Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

SRT devices.


Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A google translate of the above

 

Oh This can not only be expensive, but can endanger the existence of the company. The insurance cover can be excluded in case of gross negligence. The transfer of unauthorized PSAs to employees appears to be classified as such, otherwise the Berufsgenossenschaft would not be so clear. And even worse: in the case of gross negligence, the entrepreneur is personally liable. There is also no limited liability company.

progress

 

I believe that progress requires courageous visionaries. Only these are based on unknown terrain, without knowing exactly the dangers. Unfortunately they are heroes only if the trip goes well. Otherwise, they stand fast in the offside and are regarded as failures. This is the risk. Nobody can ultimately say what courts will decide in the individual case and how high the penalties will be. Whoever goes on now, does so at his own risk and without a double ground.

Use of non-approved PSA devices

 

To our Facebook post I read a comment with the reference, there would be no safer procedure than the SRT-Climbing with the RopeWrench. Therefore, the technology is still used. The estimation as the safest method is certainly a bit overdone. Never is a thing generally secure, but always only in relation to concrete situations. But there is a thought behind this: I believe that if I think a thing is safe and there are good reasons for its use, I can also use devices without a standard. The reasons I must however clearly in a hazard determination or operating instructions list. I also have to do everything I can to make sure that people are safe, and that people instruct and instruct them.

 

Whether this is before the court is a hot matter. The court will, among other things, ask: What are the reasons for this assessment? Are there any legal alternatives? Instead of the SRT, there would be the alternative of the double rope technique, the use of the I'D or similar devices. For SRT fans certainly no alternative. Whether ergonomics, speed, and the other benefits are enough to convince the court?

Why is the trade union now driving the hard line?

 

Actually, the Berufsgenossenschaft (SVLFG) itself has to answer. I can think of it and I can not blame it on the Berufsgenossenschaft. To understand: the professional association is certainly not about the use of the popular RopeWrench or the SRT procedure to prohibit. The Berufsgenossenschaft insists on compliance with the law. And these clearly state that manufacturers have to admit their devices according to the PSA standard. If I have understood correctly, the professional association would support the manufacturers by consulting. There was therefore a meeting of climbers, traders, the employers' liability insurance association and representatives of the manufacturer on the German tree nursery 2016. There, the manufacturer has assured to ensure a certification (corrected me if it was different). Since then, little has happened and requests from the professional association are not answered according to their own statement.

The end for SRT as well as RopeWrench and Co.?

 

SRT is called "Single Rope Technic" (in German: single rope technology or single rope technique). SRT has been around for a long time (industry) and will continue to exist. The manufacturers are however legally requested to have the devices tested according to the European directive. Unfortunately there is no special standard for the application. This is the difficulty. It therefore does not make a standardization impossible. For many novelties there is no standard standard. For this reason, there is the sensible possibility to test devices "in line" with standards. The special use is targeted and tested. Of course, this is more complex, because only a test procedure is devised and must be described in the manual exactly. This is and remains the problem of pioneers and innovations. It is a hurdle, but it is not insuperable.

Conclusion

 

We hope for the manufacturer ISC. With the RopeWrench (and the other SRT devices), it will definitely go on as soon as a certification is done. The sales stop seems to have a positive effect. ISC has already indicated that it is feverish to work on certification. Further information and solutions are to be presented promptly.

 

Last but not least, the time would now be for the relevant trade associations to take the issue into their hands and to strengthen their members. Love associations, now you can "profile! Now you can show the advantages of a merger and explain why it makes sense to have a professional association!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Translate offers this:

 

The past week ended with a bang-bang: sale and use of the SRT devices Rope Wrench, Rope Runner, Unicender and Hitch Hiker were prohibited. It is clear that this leads to some discussions, but also raises questions. Our Managing Director Johannes Bilharz summarized the background and took a position on the issues.

 

 

Dear customers,

Dear tree climbers,

The Trade Inspection Office has clearly pointed out to FreeWorkers that the sale and use of certain SRT products is not permitted under European and national legislation. We are therefore requested to discontinue the sale. The trade supervisor was active because it was pointed out by the SVLFG. It is probable that the professional association has been reported to the trade supervisory authorities or has been urged to take action.

 

When it comes to the question of use, it is irrelevant whether the devices are used anywhere in the world. It does not matter whether there were accidents or not, or what great things are possible with it. It is all about the lack of approval of the equipment, which is why sales and use are prohibited.

 

The letter from the trade supervisor indicates to us in the event of an infringement "possible cost-effective measures". I interpret this as follows: If we do not act, then there is a criminal complaint or a criminal case and it becomes expensive.

 

We act, we are finally traders! (Hoax)

 

background

The trade supervisor explained this to me as follows: If I would like to sell a car from the USA in Germany, it must be approved according to European safety standards (the same way). It may not be sold or driven on the road. Whether the US recognizes the safety of the car plays no role. What is certain, every country or union decides for itself. It is not about who is right. Rather, it is a matter of the kind of security a community has chosen. This is, of course, understandable and reasonable, and serves the purpose of protection against arbitrariness. For example, as you can see from many Chinese plagiarism, other countries have very curious notions of security. Also traders are in the temptation to see only the profit and take it with the security not so exactly. This is then fast in the direction of Mafia and Schwarzmarkt. We expressly dissociate ourselves as a dealer.

 

The dealer is liable

Before a dealer introduces and sells a new product, he must check whether the product is approved for use. The dealer is held responsible for this. As a trader, I am asking for protection, for customers. As you can see now, it can also be paternal. The customer is convinced of the safety and wants it, but does not get it.

 

The employer is liable

It goes however still further. Not only the dealer is taken into account but also the employer. In accordance with German law, the latter must ensure that PSA is made available where it is needed. He may only give an authorized PSA to an employee. Otherwise he makes himself punishable. And this is no joke, as the Trade Inspectorate told me. The Berufsgenossenschaft is also clear: In the event of an accident with the RopeWrench, the Berufsgenossenschaft rejects the insurance benefit! In addition, the employer is the process.

 

Oh This can not only be expensive, but can endanger the existence of the company. The insurance cover can be excluded in case of gross negligence. The transfer of unauthorized PSAs to employees appears to be classified as such, otherwise the Berufsgenossenschaft would not be so clear. And even worse: in the case of gross negligence, the entrepreneur is personally liable. There is also no limited liability company.

 

progress

I believe that progress requires courageous visionaries. Only these are based on unknown terrain, without knowing exactly the dangers. Unfortunately they are heroes only if the trip goes well. Otherwise, they stand fast in the offside and are regarded as failures. This is the risk. Nobody can ultimately say what courts will decide in the individual case and how high the penalties will be. Whoever goes on now, does so at his own risk and without a double ground.

 

Use of non-approved PSA devices

To our Facebook post I read a comment with the reference, there would be no safer procedure than the SRT-Climbing with the RopeWrench. Therefore, the technology is still used. The estimation as the safest method is certainly a bit overdone. Never is a thing generally secure, but always only in relation to concrete situations. But there is a thought behind this: I believe that if I think a thing is safe and there are good reasons for its use, I can also use devices without a standard. The reasons I must however clearly in a hazard determination or operating instructions list. I also have to do everything I can to make sure that people are safe, and that people instruct and instruct them.

 

Whether this is before the court is a hot matter. The court will, among other things, ask: What are the reasons for this assessment? Are there any legal alternatives? Instead of the SRT, there would be the alternative of the double rope technique, the use of the I'D or similar devices. For SRT fans certainly no alternative. Whether ergonomics, speed, and the other benefits are enough to convince the court?

 

Why is the trade union now driving the hard line?

Actually, the Berufsgenossenschaft (SVLFG) itself has to answer. I can think of it and I can not blame it on the Berufsgenossenschaft. To understand: the professional association is certainly not about the use of the popular RopeWrench or the SRT procedure to prohibit. The Berufsgenossenschaft insists on compliance with the law. And these clearly state that manufacturers have to admit their devices according to the PSA standard. If I have understood correctly, the professional association would support the manufacturers by consulting. There was therefore a meeting of climbers, traders, the employers' liability insurance association and representatives of the manufacturer on the German tree nursery 2016. There, the manufacturer has assured to ensure a certification (corrected me if it was different). Since then, little has happened and requests from the professional association are not answered according to their own statement.

 

The end for SRT as well as RopeWrench and Co.?

SRT is called "Single Rope Technic" (in German: single rope technology or single rope technique). SRT has been around for a long time (industry) and will continue to exist. The manufacturers are however legally requested to have the devices tested according to the European directive. Unfortunately there is no special standard for the application. This is the difficulty. It therefore does not make a standardization impossible. For many novelties there is no standard standard. For this reason, there is the sensible possibility to test devices "in line" with standards. The special use is targeted and tested. Of course, this is more complex, because only a test procedure is devised and must be described in the manual exactly. This is and remains the problem of pioneers and innovations. It is a hurdle, but it is not insuperable.

 

Conclusion

We hope for the manufacturer ISC. With the RopeWrench (and the other SRT devices), it will definitely go on as soon as a certification is done. The sales stop seems to have a positive effect. ISC has already indicated that it is feverish to work on certification. Further information and solutions are to be presented promptly.

 

Last but not least, the time would now be for the relevant trade associations to take the issue into their hands and to strengthen their members. Love associations, now you can "profile! Now you can show the advantages of a merger and explain why it makes sense to have a professional association!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.