LOLER (Thorough Examination of Arboricultural Equipment

[LOLERsouthend]

I am a Team Leader for a National Company, LOLER Inspections and a freelance climber. I am of the opinion that climbing kits and rigging kits do not get the attention and care they need considering the trust that is put in them when climbing and working at height, sometimes a considerable height in trees, the Service repair and or replacement is lacking. Climbers your life in is your Hands.

[Loler UK]

Many of my clients care for their equipment exceptionally well, they have a good understanding of their equipment and are always learning/ eager to learn more, they remove items from service if they are unsure of their condition, repairing items if required and asking me for advice between their thorough examinations by phone MMS and email.

 

Most of them replace equipment 'pro actively' ie they don't wait for it to fail a TE.

 

That said their are many things that are spotted in a TE that are not spotted by the end user, I wouldn't consider those users 'lacking' or brand them as not giving their kit the attention and care it need

 

Thorough examination is intended to spot that that the end user does not, id not expect them to accumulate the uber geeky detailed knowledge of equipment that i've been committed/sad enough to acquire; cumulative familiarisation can be a powerful factor with daily checks, no matter how stringent my clients attention it'll never negate their need for periodic thorough examination, that's besides the fact that its a requirement of course

[kentjames]

"If you can't see the wood for the trees, you can't see the whole situation clearly because you're looking too closely at small details, or because you're too closely involved."

 

For climbing kits I take the examination of kit very seriously, it is my life on the line. I inspect the kit as it comes out the bag and when it goes back in again. Once weekly and again once monthly. However during daily use of the same equipment it is possible to become blinkered and this is when the TE by an independent person is particularly key and useful.

[Loler UK]

Refreshing to hear on AT James, thank you

 

TE by an independent, this typically means someone external to your business, i get several PM's per month from AT members concerned about the in-house loler examinations done on their kit, it's a tough boat to be in as employee not wishing to rock the boat, perhaps not sure if the in house guy is competent or without fear of favour.

 

Who on here thinks its acceptable for the owner/ proprietor to carry out the thorough examination? and what is your position in your organisation?

 

IE no i don't think its acceptable and i'm a proprietor

[TIMON]

Both I and my colleague co-run our ARB business and we are the climbers as well. We both recently qualified as LOLER competent persons so we can perform our regular thorough examinations "in house" in order to:

1. Learn the principles of LOLER and increase our competency.

2. Become better equipped in our theoretical and practical knowledge of ARB equipment and it uses.

3. Open up another facet to our business by offering the service to other ARBs.

4. Operate our business at a very safe standard.

5. save money. (Not the main reason which is why I have listed it last)

 

I don't see anything wrong with us doing it in house in our situation.

 

I failed a number of items from my own kit which another independent LOLER guy told me he would have passed.

 

I realise that being relatively new to this my understanding is limited, which is why I often seek advice and guidance from others I know in the industry who have a much greater depth of knowledge.

 

Periodically we plan to have an external TE. Which will I hope demonstrate we are conducting our own examinations without fear or favour.

[agrimog]

to comply with loller, any kit must be checked by a "competent" person, now who is going to be more competent than the person who is using, maintaining, and repairing whatever kit is involved. back in the days of common sense how did we ever manage without all this big brother holding our hands........

[Loler UK]

interesting post ti, i assume when you say co-run the business it is owned by someone else? do you & your colleague examine each others personal kits at TE or examine your own?

 

there's no hard & fast rules per-see but interpreting fear of favour & competency can only go so far id suggest that no matter ho competent and without fear of favour you may consider one they be best not an owner/ major share holder or on performance linked pay that would be effected by the resulting costs of items failing and certainly not TE'ing their OWN kit, even if its provided by the company not just on fof grounds but out of concern for cumulative familiarisation and the possibility of sentimental attachment etc.

 

pro-active replacement is great and if an examiner was happy to pass an item that you decided to replace that's great but in some firms in house examiners get a bit 'fail happy' out of being either over cautious or in some cases wishing to force the firm into a more pro-active replacement schedule than they may wish, it's not uncommon for me to be handed a bin or 7 of gear that was failed by an in house/ other examiner only to find nothing significantly wrong with it

[TIMON]

Hi Mike. Our business is owned by a large national charity set up to help people break free from drug and alcohol addictions. The work provides the finances for our residential recovery centres and also provides those on the recovery programme with the opportunity to learn work skills, gain qualifications and develop a personal work ethic etc..

Me and my colleague are accountable to the National Director and the board of trustees. We have no shareholders and ours is a not for profit organisation.

When it comes to being impartial I think we are where we need to be in terms of balancing safety, objectivity and economics.

I performed the TE on my own kit this time but my oppo double checked my kit and vice versa. After that an "independent " LOLER guy we know also ran through it as well.

I really appreciate your comments and we will certainly discuss some of the points you have raised, particularly those of familiarity and sentimental attachment.

 

Thanks

Timon

[LOLERsouthend]

In house Examinations, i'm not really convinced about but the logic is clear, it saves money, But at the risk of what, Mike P is right to be cautious and within a team or small firm, risk of fear and favour will probably be quite high, depending on who pays for things of course. A karabiner, harness or rope can be replaced, hands arms fingers walking are a little more difficult to obtain.

Externally tendered Examinations are probably best because then there is no one and no animosity within a crew that get on well, and work as a team. External examinations also provide a good oportunity for conversation regarding kit and how best to look after it, with independent advice from Inspectors like Mike you would probably get good feed back.

Sounds like an interesting organisation ti can you expand a little on what you do?

[Robert_S]

to comply with loller, any kit must be checked by a "competent" person, now who is going to be more competent than the person who is using, maintaining, and repairing whatever kit is involved. back in the days of common sense how did we ever manage without all this big brother holding our hands........

 

agree.