loler lowering rope??

[educated arborist]

In testing Yale break the rope a number of times and average them out to assertain its ABS the lowest at which it broke is the MBS. Yale state:

"Working load (SWL) is based on static or moderately dynamic lifting/pulling operations. Instantaneous changes in load, up or down, in excess of 10% of line’s rated working load constitutes hazardous shock load and would void normal working-load recommendation. Consult Yale Cordage for guidelines for working loads and safe use of rope."

depending on the ropes aplication & configuration a different SF (safetey factor may be applied) assertaining a higher or lower safe working load. Due to the high levels of abraision, terminations, attachment methods, dynamic loading etc. etc which we arborists subject our ropes to we aply a SF of 10-1 for rigging operations.

[educated arborist]

OK bare with me this is a little long but I'm going to quote from the Lantra 'Thorough Examination of Arb Equipment' guidelines.

 

to air on the side of caution lantra & others may wish to comply with this guidance but if you read it fully it does clearly state that the guidence is not compulsory.

 

As for splicing you can't really argue that gear must be CE marked & splices don't, Its the same law & you are altering the construction of the rope. There are seperate CE requirements for splices/ terminations.

 

A good point about EN numbers though some of the manufacturors in this industry have assertained a macheinery CE mark for lifting equipment just so that people that ill-understand the law arn't put off from buying something which doesn't even require one anyway!

 

People need to be educated & taught to interprate the law & stop over inturprating things. I have had clients which have been lead to beleive that you are no longer aloud to terminate your climbing line with a bowline or any other knot & visa-versa that you can't climb on a splice or can't use ascenders, the list is endless.

 

The LAW makes no reference to PPE in use needing to be CE marked, If any one dissagrees then they should post a link/ its extract on this thread. Not some lantra guidence which does not only fall short of law but is not even acop.

[Tom@EVA]

I would agree with educated arborist, an mbs of 8164kg ... 8000kg and in our industry we use a safety factor for ropes of 10-1 so swl = 800kg.

 

Just a note though that I think Yale themselves use a factor of 5-1 to calculate their working load from their strength approx. average which would be give a figure of 1632kg but we work at 10-1 for LOLER inspections.

[Andy Collins]

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.

[bob]

so what is the mbs swl of 19mm portland as i cant find it anywhere. The bunf talks about average breaking strain, but what does that mean in laymens.??

 

 

H

 

Arborist Catalog Contest | Yale Cordage

have a look at there catalogue top right of page to download

makes interesting reading

if your as sad as me:thumbup:

[bob]

this will lead to more and more confusion and slating of the loler inspector irregularities which really is a shame

 

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.

 

to air on the side of caution lantra & others may wish to comply with this guidance but if you read it fully it does clearly state that the guidence is not compulsory.

 

As for splicing you can't really argue that gear must be CE marked & splices don't, Its the same law & you are altering the construction of the rope. There are seperate CE requirements for splices/ terminations.

 

A good point about EN numbers though some of the manufacturors in this industry have assertained a macheinery CE mark for lifting equipment just so that people that ill-understand the law arn't put off from buying something which doesn't even require one anyway!

 

People need to be educated & taught to interprate the law & stop over inturprating things. I have had clients which have been lead to beleive that you are no longer aloud to terminate your climbing line with a bowline or any other knot & visa-versa that you can't climb on a splice or can't use ascenders, the list is endless.

 

The LAW makes no reference to PPE in use needing to be CE marked, If any one dissagrees then they should post a link/ its extract on this thread. Not some lantra guidence which does not only fall short of law but is not even acop.

 

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

[educated arborist]

I would agree with educated arborist, an mbs of 8164kg ... 8000kg and in our industry we use a safety factor for ropes of 10-1 so swl = 800kg.

 

Just a note though that I think Yale themselves use a factor of 5-1 to calculate their working load from their strength approx. average which would be give a figure of 1632kg but we work at 10-1 for LOLER inspections.

 

5-1 is not stated as the SF in the arborist section. The rope is not solely designed for arborists & yales recomended SF for some aplications is as low as 4-1 and in exeptional circamstances even lower sf are applied (NOT ARB MIND)

[john dawson]

its like an mot. you can take a car to 100 testers, and youl get 100 different answers, ie some pass, some fail minor, some fail miserably. yet the rules are the same and apply throughout.

 

the system is a big mess.

 

get your heads together and sort it out.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Steve Bullman
language please

[Andy Collins]

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?

[Pete Mctree]

all bar one are on the same page Andy. The confusion is BS