begin our climb only to see round birdcage like structures mounted on poles dotted along the walk about 5 meters above the ground. Upon closer inspection I realise in each one Im looking at a brown bear secured inside its cage an exposed to the growing heat of the day. I didnt bother bringing them to the attention of my wife, who Im sure would have let out an indignant scream of western sensitivity. True to the Disneyland influence, we climb aboard a continuous chain, light rail guided carriage which you straddle like a donkey, and on which a safety rail lowers to hold you on, and then slowly carries you through tunnel and oer precipice up to the start of the main access to the Great Wall. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 81 With an I Walked the Wall of China hat firmly ensconced on my head, much smiling and buyaos (no thanks) later, we pass the point of restricted tout access and begin our climb upon this wonder. As we rise the sleepy morning heat haze lessens a little to altitude and as the grey-yellows of the surround take on a deepening blue, the massive Tan stone walls emerge to gradually dominate the present as we climb. I didnt count the steps, but it is probably a kilometre to the highest step after passing along ramparts and parapet. Interestingly, near the top I received a cellphone call from Tony K a lift supplier in NZ, and so I just had to stop him short in his query, and ask him where he thought I was situated. Understandably it took a moment to register that I wasnt winter sunning myself in my ChCh office, but experiencing one of the worlds wonders. Then I hear Tony inform those in immediate hearing distance in the office, Guess wot? Bloody Bob Johnstons on the Great Wall of China! It was hard to remove yourself from the puffing and panting crowd, but at one stage I just wanted to be alone, to stare out from the parapet and imagine Genghis Khan moving up the valley from the North. I read it was Genghis who said,:- The strength of the wall depends on the courage of those who defend it. The reality was that the post card views, the stale smell of old urine in the guards quarters, the various means of mechanical access, and the restorations to the wall made it impossible to feel the unique history of this majestic shrine to the many that had for over 2000 years, also past this way before. But then again, I had the hat and this memory . . . . . . . ! Ed. Page 4     ");
array_files[24]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax80.pdf","2006-06-28","167K"," NZLFAX80.PDF    ","","","July 2005 Issue 80 EDITORIAL. And yet another well respected NZ lift industry manager hands in his notice. Neil Trotter Schindler Hamilton Area Manager is the latest. The attrition rate over the past years in this industry is extraordinary compared to past decades. It seems that if you are well experienced in this industry and not myopically fiscally focussed, youre dispensable. Then again at the other end of the spectrum, a local lift company cannot seem to be able to put a workforce together to complete a lift modernisation without delay after delay caused through an inability to allocate skilled labour resources. The reasons for this that I am nearly always given, relate to the introduction of the Contract Act in NZ; the globalisation of the local lift industry, and a resultant excessive focus on company fiscal management. All result in the continued abuse of the local skilled labour resource. The Contract Act continued the demise of apprenticeships and any corporate responsibility toward the labour resource in this cyclic building industry, which has moved to reliance on sub-contracting using a diminishing and ageing skilled labour resource. The globalisation of management structures has seen the continued replacement of industry experienced management with fiscal controllers, number crunchers who have a role to play, but not to apply their skill to direct every facet of the management process. The result is the subjugation of management to a single ideal, profit at any means, even to the detriment of the individual spirit, to conform rather than partake. No wonder those who were this industry are dispirited. Ed The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH KONES OVERSIGHT - SCHINDLERS GAIN: For all those who rang to let me know Grace Weslowski had moved to Schindler, thank you! She has been an inspiration to all those at KONE and will be surely missed. I caught up with Grace the other day to hear that sparkle in her voice had not gone, regrets at leaving a team, yes, but now a whole new environment brings with it the opportunity to move on to a new challenge. My main concern was that we might lose her from the lift industry, but thankfully no, her love for the industry won over, and Schindler is the lucky recipient. IAEE CONFERENCE BEIJING - A RESOUNDING SUCCESS: 129 registered attendees and 24 Exhibitor staff from a wide variety of mainly Asian and European countries provided another whirlwind lift engineering June conference in Beijing. It was packed into 9 sessions presenting 28 papers, a workshop, a site visit, an IFEX seminar, and a fascinating Peking Duck Banquet put on by Savera in Beijing. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY OTIS EXPANDS ITS CHCH SALES: Charles Kelly has reinforced Otis new sales, maintenance sales and small repair jobbing since he joined them on June 14th 2005. This acquisition enhances the team of Debbi Wilson and experience of Peter Loader to provide a strong sales base for the South Island. Charles comes from a background of 4 years of local cash-point sales, after being London based around 5 years and spending a year in Aussie. From a mid 1800s Irish Taranaki pedigree, Charles assures me he knows of no relations from that era named Ned from across the ditch in Eastern Victoria! RAY WILSON WORKING FULL TIME WITH KONE: Ray, who has been sub-contracting throughout the South Island for Otis & Kone over the past few years, has settled in with Alex Denniston and Trevor Field at KONE in Dunedin this year. If adding up the years of experience of these three, you would probably be well on your way to 3/4s of a century, and they all can tell a good story . . . Page 1 July 2005 A GLIMPSE AT CHINA - JUNE 2005: The Elevcon Asia 2005 IAEE Conference held in Beijing over the 7th 9th of June, gave my wife Jan and I the opportunity to get a taste of the new China. To visit China, still today you have to enter through that fabulous gateway and Lifties delight, the Chinese district of Hong Kong. With a relative small land area it seems to cram every experience you can have in this world within walking distance. We arrived at the new Chep Lap Kok island airport early morning, but instead of flying straight to Beijing we caught the new TurboJet Sea Express ferry straight into Mainland China through Shenzhen. This cost NZ40 each. From Shenzhen to Beijing is a domestic flight and only cost just over NZ200 each, a savings of around NZ500 if we had flown straight to Beijing. This Chaoyang Park Prince Jun Hotel Garden is China, a land of contrast where you can pay NZ210 a night at the Hilton, or experience the delight of the traditional Beijing Prince Jnr Hotel for NZ67 / night. While I attended the Conference, my son Kelvin flew in from Taiwan to join his Mum in exploring Beijing, and explore they did. Starting in the old Hutong District, the Lama Temple and Tiananmen Square, with Kelvin now fluent in Mandarin, they were able to use local transport to get around the many markets and magnificent buildings of Beijing. The Chinese of Beijing have a welcoming character, and if you have a good grasp of Nee Hau, or good day, it brings wide smiles. They found the locals were first shocked and then delighted when Kelvin conversed with them. The temperatures this time of year YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 80 were around the 30s, and everyone seemed to take to the streets in the balmy nights to walk and participate in friendly activity. The single child policy was noticable as mum and dad grandma and grandpa all fussed over the little emperor. Interestingly, where two children from single parent families wed, they can have 2 offspring. Beijing is a city of great contrast, with parts of the city reflective of the days of the Emperors, the outer suburbs reflective of the communal society being laid to waste, and the explosion of roads and subways of an emerging modern consumer society. Using the Taxi was interesting, my daily trips of about 3kms ranged in cost from 17 to 30 RMB, although the variation mainly had to do with communication. The tricks I eventually learnt were; Collect Hotel cards with the address on to show your Taxi driver unless you speak Chinese. Always get a receipt in case you leave a camera or like in the cab, as the cab companies have English speaking personnel, and although receipts are written in Chinese characters, all details of your ride and driver are on the receipt. Tall buildings in Beijing seem to be mainly Hotels and apartment, but much change is happening for the 2008 Olympics. Well I will probably have to leave you there for the moment, but I cannot go without giving you a taste of one of the worlds wonders, about one hours drive from downtown Beijing . . The Great Wall of China at Badaling. Page 2 July 2005 WHO ARE LIFT SUBCONTRACTING IN NZ? These are some of those people who have been subcontracting their experience in installing or upgrading lifts in New Zealand. Some have formed companies but most work singularly or through agreement. They are becoming the backbone of what is left of the industries installation skills in New Zealand as the new breed of computer designed imported packaged lift is virtually plug together and turn the switch on. (Not on this list or no longer practising - Contact Bob Johnston) ELEWORKS Consulting Ltd. Scott Hemsley - scott@eleworks.co.nz 021 417 593 WELLINGTON ELEVATOR TORQUE Nick Tonkin WELLINGTON ITL LIFTS Cory Barton 021 485 700 CHRISTCHURCH ELEVATOR INSTALLATIONS NZ LTD JIM TOSLAND Toejam@elevators.co.nz 04 383 7163 Mobile: 0274 466 933 WELLINGTON LEAMS LIFTS Steve Gilbert 09 833 9902 AUCKLAND PETER LILLYMAN 0274 769 279 TOTAL TECH SERVICES ?? Steve Cox - totaltech@xtra.co.nz 03 441 3511 021 221 8877 QUEENSTOWN Issue 80 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES & LIFT MAINTENANCE: I have been fielding calls from lift companies being asked by building owners agents stating that they have to be IQP registered to carry out lift maintenance of a lift and have to sign the 12(a) form to verify that maintenance has been completed. Lets be clear, this interpretation that lift maintenance companies have anything more to do other than to provide lift maintenance services as contracted to building owners, is wrong. Both the Building Act 1991 and 2004 identifies the Territorial Authority registered D2 - IQP (LBP), as the only person responsible to complete Building Compliance Schedule required lift inspections; to provide confirmation of maintenance being competently carried out, and to provide a statement confirming this now via the 12a form. The only requirement on the lift service-company is to be competent and to keep a suitable record of maintenance provided for the building owner. Yes a D2 IQP needs to be competent in lift maintenance practices of the equipment he is inspecting so that he can confirm maintenance is being suitably carried out and documented. At present, determining this competency is still the responsibility of the Territorial Authority when registering IQPs in their areas. Not to do with the Building Act, but to maintain safe industry practice and contractual agreement between Lift Companies and Building Owners, all annual WOF inspection by IQPs not employed directly by companies providing maintenance services for the building, should have the maintenance representative on site during any Annual WOF inspection and testing of equipment. This is not be as critical for non-enclosed, under 0.05m/sec equipment such as platform lifts. There are some Lift companies due to demand and cost effectiveness providing IQP services for their clients, but the appointed employees should be independent to the company in-field services; be well experienced, complete the same WOF process, and be as accountable as any other independent IQP. Lets make this 2nd go at the Building Act work efficiently, not get bogged down in unworkable misconceptions. If Jim Tosland doesnt get back to me with updates from the North Island, This space will await his response till next issue. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 July 2005 FORMAL QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING OF LIFTS IN NZ: There is none! As I have repeatedly said to a seemingly deaf audience, since introduction of the Building Act into NZ in 1991, the only clear process associated with testing of lifts since the demise of the MOT statutory regulatory structure, has been the annual D2 Compliance Schedule WOF inspection overseen at the whim of each of the many Territorial Authorities (TAs). Yes the Consent Process supposedly ensured a safe lift installation, but without an auditable processes for inspecting or testing new lifts, and no suitable IQP registration requirement, once again it was left to the whim of each TA to notice the need for compliance, and in some cases just a Producer Statement sufficed. Initially in NZ, past MOT Marine Division field inspectors were deemed as qualified CBIP lift inspectors to fill the gap created by the 1991 Building Act, but privatisation diminished their ranks and any qualification became hazed, with North Island TAs accepting people even without a CBIP qualification. This has resulted in general inspection bodies, even with minimal lift testing experience emerging. A few ex-lift industry employees and industry experience Consultants took up the CBIP qualification and stepped into the gap, and some lift companies even put employees through the CBIP process under the South Island IQP registration process to ensure Annual WOF services were available to their client building owners. As the only D2 Building Certifier over the past 12 years, I was appalled at the inconsistency of documentation and oversight of process being accepted by TAs in NZ. With the introduction of the 2004 Building Act we have seen the attempts at standardising Compliance Schedules by the Department of Building & Housing (DBH) so that processes become more consistent and relevant throughout NZ. But in reality for D2 Compliance Schedules, it is obvious some TA and inspection Consultants are more interested in confusing the issue by trying to suggest all lift maintenance people need to be IQPs. (see proceeding article) But how does qualification come into all of this? As I began, there is no required qualification in NZ for Lift inspectors, but there has been a need for it since introduction of the Building Act. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Issue 80 Firstly, to identify who is competent to carry out D2 Annual WOFs, and secondly to ensure the more complex commissioning inspection and testing of new equipment for Consent purposes becomes consistent, and so that more suitable and accessible records are maintained. As outlined in page 2 of my May 2005 article, by default the Certification Board for Inspection Personnel (CBIP - part of HERA), has run a Certification structure for Lift Inspectors since the early 90s. The only problem was, is that it was not a requirement to be CBIP registered to be an IQP under the old Act, nor to carry out Consent inspection & testing. Enter the AINDT: The Australian Institute for Non Destructive Testing: www.aindt.com.au HERAs restructuring of CBIP has seen the transfer of administration and certification of lift inspectors in with other NZ wide Non-Destructive Testing inspectors, to further standardise the certification structures through out Australasia and eventually the world. To achieve this, although the CBIP lift inspector panel will still set and supervise exams using selected local assessors throughout NZ such as myself, all administration records, processes and certificate issue will be recorded on the centralise AINDT data base. This month in NZ, the AINDT has held audit officer inductions throughout NZ to begin the process and to gradually integrate NZ into the AINDT system. This step by HERA will retain the present CBIP exam structure, but take the qualification into a JAS-ANZ accredited process that uses the ISO/IEC 17024 international standard for bodies operating certification of persons. I see this as an opportunity for the NZ lift industry to take the first step in attaining a consistent and credible inspection process by ensuring all lift industry employees or industry experienced persons are singularly qualified where taking on inspection roles. This is also an opportunity for the Building Industry Regulatory body; the Department of Building & Housing, to also accept a singular inspector qualification body to bring consistency into the Building Act regulation in NZ. Consistency in inspection results in consistency in process and standard, both are far from ideal in the present regime, and this would be an efficient solution. Page 4     ");
array_files[25]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax79.pdf","2006-06-28","76K"," NZLFAX79.PDF    ","","","May 20005 Issue 79 EDITORIAL. LOYALTY- ONCE A STRONG PART OF THIS INDUSTRY: The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 The Japanese were the epitome of loyalty to the company . . . . in the past! And gradually over my lifetime I have seen the destruction of the security of being loyal in the lift industry, too now where if we are not satisfied, goodbye, Im off! Not that Im suggesting you shed a tear, it was our choice to annihilate it. Not necessarily those least secure who most needed its embracing protection from unemployment, but from those most able to enjoy its fruits, who had achieved positions of responsibility and reward within the organisation. And the higher they rose, the more they demanded it of others, and the less they saw the need to give it to those they oversaw. Loyalty was never something you could expect, it was something you gave. No longer given, no longer received. They dont care so I dont care! So who will care? It seems to me that if we dont care we dont exist, because there is simply no reason too. A simple human trait that is dying if not dead in this industry, and yet I wonder what importance did it play? How important was it to you, were you hurt and devastated when it was not given? Have you broken your link because of your experience? Maybe it is more important than we think! Ed. RON PEREZ SETTLES IN: I think Ron achieves the title of person to feature in the most headlines over the past 6 months. Firstly with Derek Bryson departing Otis and Ron holding the reins, then Ron being enticed to KONE as their Regional Sales Manager, and now in finally being appointed to fill Martin Shepherds position upon his departure. Maybe not as dry as Martin in humour, but he brings a wealth of experience and respect from those he has worked with in the past, so all goes well for an interesting future, and I think I can say, Ron will settle at last. All the best Ron. Footnote: But what of Grace Weslowski who was overseas when this appointment was seemingly agreed. . . . we will just have to wait and see. WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: MARTIN SHEPHERD DEPARTS: Virtually since the Auckland office of Kone Elevators P/L was opened in the mid 80s, Martin Shepherd has been an integral part of its operation, taking on many levels of responsibility over his 17 years with the company. For probably the last decade, Martin has led the NZ operation, but now has decided to take on new challenges with Chubb in their Systems and Service division. This seems to be a growth industry in NZ at present, providing One Stop Shop mechanical service and inspection services to building owners. We wish Martin and family all the best in his new challenge, and Im sure he will still be keeping a close eye on the lift industry in this new job. Be kind to us Martin . . . ! SIMON WARD FILLS IN FOR ROHAN: With Rohan Kelly leaving KONES Christchurch office last month, technician Simon Ward, after a 3 year break following 10 years of maintenance and adjusting at Schindler & Otis in Christchurch, has returned to the industry. Simon joins the present ChCh staff of Alan Wilby and Mike Boydd to provide a formidable team once again. I understand Simon has been working for Carter Hold Harvey in their industrial maintenance division as a sparky. Welcome back Simon. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 1 May 20005 Issue 79 TL JONES AT INFRASTRUCTURE AUST 2005: TL Jones, Australasias leading manufacturer of elevator safety products, will be displaying its Microscan range of door sensors at Infrastructure Australia 2005. Established more than 70 years ago, TL Jones is part of the UK-based Halma Group, world leaders in infrared sensor for lift doors. In addition to its factory in Christchurch, TL Jones has a manufacturing base in China and supplies lift companies in over 50 countries from an extensive network of sales offices, service centres and distributor partners. www.tljones.com When: 28th -20th July Melbourne Australia. Where: Melbourne Exhibition and Convention Center 2 Clarendon Street, Melbourne. www.expotrade.net.au/infra With the nationalising of the LBP structure, the CBIP certification can set suitable levels of consistent industry experience necessary to achieve the varied audit levels critical to meet the local TAs needs in both the Consent design testing, inspection and documenting of D2 equipment, and the Compliance Schedule annual WOF inspections. The DHB needs to recognise the CBIP D2 Lift inspector levels, for the TA to then be able to register CBIP lift inspectors to complete the specific Consent or WOF process in their respective area. 2.0 WHERE TO FROM HERE: THE BUILDING ACT 2004 AND CBIP D2 QUALIFICATION: These thoughts were proposed to the CBIP following issues raised in regard to the proposing of a simple but suitable competency certification structure to meet the industry needs under the Building Act 2004. 1.0 INTRODUCTION: D2 Mechanical Means of Access in NZ covers a wide range of equipment complexity and requires a comparative level of expertise to ensure competent and efficient inspection. The Consent process also has to be clear, consistent, and documented efficiently so that ongoing compliance can be established and maintained. All these areas fell well short under the 1991 Act, mainly because experience didnt play a strong enough role in the compliance process, and the lift industry wasnt encouraged to participate. 3.0 CERTIFICATION EQUIPMENT TYPE RESTRICTIONS: It is understood that the structure that evolved under the 1991 Building Act using the IQP certification process for lift inspections, only singularly detailed the annual WOF process as the experience level necessary for these inspectors. This placed a high reliance on the many Territorial Authorities inexperienced in the lift inspection process, to register inspectors and regulate a process throughout NZ that they were totally unfamiliar with. With no Building Act recognition of the CBIP certification, and removal in 1992 of the centalised MOT inspection process, it was only through foresight by the Timaru based South Island IQP Registration body who recognised the CBIP certification, that some semblance of consistency emerged in the South Island of NZ. Again, with the introduction of the Building Act 2004 and the structuring of the Licenced Building Practitioner (LBP), the CBIP certification has been overlooked as the most suitable industry recognised certification structure, to identify the necessary levels of expertise for the lift inspection process within NZ. YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY By the adoption of speed and escalator restriction, the experience necessary to inspect differing complexities of equipment found in NZ buildings can be catered for, enabling a tiered level of inspector skill to be accommodated. Example types of equipment that fit the restriction categories. Level ONE with endorsement: 0.2 m/sec Level TWO Platform lifts (vertical ) Hand powered lifts. Stair Lifts (Chair & Platform) Inclined Lifts (Cable car ) Special purpose lifts Domestic lifts Service lifts Building Maintenance Units Page 2 Passenger & Goods lifts Escalators Autowalks or Moving Walks May 20005 4.0 CERTIFICATION LEVELS: Issue 79 As proposed, there needs to be singular, clear process confirmed by the DHB and adopted by all TAs in both areas of Consent and annual WOF. This process can be defined by the CBIP Lift Inspector Examination Panel, and approved by the Lift Industry through the NZ Lift & Escalator association (NZLEA) as a functional certification process for the industry. As well, there needs to be acceptance of a single (CBIP) two level certification for D2 Consent and annual WOF, with a building size endorsement to cater for a 2 tier industry equipment complexity level as follows:CBIP Level ONE with speed limit endorsement For equipment 0.2 m/sec in speed. This level is suitable for testing, inspecting and documenting D2 equipment under the Consent and annual WOF process for small less complex equipment. CBIP Level ONE. For all D2 equipment. This level is suitable for inspection and documenting D2 equipment for Annual WOF only. CBIP Level TWO - with escalator restriction endorsement. This level is suitable for testing, inspecting and documenting D2 equipment with the exception of escalators and autowalks for the Consent and annual Annual WOF process. CBIP Level TWO For all D2 equipment. This level is suitable for testing, inspecting and documenting all D2 equipment under the Consent and Annual WOF process. 5.0 COMPETENCIES FOR EACH CERTIFICATION LEVEL: endorsement from a specific lift equipment manufacturer or manufacturers agent pertinent to the application. Provide confirmation from a Level 2 inspector as having commissioned and demonstrated competency in testing of the specific equipment. Pass a written examination demonstrating knowledge of Building Act Consent and WOF processes and documentation. CBIP Level ONE inspector. Meet the eligibility requirements as set out in the CBIP pre examination requirements. Complete a CBIP application including a letter of endorsement from a D2 equipment manufacturer, manufacturers agent or D2 Level 2 lift inspector pertinent to the application. Pass a written examination demonstrating knowledge of NZ Approved Solutions along with Building Act WOFprocesses and documentation. CBIP Level Two with restricted escalator - autowalk endorsement. - 5.2 - - - 5.3 - Meet the eligibility requirements as set out in the CBIP pre examination requirements. Complete a CBIP application including a letter of recommendation from the NZLEA confirming experience and competency at testing lift equipment. Pass a written examination demonstrating a knowledge of NZ Approved Solutions, along with Building Act Consent and WOF processes and documentation. Hold a minimum Electrical Service Techniciana Level B with the Electrical Workers Registration Board. Have a basic knowledge of welding flaws and welding inspection methods. Have completed the Barrier Free course. - - - 5.1 - CBIP Level ONE with restricted speed endorsement 0.2m/sec. - Meet the eligibility requirements as set out in the CBIP pre examination document. Complete a CBIP application including a letter of YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY - - Page 3 May 20005 Issue 79 5.4 - CBIP Level 2. Meet the eligibility requirements as set out in the CBIP pre examination requirements. Complete an CBIP application including a letter of recommendation from the NZLEA confirming experience and competency at testing lifts and escalator/autowalk equipment. Pass a written examination demonstrating a knowledge of NZ Approved Solutions, along with Building Act Consent and WOF processes and documentation.. Hold a minimum Electrical Service Techniciana Level B with the Electrical Workers Registration Board. Have a basic knowledge of welding flaws and welding inspection methods. Have completed the Barrier Free course. BUILDING ACT AUDITS & RECORDS: - To ensure an efficient and useful record, the various equipment providers to the lift industry, need to produce clear guidelines acceptable to the DBH of relevent specifications, testing, and inspection processes necessary to meet the compliance requirements of the Building Act. These processes then need to be adopted nationally for use by all TAs to ensure consistency of process for D2 compliance NZ wide. 7.0 CONCLUSION: - - The solutions are there, the CIBP from its past experience can identify and provide the necessary industry acceptable standard of certification of persons; the lift industry can compile an efficient Consent and WOF process; the DHB can ratify both and can present it to the TAs for acceptance as a common, consistent D2 compliance process for NZ. It is time to act if we are to see a sensible lift compliance solution within the lift industry. If you are concerned then put your experienced view forward to either:CBIP Peter Hayward iqc@hera.org.nz DBH juliet.ashton@dbh.govt.nz CBIP Lift Panel Chairman: Richard Meikeljohn richard.m@xtra.co.nz Lifteye Consultancy bob@lifteye.co.nz DBH RELEASES LICENCE CLASSES PROPOSAL: The proposed licence classes consist of: ? three building design licences based on building complexity. ? three building site supervisor licences based on building complexity. ? six specialist licence classes across all categories of building complexity. ? ? ? Category 1 - straight forward design and construct. Category 2 - complex design and construction. Category 3 - buildings of considerable tech.complexity. - 6.0 The approved solutions adopted for D2 under the BIA are very prescriptive and not specifically designed for a Performance Based code, and so inspection and testing procedures detailed tend not to be specifically relevant to the records necessary for efficient Governance of this whole industry. There are two areas of record necessary for efficient functioning of the Act:the first is an audit trail of documents retained by the TA to confirm design and installation compliance of the equipment during the consent process. C the second is to provide an accessible record of the code under which the unit was given consent, a specification of equipment, and manufacturer approved maintenance and annual inspection check list to enable the TA to produce a useful compliance schedule, and to complete annual WOF inspection too. The second record of the above needs to be easily accessible to all inspectors, and to provide a historical record of all equipment in NZ. This data would preferably be centralised and Internet accessible for access to be efficient at anytime, from anywhere, to be fully useful. C YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Lifts will come under broader highly specialised category that incorporates restricted work that will be supervised and signed off by the building site supervisor who will take all reasonable steps to ensure the work is undertaken by competent practitioners. Where the work involves an engineering solution, the work will be supervised and signed off by the design engineers. For more details visit the Occupational Licensing page on the DHB website: www.building.govt.nz Page 4     ");
array_files[26]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax78.pdf","2006-06-28","551K"," NZLFAX78.PDF    ","","","March 20005 Issue 78 EDITORIAL. BRANZ 2004 BUILDING ACT SEMINAR: · All new Consent applications will have their processes scrutinised more closely regarding document and inspection requirements etc. · As from 31st March all TAs and Building Certifiers are to be known as Building Consent Authorities (BCAs), and will have their competence and processes put under close scrutiny and revision. · All Building Compliance Schedules (BCS) will be reviewed and updated to ensure suitable documentation and record exists for all. · Public use to any building will not be permitted until the local authority issues a code compliance certificate (CCC & BCS). · There will be no more interim CCCs. · Projects will need to be staged to enable access to specific parts of buildings while other work continues. · The Building levy will rise from around 0.67 to 1.97 per 1,000 of building work over 20,000. · Cable cars have been added as restricted work requiring annual WOF inspection by Licensed Building Practitioners (LBPs) with compliance schedules produced by manufacturers. · LBP to sign Building WOF and note work to be done. · Compliance Schedules can be amended at any time by BCA. · Professionals are accepted as gratis LBPs through their association affiliations. (Privilege must be maintained) · Councils are to provide consent application building fire design detail to the new NZ Fire Service Commission - Design Review Unit (DRU located in Auckland), to consider and respond to within 10 working days upon receipt. · Councils (BCAs) will follow up all Consent approvals after 2 years where a CCC has not been issued with a 20-day order to fix or face fines. (Over the past 10 years there have been up to 300,000 outstanding CCCs after 2 years.) · Expected overhead costs of +2.9% is projected on building costs from implementation of 2004 Act. See:- www.building.govt.nz Ed The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: +64 3 332 2499 +64 3 332 0016 Ki-ora Scott, welcome to Arty-arowa. WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: SCOTT MILLER TO REPRESENT OTIS IN CHCH: The departing Barry ONeill gave me the opportunity to welcome his replacement earlier this month, the new Otis NZ Southern Region Area Manager is Beam-me-up Scotty Miller. Scott arrived in NZ with excellent credentials, being an Aussie from Melbourne. Born in Echuca Victoria, he can do no wrong, even if he has an accounts background and been with Otis for only two years, it all falls aside when he utters those poetic worlds, Im Orr-stray-lein. Scott has even been a cricket player, so maybe he can give a few pointers to the Black Caps . . . . . and my golf ! With Aussie Sales Administrator Debi Wilson already on board, the increasing dulcet tones will further gladden my heart whenever I visit the Otis ChCh office from now on. THAT STALWART OF KONE ROHAN KELLY SEEKS GREENER PASTURES: Rohan Kelly, always enthusiastic and resolutely serving Kone Elevators in Christchurch, has decided to seek broader horizons and so has announced his resignation. DOWNPOUR DUMPS ON DUNEDIN: Caretaker for Phillip Lang House, Calder Prescott, dutifully took the lift to check on any leaks to his charge following a recent downpour and surface flooding in central Dunedin. All seemed hunky-dory until upon his return to the basement, a strange splash as the lift was slowing, was soon followed as the lift doors opened by the inrush up to his thighs of a meter or so of cold murky water. Caulder was forced against the rear of the car but managed to wade for help. Thankfully with a new compensatory sheave, buffers, comp-ropes and a general pit clean out, the lift was back in service in 3 days. Page 1 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY March 20005 Issue 78 ARE LIFTS BEING FULLY TESTED IN NZ? I grew up in the Melbourne lift industry in an era when lift company management trained and relied on the skill of the adjuster or tuner to commission all newly installed lift equipment. The then Department of Labour (DLI now Work Safe), used industry experienced inspectors who observed and documented specific testing of each lift as it was carried out by a certified adjuster. In Melbourne, the DLI ran night courses that all maintenance and those testing lift installation had to attend and pass written examination in. Where a company wished an adjuster to test equipment without supervision, he had to demonstrate competence to do so by carrying out a full test of a lift under the supervision of a certified adjuster and the DLI inspector. Over time, mature adjusters were encouraged to become inspectors, thereby completing the experience cycle and ensuring a consistent high standard of knowledgeable compliance to safe practice within the industry. With changes in technology and corporate restructure, the centralised corporate design engineer and the packaged lift, are gradually replacing reliance on the skill of the field employee. This evolution is the result of accurate computer design engineering and precision bolt together packaged lifts produced for a multi-national global market. Commissioning of the installation is becoming a virtual switch on process. And so how does testing now fit into this new equation? With this virtually switch on highly engineered packaged lift available across the NZ market today, and used in the majority of passenger lift installations, this experienced adjuster and inspector testing combination is beginning to disappeared. The installers are trained in the process of assembling the equipment using clearly documented processes and specialist equipment to minimise labour and time, and employ smart diagnosis and parameter set-up tools to program each functions operation. The system is then finally connected to a facility for remote monitoring and diagnosis from anywhere accessible to a phone line. In New Zealand, except for a few industry experienced consultants, most new lift testing is supervised by private general engineering inspection bodies, that from my experience have little depth of experience of the equipment they test, providing only a perfunctory role of administering a deficient process for a fee. With the more highly evolved engineering of the product, the commissioning process becoming less reliant on field skill, knowledge of the system is less, and so testing seems to also be becoming a perfunctory process. Especially now that the majority of the components are quality tested overseas, and inspected locally by general engineering inspection bodies. As an independent CBIP level 2 lift inspector of some 10 years who has been certificated under the Aussie certification process, and who has been tested and peer reviewed by both CBIP and as an independent D2 Building Certifier by the BIA in NZ:I am concerned that the proposed 2004 Act compliance process, with its focus on retaining an academic accreditation structure over identifying an industry experience based inspectorate, will remain deficient. My experience with the inspection and testing of new lifts installed by the major lift manufacturers in the South Island of NZ over the past 13 years or so under the 1991 Building Act, has seen this gradual change. The decline of experienced adjusters involved in the process of testing, and as new equipment comes on the market, a lower indepth knowledge of the equipment in the person conducting the test. In reality this is not going to change, we live in a global market where resources are focussed on technology rather than people, where equipment is tested and certified under international standards and sophisticated 24-7 remote monitoring of installed systems are having more reliance for safe operation placed on them. And so we are in transition, where the skill at the work-face to confirm safe operation is being substituted by a technology sufficiently sophisticated to ensure the same standard of safety is retained. In the long term in this high technology global economy, the experienced inspector may be less necessary, but are we ready yet? This does not mean the role of performance Governance inspection will ever become redundant, as there will still be a less sophisticated local manufacture along with older equipment that will require to be tested to past standards along with alternative solutions. Therefore the Consent and compliance schedule process must be clear to retain an auditable path and clear record of each and every installation. In this time of transition, there is still the need for industry experienced inspection based on a sound knowledge of past codes and procedures, to ensure consistent compliance appropriate to the equipment installed is maintained. Ed. Page 2 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY March 20005 Issue 78 QUINN ELEVATORS POOL HOIST: Equipment feature: YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 3 March 20005 Issue 78 WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® WOODMAN NEW TL JONES MANAGER: TL Jones Ltd., located in New Zealand, has appointed Chris Woodman as Group Technical manager. Woodman joins TL Jones from New Zealand-based Exicom Technologies and has an MBA from Victoria University Wellington NZ. FATAL ACCIDENT ON BOSTON ESCALATOR: The Boston Globe recently reported a man died after the hood of his sweatshirt caught between the comb section and step tread at the bottom of an escalator in a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) station. Witnesses said the 34-year-old man appeared to be struggling and apparently fell. The incident occurred February 21, but the MBTA did not make it public until March 1st. MBTA Transit Police are investigating. SCHINDLER FINANCIAL RESULTS FOR 2004: In the fiscal year 2004, the Schindler Group reported single digit local growth and substantially better results. Consolidated revenue rose 6.9%, while consolidated net profit after taxes and minority interests was up 67.4% when compared to the previous fiscal year. Operating revenue in the elevators and escalators business went up 4.4%. Unit orders for new installations climbed by 12.8%. SHIP LIFT FOR THREE GORGES: A big ship lift will be installed in 2005 on the left bank of the Three-Gorges dam, the Three Gorges Project Development Corp. announced Tuesday, January 11. The capacity size of the lift is 120x18x3.5 meters, for a 3000-ton passenger/freight ship or a 1,500-ton barge at a ride. The present world record of ship lifts is within a 100-meter hoist height and 9,000-ton load with water. The records are to be broken soon by the Three Gorges ship lift with 113 meters in travel and 11,800 tons of load including water. Reported by Peng Jie, EW Correspondent LEC COMMENTS ON BIA ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION Guidance Document: The guidance document referenced was issued by the then BIA in Nov/04 requesting opinion be submitted by 31st Jan/05. A copy of the guidance document may be viewed at www.building.govt.nz These comments are specific to the lift industry and D2 solutions, although other specialist building features needing to record Solutions may also find the concepts useful. The processes detailed are critical to Alternative Solutions as the accuracy, completeness and accessibility to the record, will effect the ongoing efficiency of the annual WOF process. 1. As with all design related to specialist industries previously LUMLEY CENTRE: Auckland will be the site of a 30-story building, the Lumley Centre, that is being billed as a high tech structure. A stateof-the-art office tower, the building will boast outdoor entertaining decks, a ninth-floor river and high-speed lifts. Beca served as the lift consultants on the project which will be built by Simpson Grierson. The developer is Manson Securities, and the designer was Richard Goldie of Peddle Thorp Architects. governed by centralised Government departments such as the Ministry of Transport, pre-1991 centralised records enabled quick access to relevant data, not only for equipment annual inspection, testing or refurbishment update, but also as a comparative record and history archive of the industry equipment. 2. With decentralisation to Territorial Authorities (BCA) being responsible to maintain data, critical data has not been recorded, is inconsistent, or is inaccessible due to the widespread storage of the TAs (BCA) record. 3. Even where the processes proposed in the Guidance Document are implemented, this concern will still remain. 4. Although with PIMs, specific information relevant to the property is catalogued during the consent process against the individual property, specific equipment detail is not, and so any access to or research of this type of information is near impossible to achieve. 5. At present where the equipment is upgraded or the specification changed, unless a Consent is applied for, accurate record is lost. Even where the Consent process is used, the updated data is still realistically inaccessible once archived in TA files. 6. The solution I propose, is to have the industry prepare a common summary sheet of all installed equipment, and to retain this database in the DBH, accessible to anyone through use of the internet. 7. To achieve a relevant accessible record for Building Practitioners and others, an addition to the BCA checklist of responsibility, would be to ensure a consistent specification of equipment is forwarded to the DBH to update this database during the Consent process, or as advised. By adopting this or a similar common central record for equipment as a required process in the Guidance document, a more efficient means of accurate record would be accessible to those responsible for inspection of widely varying equipment, installed under multiple numbers of updated codes, under an ever increasing number of Acceptable, and more critically, Alternate Solutions. Ed. Page 4 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[27]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax77.pdf","2006-06-28","274K"," NZLFAX77.PDF    ","","","January 20005 Issue 77 The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: 0064 3 332 2499 0064 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: RON PEREZ MOVES TO KONE: With the retirement of Derek Bryson from Otis after 37 years, we saw a pause as the question arose as to who was to fill the void. Ron Perez took hold of the reigns for the interim, but of surprise, KONE has now announced his appointment as Regional Sales Manager for them. And so the merry-go-round goes round, as we see one more brick removed from company loyalty. I wonder what will replace it, definitely higher overheads, maybe more choice and flexibility in working hours, or was it just an illusion all along. JOHN AULERT STEPS INTO DEREKS SHOES: Otis Brisbane Branch Manager John Aulert crosses the Tasman to take up the North Island management position left vacant by the retirement of Derek Bryson. I understand John is to be on deck in February and comes with high regard for his past enthusiasm and input into Otis in Australia. See the article on Johns background and visions. EDITORIAL. WELCOME TO 2005: It is becoming ordinary this welcoming in of the NewYear. Is it age creeping up or am I imagining it wasnt that long ago we celebrated the arrival of 2004 ? Anyway, its 2005 ready or not, so what is on the agenda for this next short year. The Building Act 2004 should dominate, with the Dept. of Building & Housing (DBH) returning from their holidays after opening their offices on 30th November, which should mean an enthusiastic flood of reviews, instructions and bulletins to consolidate their influence on the building industry. The Building Code is under review, and Territorial Authorities (TAs) and Building Certifiers are to be accredited to form the Building Consent Authority, along with restructuring IQPs into Licensed Building Practitioners, (LBP). The NZ lift association the NZLEA is shaking through a lack of interest under the corporate lift industry leaders focus on little but the bottom line. The question is being asked, is it time to take over the reins; or pick them up may be a better description, and hand them over to the wider lift industry to represent itself. The concept of an E Association may be just the vehicle to provide a truly representative association for this industry, one that communicates and works with the DBH to ensure an efficient and effective compliance process. Ed. ELEVCON ASIA CHANGES DATES: This fourth Elevcon Asian conference planned to be held in Biijing has been brought forward to the 7th - 9th of June 2005, which means I will have to get my act into gear if I hope to attend. 28 papers have been selected for presentation along with one workshop, with presentations from China, Japan, Hong Kong, the UK, Finland, Spain, Australia, Germany, Hungary and Switzerland. It should be a feast of experience & ideas and a great opportunity to explore a little of China. See www.elevcon.com BREAKING NEWS - BARRY ONEILL DEPARTS OTIS: Whats happening to the NZ corporate lift industry? This financial year we have not only seen a multitude of senior employees but senior management step away from their positions. Employees have mainly remained within the industry, but those at the top have all gone for greener pastures. This latest announcement is a surprise as it closely follows Otis Northern Area Manager, Derek Brysons retirement. See Otis announcement. Page 1 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 20005 Issue 77 CITY CERTIFIERS HANGS ON: City Certifiers who were to close down at the end of December are now to wind up on the 31/3. The feeling is that the DBH is not interested in smaller independent certifiers becoming BCAs. It reflects the attitude that big brings experience & competence, with companies like Fletchers and Opus touted as suitable to provide competitive independence to Council administration of the Consent process. More likely they can afford the insurance. ANNOUNCEMENT: 31st January 2005. Lindsay Harvey, Managing Director, Australasia, makes the following announcement regarding changes at the level of senior management. I regret to advise that Barry ONeill, Area Manager, Southern Region New Zealand has announced his resignation from Otis Elevator Co. Ltd after 18 years of service. Commencing with Otis in 1987 as a Service Sales Consultant, Barry has worked in the positions of Sales Manager, Branch Manager and Area Manager and was appointed to the Executive Committee in 1998. Barry has decided to leave Otis and the elevator industry to accept a leading role with a registered housing company. On behalf of the entire Executive Committee, I wish to sincerely thank Barry for his major contributions to Otis over the years and to wish him continuing success in his new endeavour. Barry will be leaving us in mid-March and I will make a further announcement regarding his replacement in due course but no later than March 1st. Ed: Not an exact mould, nor always seeing things eye to eye, but always respected for his opinion, integrity and honesty in all my associations, and a friend. The area office is hands on management, with no where to hide, and Barry ONeill continued to nurture the respect he deserved throughout his tenure. He always has a smile to greet you and was unmistakable from the back. All the best with your new venture Barry, and thanks for the experience of working with you over the years. (But not necessarily the Golf) Bob. THE POWERED SWING DOOR: Lifts have used manual swing doors well before the electric driven automatic sliding door that has dominated the high and low rise market for the past probably 70 years, but it is only in the last decade that control sophistication has evolved to see the market adopt the automatic powered swing door into the low rise lift market. One of the popular and flexible models used in the NZ market for most lift applications has been the DITEC Sprint. The sprint mainly designed for the domestic market has many features such as:· battery backup. · obstacle detection. · open and close speed adjustment. · ramped acceleration and deceleration to learned mechanical stops. · opening command for interface with lift controls. · timed automatic closing. · a reverse movement safety device. The compact unobtrusive drive fits to the door head and the top of the door taking up little space. For disabled access it is sensible to place call controls for the lift on the latch side of the door, either with sufficient side space for wheelchair access, or back from the door sufficient to clear the opening door. This also enables sufficient space for exiting wheelchair users to pass. All doors should have vision windows or glazing at a height suitable for wheelchair users to be able to confirm their clear path. Because the door operation is controlled by the lift circuitry, and fail-safe electro-mechanical security interlocks are used to latch the door when the lift moves away from floor level, a similar safe operation can be provided as for the automatic sliding doors. See: www.doormaticsnz.co.nz or ring Jack Shaw on 06 877 0150 email: sales@doormaticsnz.co.nz Page 2 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 20005 Issue 77 THE PAST RETURNS AS THE NEW DBH EMERGES: Katrina Bach. Chief Executive John Ryan General Manager Building Controls Past BIA Chief Executive THE SPIRALIFT FOR YOUR THEATRE: One of the unique designs for safe large capacity movement of stage, or limited space platforms is available through the linear actuated tubular thrust screw. Wow. It needs to be seen to be believed! But many well known theatres throughout the world have employed the SPIRALIFT to solve their stage presentation problems. Vertical linear motion is achieved through a rotating thrust screw that integrates a coiled grooved flat stainless steel band with a coiled vertical stainless steel band. A simple concept, accurate engineering and design results in single columns to provide vertical thrust ranging from 1,800kg to over 11,000kg, or in bedpost arrangement for a large area such as a stage. For 152mm dia. a maximum lift of 3.6 m is possible, whereas with the big mother 457mm dia. A height of 12.2 m is attainable. Speeds range from 0.1m/sec to 0.2m/sec and static loads of up to twice the lifting loads are possible. Over 500 installations in 40 countries have been completed upto 2003, both in Australia & New Zealand which include:· · · Sydney Show Theatre Casino - 4 stage lifts. Auckland Town Hall - 1 scenery lift. Wellington Hall - 1 stage lift propulsion system. John Gardiner Determinations Manager. Past Deputy Chief Executive Officer to IPENZ With no disrespect to the individual appointees; a bureaucrat, a bureaucrat and an appeasement to a professional body, its official, the direction of the building industry has moved back under the philosophical umbrella where opinion is sought, seemingly only to provide credibility to a predetermined political agenda. The committees are forming rapidly, the appointees gleefully accepting their remuneration packages, and those at the work-face prepare for another volley of acronyms restructuring, accreditation, guidance through penalty, and with further disdain for their effort. The skills of the artisan are being surpassed by the academic business, which will soon require a Degree in Building just to understand the structure, let alone the changes in terminology of the Building Act. From a 1991 Act that tried to learn from its past; to minimised inefficient process; that understood the need to instil respect through encouraging responsibility in those who are the building industry, I fear we have stepped back. I thought paternally we were ready, but I suspect we need to go through this matriarchal evolution of political correctness to mature to a stage where we can trust, accept risk, and respect all individuals in our society, and not just the academic, to move us forward as one. Over 20 cruise lines include:· Princess Cruises Grand Princess - 1 orchestra lift. · NCL Star Cruises Superstar 2 - 2 orchestra, 2 stage lifts. · P&O Aurora - 2 orchestra, 2 stage lifts. Famous Theatres include:· The Royal Albert Hall - 1 forestage lift, scissor lift guides. · The Royal Acedemy - 1 orchestra, 1 paint frame lift. The design is Canadian with headquarters in Quebec and offices in California. Gala is a division of the Paco Corp. see; www.galainfo.com or ring John Mardell at Schindler on 04 385 1229 - Fax: 04 384 7684 for further details. Page 3 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY January 20005 Issue 77 NEW NORTH ISLAND AREA MANAGER FOR OTIS: 15th January 2005. Lindsay Harvey, Managing Director, Australasia, is pleased to make the following announcement: I am delighted to announce that John Aulert has been appointed Area Manager, Northern Region New Zealand. This appointment will take effect on 1st February 2005. It follows Derek Brysons retirement late last year. In his role, John will be responsible for all operations of the Company within the Northern Region of New Zealand. In his new appointment, John will form part of the Executive Committee role, and report directly to me. Johns appointment follows a long and distingioshed career in the elevator industry in both the United Kindom and Australia. Starting life as a lift technician with Wadsworth Lifts in the UK in 1969, John was promoted to local representative with Otis UK from 1977 to 1982. In 1982 John joined Boral Elevators as a Services Sales Representative. While at Boral John also held other roles, such as New Equipment Sales Manager and Branch Manager. John rejoined Otis with the acquisition of Boral in 1995 and most recently held the role of Service Operations Manager, South East Queensland. Please join me in congratulating John on his new appointment. NEW FERMATOR ELEVATOR DOOR PLANT: The Fermator group has announced its newest factory, an elevator-door production plant in Taubate, near Sao Paulo in Brazil. The official inauguration and open house will be conducted on April 1 with factory and product presentations, entertainment and lunch. All interested people from South or Central America can contact Giusepe Vadala at:e-mail: gvadala@tecno-america.com or website: www.tecno-america.com STUDENTS INJURED ON NYC ESCALATOR: More than a dozen people were injured on an escalator during a school field trip to a theater in New York City recently, when one of the students apparently had clothes caught on a screw that was not flush with the balustrade. It was reported a teacher hit the emergency stop button causing those on the escalator to fall on one another. Ten were taken to the hospital for treatment, while another 14 were treated at the scene. The New York City Buildings Department issued a stop-use order and is investigating, although initial reports indicated the escalator itself did not malfunction. TAIPEI 101 OPENS OBSERVATION DECK: The observation deck on the 89th floor of the Taipei 101 building has opened for visitors. Listed as the worlds tallest building, it also has the worlds fastest elevators, which can take visitors from the ground floor to the observation deck in 37 seconds. The 101-story building has 198,000 square meters of office space, about one third of which has been leased. EMOTIVE INSTALLS EAVIS: Lift display specialists E-Motive installs 66 state of the art EAVIS (Elevator Audio Video Information System) WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® ELEVATOR WORLD MAGAZINE NOW AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT: In addition to the monthly print issues of ELEVATOR WORLD, the magazine is now offered in a new digital version. Each monthly issue will be exactly the same as the print edition, with every page reproduced in the digital format. Subscribers to the digital version will receive their magazine the day that we produce the issue and will not have to wait for their copy to arrive in the mail. Get a FREE SAMPLE of the new digital format by visiting the following link: http://www.zinio.com/offer?issn=00136158&of=PF1&bd=1&rf=elenet357. screens throughout the Virginia General Assembly Building to disseminate vital visitor information in both lifts and lobbys. www.emotivedisplay.com YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[28]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax76.pdf","2006-06-28","276K"," NZLFAX76.PDF    ","","","November 20004 Issue 76 The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: 0064 3 332 2499 0064 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: DEREK BRYSON RETIRES FROM OTIS: There comes a time for us all and by the time it comes around we are usually prepared for it, but last week saw the retirement of Derek Bryson who has played a pivotal role in the New Zealand Lift Industry over the past decades. Discussion has it that in one company in NZ the average age of employees with technical skill was around 54 at present and rising, a testament to the loss of experience we are seeing in the likes of Derek retiring. (see article). JUST PASSING THROUGH KONE: After just on two years, Terry Timms; (KONE South Island Manager) has been drawn to the excitement of a new challenge, in managing Leigh Constructions Ltd new engineering expansion, which includes contracts in the Antarctic. It seems they are expanding their operations onto the ice and have tantalised Terry with an offer he could not refuse. We wish you well Terry and hope what you got out of the lift industry will put you in good stead in the deepsouth. Fafafafarewell Frfrfrfriend. EDITORIAL. BEEN THERE DONE THAT, WHATS DIFFERENT? You may be under the mistaken belief that now that the Building Act 2004 is in place as of Nov 1st, that after your long read you can ask, whats new other than the numonics! and get on with it. Not so easy my good friend, it went so well for the Government that now every Tom Dick and Harry want to socially engineer the building industry and you along with it. Now that the Professionals are back on board after 10 years and have ensured their proper place under the 2004 Act, everyone else has to become Licensed. But as I endeavour to step above the politics, what may be of concerns is that the lift industry hasnt shown similar leadership to bring its experience into the compliance process. This void to having a consistent and safe commissioning and consent documenting process of new lifts throughout NZ under the 1991 Act, reflects in a similar Compliance Schedule shambles with annual WOF of D2 equipment. It can be easily and efficiently addressed through input from the lift industry into the process. Our biggest problem as I see it at this point in time is a lack of will and belief that a small input can result in what we all want, a consistent, efficient, and safe D2 compliance process. Ed. KONE CONSOLIDATES NZ MAINTENANCE: KONE restructures under Grace Wesolowski to reflect a changing lift maintenance market. Up in the far north Mike McIntyre becomes Operations Manager with Ben Kirsten Customer Services Manager to work with team leaders David Perry & Barry Martin-Buss and Marcel Hoencamp and Peter Mullen in Customer support. Natalee Scripps is Service Administrator. In Wellington, the appointment of Russell Appleton to Customer Services Manager complimented by Gavin Pollard to focus back on his strength as Operations Manager, and Mark Geerlings to look after Modernisations all administered by Teanna Joyce should provide a formidable team. Alan Wilby takes over Christchurch and Queenstown as their Elevator Business Manager with Rohan Kelly and Mike Boyd to cover service and installation. In the deep south of Dunedin, Alex Denniston becomes the Customer Service Manager with Trevor Field and a possible new technician to enhance the department. Page 1 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY November 20004 Issue 76 BUILDING CERTIFIER IN RECEIVERSHIP: Nationwide Building Certifiers Group Ltd are the latest Building Certifier announcing they are going into receivership under the 1991 Building Act change. The receivers - David Hercus and Mark Stevens, accountants of Wellington - have advised that Nationwide has ceased carrying out building inspections and that their 1500 or so current files are being wound up or transferred to local territorial authorities, but no reasons why were given. around New Zealand branch offices on the installation and commissioning of these products. During 1983 he was promoted to a management position in Wellington, responsible for field operations in the lower North Island. It was during this period that installation activity in Wellington was at its highest, which included the tallest and largest lift installation at that time in the BNZ Centre. 2 years later Derek was promoted to the position of Field Operations Manager for Otis NZ, which meant a move for him and his family to the Otis Head office in Auckland. It was here that he represented Otis on various industry committees such as the NZLEA (NZ Lift and Escalator Association), Standards NZ and Standards Australia where he provided input into Standards such as NZS 4332, AS 1735 as well as the NZ Safety Code of Practice. Up until the present time, Derek chaired the Certification Board for Inspection Personnel (CBIP) lift committee, a peer review certification in NZ, that has enabled lift industry and past MOT inspection personnel to be recognised to carry out inspection of lift equipment in NZ. For the past 5 years Derek has held the position of Area Manager, Northern Region NZ for Otis and sat as a member of Otis Australasias Executive Team. After nearly 36 years in the lift industry, Derek has elected to retire to work on projects with members of his family which will bring new challenges to his life, which as surely demonstrated he will head into with all the gusto shown in his lifes challenges todate. He acknowledges that the lift industry will always remain in his blood, and intends keeping in touch with its people and technology over the coming years. Im sure that like myself, all who have come in contact with Derek recognise the Gentleman within, and will feel privileged to have known him, even though he may have seen things through Otis vision. The industry still needs you Derek no matter how small the input. . . . Seasons Greetings and all the best. Ed. DEREK BRYSON WHO HAVE WE LOST? The first sight the NZ lift industry had of Derek Bryson was when Otis employed him in June 1967 during the memorable week of the Wahine storm, having served an electrical apprenticeship with Shannon Electrical. FROM ELISHA OTIS TO DEREK BRYSON Two years on installation as a sparky saw Derek widen his horizon with an 18-month stint in the UK and Europe on his OE, before returning to Otis Wellington. With lifts seemingly already in his blood, Derek worked alongside some of the industries best adjusters in that era, when the adjusters skill reflected in the quality of the lifts final operation. Being part of this elite group, Derek was able to attend various adjuster-training seminars around New Zealand and Australia learning commissioning and fault finding skills in much lesser demand in the technology of today. During his time in the field, Derek was involved in adjusting the majority of the elevator installation in the Wellington region. A wide range of hydraulic, geared and gearless traction units, as well as Escalators saw Derek in such buildings as the Beehive, where challenging relay logic circuitry was required to be designed to meet stringent on-site specification requirements. With the introduction of Computer Logic and electronic control systems, one again Derek conducted various training seminars YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 2 November 20004 Issue 76 THE BUILDING CODE REVIEW: th th The 4 and 5 of November brought an opportunity to gain a perception as to the direction the NZ Government was heading with it review of the Building Code now that administration of the Building Act has been taken over by the newly formed one stop shop Department of Building and Housing (DBH). The Workshop was hosted by one wing of the Building Research Association of NZ (BRANZ), and held at the awe inspiring Wellington landmark venue, the WestPac Stadium, known to mere mortals as . THE CAKE TIN. and key points were recorded for all to ponder over. Interestingly, some key points in the summarys of the topics that I attended didnt seem to have been discussed in the groups. Maybe I was sidetracked at the time by the magnificent panorama of the empty stadium viewed from high in the glazed area of the level 4 Deloite lounge. Our convenor of proceedings most aptly presiding over a gregarious but cogitative assembly, delicately controlled the proceeding through a keen wit, a bag of one liners, and what seemed like a firm grasp on the proverbials. It was a great coming together of ideas and a chance to test your own experiences against those of your peers, but it all ran so smooth my natural cynicism left me feeling I was used, there to give credibility to a process already formulated. This can only be tested against the aims of the review once implemented, but from past experience as with quality control systems, a lot of money is spent by organisations with volumes of paper processes produced, but unless those at the work-face who physically build the buildings are part of the process, the performances are not attained. An example of this reflected in the group representing building sub-contractors where out of 140 attendees, four representatives were present, three representing the lift industry of which two were consultants. These few represent all the people who physically build the buildings. I understand demand for a second workshop is being organised for Auckland, which means you need to register asap. Contact carolyn Pepper on 0800 242 243 or email her at:- pepper@bia.govt.nz. For a copy of the document produced email:- anne@apconsulting.co.nz Or go to www.builders.govt.nz for the latest code details. Page 3 The 2004 Act required that a review of the Building Code be undertaken over a 3-year period, aimed to clarify the expectations and aspirations New Zealanders have in their building in this century. The workshop consisted of two days, the first to focus on; for want of a better term, Societal Expectations, and was attended by some 120 people representing consumer groups, community groups, special interest groups, tertiary institutions, health and safety organisations, insurance interest groups, environmental interest groups, TAs, and the wider building industry. The focus of this first group was on those with interest in the building industry rather than a working knowledge of the processes. The second day looked specifically at the Building Code User to identify ways in which to improve the way the code is written and presented to make it easier to use. This workshop consisted of over 140 people who regularly use the code. The format of the workshop was an open forum where specific subjects were proposed and where participants grouped around the subject of most interest. A time period around 20-30 minutes was given for issues to be debated, YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY November 20004 Issue 76 E L E V A T I O N ROLLS OVER 10 YEARS: OTIS PULLS THE PLUG: I first met Ish Buckingham at a Singapore Lift Industry Expo back in March 1998 and immediately it felt like he was a life long friend. He had the lift industry in his blood like Bob Corporale of Elevator World, but I could feel the passion and understanding of his occupation that gives him the ability to get beneath the industry in which he worked, ideal to edit the British Lift Industry magazine ELEVATION. And true to form, Ish has served his subscribers in the UK and wider lift industry well for the past 10 years with a pictorially well presented, sometimes challenging, but always interesting quarterly publication. Keep up the great work Ish, Suzanne Smith with Design and Production, and Tony Sigley in Advertising Sales, you deserve the accolades. Ed. See: www.elevation.co.uk As promised back in the May issue, LEC finally decided to join the NZLEA (NZ Lift & Escalator Association) following their reported setting up of a closed user group on their site to expand communication within the association. After 5 months of no response, I followed my application up to find there was no record of it. One presumes NZPost. Subsequent to this, I understand Otis has decreed, that because of Anti-trust laws it has instructed all its subsidiaries to no longer participate in Industry Associations other than in a technical capacity. The word in the NZ industry is that without the biggest provider of lunch, an association has no purpose. And so the question must be asked, is this the end of the NZLEA as we know it ? A meeting is due this month, maybe a final meeting, but whatever evolves we should glean some detail on the effect of the Otis decision on the present association. If you remember back to 1995, I tested the industry with the idea of a broader lift industry association to encourage membership from all and any whom were associated with the lift industry in some way. The aim was to provide an association based on people within the industry rather than just the company, a concept similar to the Australian Association, LESA. The inauguration meetings held in the main centers were well attended with some 80 or so in total, but in the end with few forth-coming to organise the association, and myself only prepared to participate locally, the idea was put to rest. The concept of an E-association was tabled and rejected by the NZLEA, but the seed was sown and the Secretary Garth Wylie put in the effort with the formation of the web site www.lifts.org.nz , which promoted the concept of a closed user group as a vehicle for wider membership and communication. So maybe we, who are interested in the industry as an industry and not just a representative of a company, should consider whether or not now is the time for the structuring of an association that reflects the whole of the NZ industry! Could it be a restructured NZLEA or the resurrected NZLIA? Page 4 ASSESSING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS: The BIA; surprise, surprise, has just put out a Consultation Guide Document on Assessing Alternative Solutions. The aim of the document is to assist BCAs (Building Consent Authorities - nee TAs), to assess building consent applications containing Alternative Solutions. Now if you are involved in Alternative Solutions this is the document for you. Understandably; although the term Producer Statement seems a dirty word under the 2004 Act, it has been retained in this guidance document because of its widespread use. There are two main categories:· A background on the building consent process and Alternative Solutions. · Flow charts and checklist for checking Alternative Solutions. I cannot promise you will be listened to, but you cannot moan later if you didnt told you so today. Once again it feels like a rubber stamp done deal, but comments are welcome until my birthday . . . sorry 31st Jan 2005. ps. I wont be 60 like John Davies of Schindler was on the 2nd Dec. Copies are downloadable in PDF format from: www.bia.govt.nz YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[29]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax75.pdf","2006-06-28","160K"," NZLFAX75.PDF    ","","","September 2004 Issue 75 The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: 0064 3 332 2499 0064 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: LIFT 2004 - Fiera Milano 17th to 20th November: For those who need a boost before Xmas, here is your last opportunity to catch up with the latest European lift manufacturers and industry products. Milan in the heart of Europe will attract a wide range of products from around Europe with the latest technologies on offer. Open from 9:30amm to 6pm over 4 days, will enable you ample time to sit through exhibitions, meet the suppliers, and talk to others from all points of the globe who live and breathe lifts. www.fmi.it/Lift EDITORIAL. WELCOME TO THE BUILDING ACT 2004: From 30th November 2004 the Building Industry will be governed by new legislation, the Building Act 2004. The 1991 Act will remain in force until the 31st of March 2005, so that any Consents issues after that will be subject to the 2004 Act. An implementation period up to 2009 allows for the Building Code to be updated. Responsibility for administration of the Act will be handed over on the 30th of Nov. when the present BIA becomes defunct. The new Department of Building and Housing, overseen by its newly appointed charismatic Minister John Tamahere takes over. Some might consider this a clean sweep. As John rightly puts it, This Act is about all New Zealanders feeling safe about the houses and buildings they live and work in. Does the 80/20 rule apply? 80% about feeling safe, and 20% about being constructive toward achieving it. From my experiences in the building industry, the quality of the final product is about pride in ones skill, security through ones labour, and self-respect espousing respect for those we work for. None of this comes from expanding bureaucracies and legislating feel good scratch my back solutions that dominate this new piece of legislation. Responsibility comes as a choice from within the individual, and at present our society still believes wanton legislation engenders it. Much like war brings a final solution, or speed tickets make roads safe. The Cynic. currently manufacturing for the China market. The Otis president also remarked that the demand for machine-room-less units is growing and could reach two-thirds of the world market by the end of 2010. SPACE ELEVATOR CONTEST: ELENET 346 Article OTIS IN CHINA: ELENET 346 Article Otis World President Ari Bousbib recently interviewed with AsiaToday about Otis presence in the rapidly developing construction section of China. He noted that at the current rate of development, China should need 5 to 15 million elevators over the next 25 years. To address needs today, Otis introduced a touchless unit for the country in light of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) fears. Bousbib added that he makes five to six trips a year to China. Most of the construction is due to Chinas urbanisation program which has a rate of 38% compared to 28% 10 years ago. In the past three years, Otis has formed three joint ventures in China and has built factories, up to seven Elevator: 2010 announced an annual competition set up for space elevator technologies, sponsored by the California-based Spaceward Foundation. The first competition will center around the climber prototypes, the second, around ribbon materials (nano technology) and the third, the construction of power-beaming stations. The promoters plan to offer substantial monetary rewards much like the US10-million Ansari X prize for private manned spacecraft. KONE PREPARES TO DIVIDE INTO TWO CORPORATIONS: The board of directors of KONE Corp. has decided to begin preparations for the division of the company into two separate corporations. One company would consist of the present Elevators & Escalators division and retain the name KONE Corp. The other would be Kone Cargotec Corp. ELENET 345 Article Page 1 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY September 2004 Issue 75 BYE BYE BUILDING CERTIFIERS: BUILDING ACT 2004 COMMENT With the repeal of the Building Act 1991 that comes into effect on the 31st of March 2005, there is no recognition of Building Certifiers as such in the 2004 Act. The Government has fulfilled its desire to ensure its new administering position of the industry, by enabling it to revet all those independent certifiers previously assessed, reviewed, appointed and audited under the Building Industry Authority since 1993. The old BIA worked with people to evolve a better building environment. Sure its resources were very limited and processes could have evolved much quicker with more funding similar to that now being poured into expanding the new Building bureaucracy, but evolution doesnt take a day, or 13 years for that matter. This move back to centralism and excessive bureaucratic input and power over the building industry I believe is a regressive move. Over the past 11 years only some 28 or so highly experienced building certifiers have taken up the challenge to offer their services in competition to the monolithic Territorial Authorities. They have taken the brunt of castigation by council officers, and have tried to build their businesses, only to have their integrity and livelihood put on hold for three months on a whim, while the new interim BIA up-skill themselves on the well established vagaries of the BIA insurance scheme. It has just been announced that (ABC) Approved Building Certifiers have just been deregistered following a formal finding of negligence and incompetence in its operation by the interim BIA. This resulted following complaints received against ABC from Waitakere and North Shore City Councils. The pot inferring the kettle was black. The negligence was deemed to be in the following areas:· Issuing code compliance certificates and interim code compliance certificates for buildings, without having the authority to conduct inspections relating to these. · Inadequate record keeping and irregularities relating to the signature of inspection-related documents. · Faulty inspections on which code compliance certificates were issued. · Inspecting building work that had not received a consent. · A failure to address management issues within the company. All I can say is thank god they couldnt de-register their competitors the Territorial Authorities for similar misdemeanours! Although as a cynic, maybe this was the reasoning behind the singular BCAs, it justifies the cronys prediction to sort the wheat from the chaff, by requiring accreditation and controlling re-registeration. The new Act does still allow for independent certifiers, only they will be lumped in with TAs and known as BCAs, or Building Consent Authorities. Interestingly the rules and regulations for the accreditation and registration of BCAs are currently in development, and it is expected that these will be in place so that applications to become BCAs could be processed by mid-late 2005. In the mean time I presume well oiled Polytechs and accreditation organisations are gearing up to churn out well dressed academics for a price, to fill the role of elite BCA officers. In the meantime, as I contemplate where I stand from the end of March 2005 while the rules are being prepared, maybe I should be more concerned about whether or not the requirements set by the new regime will now be too over the top to bother. Especially for a non-accredited trade based individual of only 37 years experience in this facet of the building industry. It is not overly clear how those few of us who are individual feature certifiers such as D2, who used the specific feature Form 7 Building Certificate as a means of feature compliance, fit into the new process as the term isnt recognised in the section 7 - Interpretations. All will be made clear I expect over the coming years as these subtleties come into play. Im sure there is a section that I have overlooked that makes it all clear. I close with these inspiring words from John Ryan the present BIA chief executive. The BIA is prepared to work with certifiers to facilitate closer working relationships with TAs. Of course if some certifiers chose not to continue in business then the BIA would like to work with the certifier to assist in an orderly process for the transfer of files to TAs. see: www.builders.govt.nz. Building Certifier No.5 Page 2 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY September 2004 Issue 75 CABLE CARS: BUILDING ACT 2004 COMMENT It looks like all Mark Galvin of Access Automation Ltds good work in promoting recognition of the overlooked cable car has achieved a result under the new Building Act 2004. www.accessauto.co.nz An interpretation in section 7 of the new Act now states:Cable car (a) means a vehicle(i) that caries people of goods on or along an inclined plane or a suspended cable; and (ii) that operates wholly or partly outside of a building; and (iii) the traction of which is supplied by a cable or other means; but (b) does not include a lift the carries people of goods between the floors of a building. The Act also specifically requires the need for a consent to be installed, an inspection process and compliance schedule under section 100 that states:(1) A compliance schedule is required for a building (including a building used wholly or partly as a single household unit if the building(a) has a cable car attached to it. (b) Is serviced by a cable car. The new Act no longer calls old clause 44 building compliance schedule features (a) to (l) as features, but has allocated the new term specified systems to them. It also does not detail them in the compliance schedule section 100 of the new Act, instead I presume, they will be detailed in the Building Code once reviewed, and before March 31st when the present Act is repealed. So now if I read correctly, the cable car is the only building specified system requiring a compliance schedule in a single or private dwelling. Interestingly, passenger lifts didnt require a compliance schedule in a single dwelling unit. WHY THE NEW BUILDING ACT 2004 ANNOYS ME: BUILDING ACT 2004 COMMENT There has been a lot of time spend in this process and one would hope those involved would get it right. I admit I have only had a brief look through as yet, but it seems there is not a lot of change to the everyday user. Maybe there is more opportunity for a continuing of the evolution of the Act as far as TAs are concerned, by having their responsibilities more specifically detailed under it. Although it still seems to want the TA to focus on site inspections rather than competent administration of the process, when the industry is quite able to provide responsible accountable inspection if encouraged, which has been a weakness under the 1991 Act. Yes it is much more verbose, yes it tidies up some processes, and yes the bureaucrats and politicians are happy, but is it any more efficient to those who use it ? From my point of view no. A bureaucrat is an expert at bureaucracy, and not building, and these changes reflect good example of their confusion. It has taken some 13 years to get us to here under the 1991 Act, and now it seems every bit of terminology and acronym has been changed to look different but achieve little difference. Is the result clarity ? No, just more confusion ! From my experience, bureaucrats love voluminous prescriptive tomes. This means a high scrutiny is warranted of this now verbose document to find the subtle changes amongst the rampant prescription This new Act seems to have been written for those who didnt take the time to understand the original. Millions of dollars have been spent, thousands of hours of people associated with the building industries time has been wasted, to create an interpretation of pretty well the same thing. Three paces back, maybe one forward. We start again . . . . . Page 3 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY September 2004 Issue 75 BARRIER FREE REFRESHER 2004: BUILDING ACT 2004 COMMENT Other than for four hours of my day wishing I had brought my latest book due to delayed flights at both Christchurch and Wellington airports; who needs a book on a 30 minute flight over the snow covered South Island, I in fact had a very relaxing and interesting day. The seminar put on by the Barrier Free NZ Trust was a refresher and a good chance to catch up with Alexia Pickering - Access Options, and Rosemary Killip - Building Networks (now Ms Hazelwood) presenting the refresher. The seminar was open to Barrier Free advisors and to LEC because I had previously completed the 2-day seminar some years back. It was an opportunity for discussion and also for Rosemary and Architect Ron Pynenburg - Pynenburg & Collins Ltd, to give us a barrier free update on the new Building Act 2004. For the lift industry, this is all about the old section 47A (now Schedule 2) defining accessible buildings for the disabled community, and section 117 thru 120, defining the provisions, compliance documents and disabled access signage requirements for the building. The removal from the new Act of seemingly all definition relating to an Alternative Solution enabling innovation, can only be seen as a deliberate intent to continue the confusion of the status of NZS 4121 as the only solution. Although possibly with good intent, the uninformed desire to see it as the only means of mechanical access for disabled persons, in fact does the opposite, and discourages suitable cost effective access solutions. Admittedly the new Acts section 3 still defines the performance purposes of the Act, the Building Code still retains the performance requirements, and the new section 18 still confirms that Building work is not required to achieve performance criteria additional to or more restrictive than the Building Code. But then most will look at section 19 thru 21 to see how to establish compliance, and the same situation exists as in the 1991 Act, only probably with additional emphasis on conformance to stagnant past prescribed solutions. OVER THE KAIKOUAs ELENET 346 Article RAs The addition of the power of the Government to specify single solutions where it deems them necessary in section 20, seems to only give political power to vested interests who seem to prefer either the ease of interpreting only singular prescribed solutions or controlling the market. Once again leaning back to restrictive centralised governance, rather than engendering a partnership of responsible decision making and building practice in an innovative industry. Although the seminar was mainly focused on specific disabled access issues, the discussions regarding the new Act with participants seemed to agree that this restructuring of the Act would mainly result in further confusion and higher overheads for minimal difference at the work-face. Remembering the 1991 Act was about efficiently governing the building industry, not about being the prescriber of all solutions. One wonders if 13 years of Rosemarys and many others seminars, instigated to gradually achieve understanding and consensus on best practice, will be undermined by this Act, having to start again under this new regime. One consideration I gave to the Barrier Free group was that their focus should not be only on the solutions, but on widening access to all those disabled. This means recognising that all buildings with levels above ground are an obstacle to a disabled person, and so D1 should reflect this by removing D1.3.4 (c) and encouraging a means of mechanical access for all non-accessible levels of a building. APPROACHING WELLINGTON The coming together of past attendees was only one part of this seminar, the main aim was to expose new disabled inductees to the experiences gained over the interim years as preparation for their course in becoming future Disabled Access auditors. The Trust recognises the relevance of having auditors and advisors that dont need to learn and understand the access obstacles in our society, because they live them every day. Their focus is therefore on solutions and understanding the Building Act as the vehicle to providing transparent disabled access. www.barrierfreenz.org.nz Page 4 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY     ");
array_files[30]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax74.pdf","2006-06-28","252K"," NZLFAX74.PDF    ","","","July 2004 Issue 74 The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly for the NZ lift industry. Just send your email address to LEC to subscribe. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: 0064 3 332 2499 0064 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: T.L.JONES APPOINTS PORTUGESE DISTRIBUTOR: Liftech, a well-established supplier of lift controllers in Portugal has been appointed by the well renown Christchurch New Zealand based Infra-red lift entry protection manufacturer, T.L. Jones Ltd, as their latest distributor. With their well-evolved D200 and D300 slimline detectors now available in many areas of the world, this association should further expose this well regarded, simply fitted product, to the Worlds new-lift and modernisation market. ACCESS ELEVATORS LTD STRETCHES ITS LEGS: Growing fast on the back of the Disabled Access market, this Tauranga manufacturer of low cost Water Hydraulic powered platform lifts has been bursting at the seams, such that it has acquired the local lift manufacturer Lift Works. These lifts are becoming the new lift market niche for affordable disabled access solutions up to 3 levels. EDITORIAL. IT WAS NICE KNOWING THE BIA !: First it was the Department of Internal Affairs, the DIAs review of the Building Act in 2001, then the Ministry of Economic Development, the MEDs search into strengthening the Building Act to protect the consumer through expanding building controls in 2003. And lastly the culmination of the bureaucrats sojourn into the scrum of the building industry, the presentation of the still to be ratified burgeoning Building Bill. But as if to justify the swathe of knowledge gleaned, and time spent in the inner sanctums of the building industry over the past 3 years, there has emerged a kind of paternal bureaucratic brotherhood with the artisans, a kind of, we can do this together. Well expand and oversee you to take away that burdensome responsibility of having to be responsible for yourself. And so the media statement has been issued:The Ministry of Housing will be expanded through the transfer of relevant functions from the MED, DIA and the Ministry of Social Development, the MSD. The expanded Ministry of Housing will be a one-stop shop, renamed the DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND HOUSING, the DBH. Our Government is committed to strengthening the public service so it better serves NZs etc. etc. etc. ie. Absorb the past semi-independent functions & employees of the BIA. Ed. MIDDLE EAST ELEVATOR SHOW 2005: The next three or four years will result in the entire landscape of Dubai being changed, promised H.H.General Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubais Crown Prince and UAE Defence Minister, in a recent interview with CNN. And you are cordially invited to participate in the Gulfs premier Elevator and Escalator event to be held in Hall 8 of the Dubai International Exhibition Center, in the United Arab Emirates over the 21st to the 24th of February 2005. The UAE, on the tip of the hook of the Persian Gulf, about 500kms long by 150kms wide, has under construction around 343 multi-storey buildings in Dubai at present, and accounts for some 20,000+ elevators and escalators in use at the end of 2003. (7000 NZ) See: www.mediaccom.com Information packs available +971 4 2691296 Or email mediac@emirates.net.ae Page 1 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY July 2004 Issue 74 INDEPENDENCE LTD INSTALLS FIRST LIFT: Local STANNAH stairchair agent Rob Douglas moves into the disabled access small lift market with installation of their first Stannah Midilift SL in to Christchurch NZ.. Rob, who has worked for Stannah in the UK where these lifts are manufactured, has focused on installing the Stannah range of stairchairs over the past years while building his business, but has succumbed to demand for a simple, high quality more flexible means of disabled access to compliment this range. These free standing minimal site impact enclosed platform lifts do just that. The unit installed into Cardale House, 95 Tuam Street Christchurch, required only redirecting the lower stair access to provide a 1.37m wide x 1.56m long footprint, and cut out a 70mm deep pit. Price ranges up to 50,000, and the controls require constant pressure on call pushes to operate, but have a soft touch. The internal shaft is flush, fitted with platform edge and overhead nonentrapment sensors that provide total passenger Redirected Lower Stairs safety. to fit The manual swing doors are easy to operate although can be fitted with powered drives for less that 2000 per entry if needed. All round, it is a useful means of disabled access for the building. See www.stannah.co.uk or contact Rob on 0800 92 66 77 WORLD NEWS FROM ELENET ® THYSSEN ACQUIRES NEW ZEALAND FIRM: THYSSENkRUPP Elevator Australia Pty Ltd recently acquired Auckland, New Zealand based Elevator Technologies Ltd. According to the company, the acquisition enables TyssenKrupp Elevators to have direct access to the New Zealand market. The former owners will remain as managing directors. FERMATOR SCHINDLER AGREEMENT: Fermator has entered into a long term strategic relationship with Schindler for the supply, manufacturing and licensing of their landing door and car door systems for Schindler elevators in the commodity segment. To enter into this business for Schindler and other OEMs, Fermator set up a new production center in Falset, Spain with a total covered production area of 8,000 sqm and an initial capacity of 70,000 doors per year. KONE TO BE IN BRISBANES TALLEST: KONE is supplying five AltaTM lifts for the Aurora Apartments in Brisbane, Australia. At 210 meters, the 67story tower will be the tallest in the city. It will house 452 apartments, an eight level car-parking garage and retail space, plus entertainment and recreational facilities. Construction is expected to be completed in 2006. MODEL ELEVATOR SAFETY LAW UPDATE: The Model Elevator Safety Law, which includes requirements for licensing of elevator mechanics, inspectors and contractors, has been passed in 11 states. These include Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. The National Association of Elevator Contractors (NAEC) CETTM Certification has been recognized in Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. to meet the requirements for elevator mechanics licensing and it is being reviewed in Alabama, California, Illinois, Texas, Vermont and Virginia. The CET Grandparent option is available for those who meet minimum standards of either industry-related field work or a combination of work and training. The deadline for applying for the CET Grandparenting Program is December 31, 2004. For more information contact NAEC at phone: 1-800-900-6232 or website: www.naec.org Page 2 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY July 2004 Issue 74 THE PLATFORM LIFT UNDER QUESTION: Still no word on the Building Bill, although the Territorial Authorities seem to be refining their processes relative to features long overlooked such as lifts in anticipation. I seem to be attracting more queries than in the past from low-rise building owners or their representatives under pressure from the TAs during the Consent process, to provide a single conformance solution as the suitable means for mechanical access into their building. Invariably emphasis is being put on NZS4121:2001, the reproduced disabled access standard as the means of compliance. Uninformed TA officers understandably tend to use this good guide without question, such that the history and status of this standard needs to be clarified. Firstly, it needs to be clear, that NZS4121 was first written in an era when lifts were uncommon as a solution to provide access to two and three floor buildings, the exception being large goods or for special access needs. Still today this holds true, most able-bodied persons use stairs for access over this level, and NZS4121 accommodates this. Because of market pressures and vested interests in the development of singular solution standards, consideration was not given to alternative means of disabled access, other than for the fully automatic passenger lift, and so the Building Act still reflects this compromise. It is not until we as a society recognise that to some, the first two floors of a building are as much an obstacle as all those above the 2nd or 3rd, that NZS 4121 will become relevant to all. The Building Act gave disabled access a more relevant profile in the market place, next to fire and earthquake, and through focusing on performance as the subjective criteria, it has allowed the market to broaden and become more innovative. It has achieved this through the Alternative Solution, to provide varying cost effective access solutions not only for the permanently disabled, but also for all of us who at some time in our life cannot negotiate those first few floors easily. So until NZS4121:2001 catches up with the innovative market, it is preferable that Territorial Officers understand that this Standard in most cases is still an unnecessarily restrictive solution regarding means of mechanical access up to 3 floors. Therefore, the performance requirement found all throughout the Building Code; to ensure people with disabilities are able to carry out normal activities and processes within buildings safely, is the relevant yardstick, and all Consent applications should only be judged accordingly. IS UPGRADE BECOMING OBSOLETE ?: The last few upgrade specifications have seen LEC making allowance for full replacement of the lift as an option, in with the usual detail of recommended upgrade items. It is not that I was expecting a competitive price, but a lot of pre-80s buildings that have never seen upgrade over their life, require quite a bit of equipment upgrade to attain the performance and reliability levels technology has set over the interim decades in their life. The market place in adopting less labour intensive high technological manufacturing processes, has resulted in a much lower cost, high performance packaged product such as the Motor Room-less lift. Subsequently, with supply and installation costs dramatically reducing, the package price has been worth considering, and of late we have seen two examples of full replacements of lift equipment chosen instead of upgrade. Example of offers:No.1 Supplier UPGRADE REPLACE No.2 Supplier UPGRADE REPLACE A 73,648 79,840 B 75,986 117,036 C 72,996 84,358 A 100,460 109,000 B 96,669 89,900 C no offer 124,000 The NZ market has become aware of the advantages of the MRL product, and so with LEC feedback on pricing becoming available, hopefully we will see a levelling of the present extremes in pricing. With an increasing realisation by building owners that their lift equipment does not last forever, just because it has been under a maintenance contract all its life. And that you can only achieve so much with a coat of paint in leasing property, where lift performance and reliability provides a strong impression as to the state of the building And so, I put the premise forward, are we to see a decline in upgrade over replacement in the lower rise market ? Page 3 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY July 2004 Issue 74 UPPER RANGE LOW RISE DISBLED ACCESS SOLUTIONS: This market is becoming quite active in this area as the building owner still looking for a low site impact but higher quality package than the low cost end of the market for a disabled access solution, is prepared to invest a little more. With pricing ranging from 35k to 50K, the main suppliers we have seen in the South Island market are companies importing overseas equipment such as:Rob Hurley - HE Lifts Ltd Ph: 09 585 1226 - importing the Garaventa www.garaventa.can Raised Garaventa Platform Lift Stannah Entry Door & Power Pack Dave Gardner - NZ Engineering Services Ltd Ph: 09 576 0545 - importing the Cibes www.cibeslift.com Lowered Garaventa Platform Lift Cibes Platform Lift & Controls Rob Dougles - Independence Ltd Ph: 09 580 2124 - importing the Stannah www.stannah.co.uk Stannah Control Station YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY Page 4     ");
array_files[31]=new Array(0,4,"http://www.lifteye.co.nz/NZLFaxes/Nzlfax73.pdf","2006-06-28","1013K"," Nzlfax73    ","","","May 2004 Issue 73 EDITORIAL. BIA becomes BIB: It is a hard subject to get away from at the present as the Building Bill comes closer to fruition. The Building Act was introduced in 1991 broken into some 93 sections spread over 71 pages, with some 46 or so pages of schedules. A few leaks and many trees later, the Building Act 2003 is likely to replace it on July 1st 2004 with some 386 sections spread over some 168 pages, with 31 pages of schedules. Just under double the size. This is the Government Ministers solution to a few leaky buildings. For well over a year now they have held court over the industry pleading for building industry opinion, holding seminars and meetings up and down the country while multiple Ministry appointee has taken notes and withdrawn to write up their solution to the issue, and this is the result. For the skilled trades, they are going to accredit everyone who cannot prove he isnt a cowboy. For the Building Certifiers, they know the structure too well, so accreditation and crippling insurance for them. For the professions, well they have enough lobbyists to retain the status quo, and the Territorial Authorities, hopefully will focus more on efficiently administering and enforcing the building consent and compliance schedule process, rather than imitate building inspectors of old. The BIA, well have they become the Ministries BUILDING INDUSTRY BUREAUCRACY ?. Ed. The New Zealand Lift Fax is produced bimonthly by LEC. Six copies of the N.Z.L Fax comes to you for only 27.00. Regards.Ed. www.lifteye.co.nz email - nzlfax@lifteye.co.nz 10C Grange Street CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND 8002 Ph: Fax: 0064 3 332 2499 0064 3 332 0016 WHATS GOING UP or DOWN THIS MONTH: NEW INDUSTRY APPOINTMENTS: A swathe of movement in the industry over the past few months has seen familiar faces re-emerge, some move along, and even a new Aussie face to raise the local industry standard! SCHINDLER: Jeff Schmelz with good industry and management experience and great client communication abilities has been caught up in a ChCh reshuffle, becoming free in the NZ market with LEC showing some interest. Robert Hallsmith (ex Otis Wellington Sales) has been appointed the new Schindler Wellington Sales Mgr. KONE: Mike Boyd previously looking after all those Otis ChCh installation contracts including the Gen2 MRL, has moved over to learn all about the KONE Monospace MRL with his appointment as KONE Contracts Mgr in ChCh. OTIS: Debi Wilson brings all the right qualities to the ChCh office as their new Sales Administrator. At last another Aussie in the NZ market. I understand Auckland and Wellington have also added new sales Administrators to their structure. LEC MAKES APPLICATION TO THE NZLEA: As detailed in the last newsletter, the NZLEA has set up a closed user group site that non-voting Associate members will be able to access to provide opinions etc. I see this as a functional service for communication between members to discuss industry issues, and so encourage all associated in any way with D2 equipment to also consider joining. Fees are 200pa for Associate membership and further details can be found on the NZLEA site at www.lifts.org.nz. CAR PARKING SOLUTIONS: New Zealand now has its own local company that will focus on providing your car parking solutions. Bob Haswell has set up as Car Parking Solutions providing for the 2 car apartment dweller through to the multi-storey car parking building. Since the launch he already has over 30 projects underway demonstrating the demand for these solutions . Ph: 03 540 2755 - Fax: 03 540 2757 Mobile 027 4350 580 - email: carparkingsolutions@xtra.co.nz. Website: www.carparkingsolutions.com.au. Page 1 YOUR INDEPENDENT EYE IN THE INDUSTRY May 2004 Issue 73 LOOKING AHEAD: Lift 2004 Milano 17th - 20th November 2004 - in Milan. see - www.fmi.it/lift/ Elevcon Asia 2005 22-24 June 2005. Hotel Bejing. Call for papers for the 4th Elevcon Asia Congress on vertical transportation Technologies and 15th World Elevcon Congress. Ami Lustig - Programme Manager Email: els@netvision.net.il for details. Interlift 2005: Interlift 2005 has been scheduled for October 18-21, 2005. The last Interlift was the most successful in the shows history with 433 companies from 39 countries represented and 16,814 visitors. Exhibitors from that show assessed overall participation results at 80%. Additionally, 44% of the visitors and 60% of the exhibitors came from outside of Germany. Organisers AFAG Messen und Ausstellungen GmbH and the German Association for Elevator Technology, the VFA Interlift, will be promoting the 2005 show at various trade industry events beginning with the China Expo which is currently underway. For information on Interlift 2005, contact Winfried Forster, AFAG Manager Press Department, Messezentru