loler lowering rope??

[Tom@EVA]

Only going on what is taught but it's good we can discuss this so people do know what's involved and what the requirements are.

 

Based on the Lantra qualification in the thorough examination of arboricultural equipment... as this is the qualification that LOLER inspectors in Arboriculture need to have to undertake inspections on our kit. (One would hope that Lantra base their training on legal directives ... LOLER Regulations as applied to arboriculture). So having passed a written AND practical exam an inspector is deemed a 'competent person' - someone who has the requisite knowledge and experience, both theoretical and practical, of the type of material under examination.

 

As far as the HSE LOLER Regs state:

The HSE LOLER Regs 1998. Introduction point 2: 'This document contains an approved code of practise and guidance on the duties in LOLER and existing regulations which are applicable to the use of lifting equipment ... these regulations are principally the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 and PUWER'.

MHSWR (Point 12 LOLER Regs Intro) MHSWR requires a risk assessment to be carried out.

Point 17 LOLER Regs Intro: The risk assessment may well id significant risks not addressed by LOLER. For example ... personal protective equipement. 'In such circumstance you would need to consider Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regs 1992.'

So:

HSE Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 (and CE marking)

Point 34: Employers should ensure that any PPE they buy bears a ‘CE’ mark and complies with the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/1144)

The Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) directive is a CE marking directive which is intended to ensure that all PPE meets common standards of quality and performance. It also sets out basic health and safety requirements. The directive came fully into force in June 1995; non-compliant equipment must not be sold, even old stock manufactured before the directive came into force.

 

So: LOLER 1998 includes MHSWR 1992 and PUWER 1998 and consequently MHSWR means we in our industry must use PPE and so covers PPEWR 1992. It all seems to follow on/go hand in hand and be linked ... as one would hope it would be? Also we are also specifically taught that if an item does not have an EN number then it cannot pass a LOLER inspection.

 

What a way to spend a Friday night eh! Ha

[educated arborist]

So does being privy to certain information mean your inspection is better than A.N Other's inspection due to a hidden set of rules that your colleagues cant see?

 

seek & you shall find.

 

equipment which complies with en norms may not hold a CE mark. The holding of the mark is the concern of importers, retailers etc.

[Peter]

You are missing the point.

 

All equipment is supplied by someone, therefore if its PPE it must have a CE mark.

[Mesterh]

No wonder there is confusion and misunderstanding amongst the ordinary layman, with such contrasting opinions between the qualified inspectors. How on earth are we supposed to grasp the facts and understand them? How can we trust a Loler inspectors test, and importantly get our moneys worth from the test, if you disagree on what the standards are? Or is it just a money-maker when tree work is thin on the ground, and yet another rubber stamp for the collection.

 

My thoughts on LOLER too:001_tongue:

[educated arborist]

before you say any more can you please ring your contacts in all the manufacturers of one of the guys from treevolution

or do an update

i have pm,d you to try to sort this out

and you keep posting WRONG information

as previously asked when did you last do an update

my last one was a month ago so i do know the answers.

cheers

bob

 

Do you mean the very same treevolution that used & sugest we use certian items of un ce-climbing equipment/PPE in their climbing demonstrations at the AA fair?

 

The Last discusion I had with Liam regarding this matter was a little while ago but his words were that CE marking was not the concern of loler inspectors but retailers etc he said it is preferable but not compulsory.

[dillsue]

As requested here are some references showing a requirement to CE mark PPE/climbing gear.

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/PUBNS/indg174.pdf See page 3

 

CE-Marking: Does my product need CE Marking? See item 16

 

Contary to what has been said before CE marking is not to make a level playing field for trade in the EU, its there soley for safety. It ensures products meet minimum standards of safety- the essential health and safety requirements(ESHR's). In the case of high risk PPE/climbing gear the CE mark shows it meets certain standards AND has been independantly type tested and approved.

 

I think anyone suggesting that PPE without a CE mark is acceptable is treading on thin ice. Either it doesnt meet the standards or the CE mark has been removed through abuse/excessive wear or intent. Whichever is the case it would be dodgy for it to pass a thorough inspection.

 

As a public forum I think it is negilgent to be suggesting PPE without a CE mark is acceptable to use, as the less educated aborists may be tempted to use unsafe gear.

[Craig Johnson]

As requested here are some references showing a requirement to CE mark PPE/climbing gear.

 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/PUBNS/indg174.pdf See page 3

 

CE-Marking: Does my product need CE Marking? See item 16

 

Contary to what has been said before CE marking is not to make a level playing field for trade in the EU, its there soley for safety. It ensures products meet minimum standards of safety- the essential health and safety requirements(ESHR's). In the case of high risk PPE/climbing gear the CE mark shows it meets certain standards AND has been independantly type tested and approved.

 

I think anyone suggesting that PPE without a CE mark is acceptable is treading on thin ice. Either it doesnt meet the standards or the CE mark has been removed through abuse/excessive wear or intent. Whichever is the case it would be dodgy for it to pass a thorough inspection.

 

As a public forum I think it is negilgent to be suggesting PPE without a CE mark is acceptable to use, as the less educated aborists may be tempted to use unsafe gear.

 

enough said

[High Scale]

I think anyone suggesting that PPE without a CE mark is acceptable is treading on thin ice. Either it doesnt meet the standards or the CE mark has been removed through abuse/excessive wear or intent. Whichever is the case it would be dodgy for it to pass a thorough inspection.

 

Yeah your right but I was given the very same information when I did my loler course, no CE mark? Not a problem if it is deemed fit for purpose according to the training provider. That said I haven't done an update and don't intend to as I don't do inspections anyway.