Lolering your own gear

[treequip]

Thanks for the considered response, but the bit in bold was my point too. Assuming we get what 'cycles to failure' is, I'm on about how you quantify it by visual inspection.

 

He'd need to xray it and in the absence of said machine, how is cycles to failure determined.

 

Is it by time in service, for example? as well as visual inspection.

 

 

I won't be getting a chipper ticket, I hope:001_smile: but never say never is what I'm supposed to have learned with age:001_smile:

 

This CTF thing is taking on a life of its own, when Mike asked about the LOLER course I used it as an example of part the knowledge that an inspector should possess. Can we leave it alone now please, its taking this off on a tangent.

[RTS1]

2 years experience , can I become a LOLER examiner .

[Pete Mctree]

2 years experience , can I become a LOLER examiner .

 

I think it's a minimum of 5.

[likeitorlumpit]

Out of interest.

Does anyone know what a LOLER inspector may find wrong with kit that a climber wouldn't. Thats what gets me.

And if they can (find faults) then why shouldn't the climber be the one to check kit and be qualified to do so.

After all it is he/she who is using it daily.

Lets face it a rope could pass LOLER tomorrow and fail the next day. As could every other bit of kit thats used.

[Jspiteri]

I think the main issue is that, we, the employer etc etc need to demonstrate every 6 months that a thorough documented inspection is being carried out. The each part of your kit as a serial number, checked, recorded and documented, either pass or fail. Of course anything could happens between the next 6 monthly inspection, that's why we need to check our own kit before using it. There is no time frame on who is competent to check as the HSE guidelines state; should have enough appropriate practical and theoretical knowledge and experience of the lifting equipment so that they can detect defects or weaknesses, and assess how important they are in relation to the safety and continued use of the equipment;

[Andy Clark]

I think the important point to remember folks, as has been touched on already, is that LOLER is generic across multiple industries - it is not Arb specific.

 

Like most of these things, PUWER, DSEAR, WAHR, etc, they have all been written based on a quantified need for addressing a particular issue that arises across the wider aspects of industry as a whole.-

 

Ie, if there are 1000 accidents with ladders in the uk, only one of them may be an Arb related accident, with the other 999 being across scaffolders, window cleaners, painters and decorators, roofers, etc - but we will end up with a generic "one size fits all" measure in place that will regulate the way that ANYONE and EVERYONE uses ladders.

 

So over time, these regs filter down to the rank and file of the smaller industries - and those industries in turn create their own interpretations based on a view relative to their particular industry - this evolving to become "industry best practice". The general practices that are widely accepted by that industry.

 

Yes, LOLER itself does not say that "thou shalt be qualified to inspect karabiners and lockjacks", but industry best practice says that you should be.

 

And THAT is what you will be assessed on if it all goes pear shaped.

 

Don't look at it as a bad thing. It's their for YOUR protection.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[likeitorlumpit]

I think the important point to remember folks, as has been touched on already, is that LOLER is generic across multiple industries - it is not Arb specific.

 

Like most of these things, PUWER, DSEAR, WAHR, etc, they have all been written based on a quantified need for addressing a particular issue that arises across the wider aspects of industry as a whole.-

 

Ie, if there are 1000 accidents with ladders in the uk, only one of them may be an Arb related accident, with the other 999 being across scaffolders, window cleaners, painters and decorators, roofers, etc - but we will end up with a generic "one size fits all" measure in place that will regulate the way that ANYONE and EVERYONE uses ladders.

 

So over time, these regs filter down to the rank and file of the smaller industries - and those industries in turn create their own interpretations based on a view relative to their particular industry - this evolving to become "industry best practice". The general practices that are widely accepted by that industry.

 

Yes, LOLER itself does not say that "thou shalt be qualified to inspect karabiners and lockjacks", but industry best practice says that you should be.

 

And THAT is what you will be assessed on if it all goes pear shaped.

 

Don't look at it as a bad thing. It's their for YOUR protection.

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

 

Yes thanks, that makes sense

But do you really need full LOLER inspector status to do this in arb.

Keep costs down and allow the climber to do this. A visual kit examination coupled with a history of what can go wrong should suffice. Or am I being simplistic. I believe the responsibility should be with the climber but under the umbrella of the employer. Gone full circle here. Thats what the system is. Doh.

So thats 2 lots of climbing kit on E Bay every 6 months or £50 per kit to get LOLER'ed

[skyhuck]

Does any one know of any accidents caused by kit failure???

[Andy Clark]

Yes thanks, that makes sense

 

But do you really need full LOLER inspector status to do this in arb.

 

Keep costs down and allow the climber to do this. A visual kit examination coupled with a history of what can go wrong should suffice. Or am I being simplistic. I believe the responsibility should be with the climber but under the umbrella of the employer. Gone full circle here. Thats what the system is. Doh.

 

So thats 2 lots of climbing kit on E Bay every 6 months or £50 per kit to get LOLER'ed

 

 

You've hit the nail on the head there, with the other side of the coin - the need to be independent, and have a fair and unbiased view unclouded by "other factors".

 

What is REALLY more important? Cost? Or making sure that you are less likely to have a fall?

Yes, any and all climbers worth their salt will always check their kit as par for course before they even put the harness on...... But an extra set of independent eyes, just to double check, is surely more beneficial to your continued existence on this planet, than not? Especially if for the sake of the fact that you could've spent the money on something else?

 

At the end of the day, no matter how hard we try, we, the user, will, on odd occasion, have those moments when we know something's not right - maybe that krab that you hardly use because it sticks a bit - and will justify it with "oh yes, must remember to pop to the suppliers for a new one".

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my BlackBerry 9700 using Tapatalk

[Andy Collins]

I believe it is incorrect for an employer to carry out inspections of employees kit for the simple reason that he has a financial incentive to pass them, it's going to cost him money to replace them in the event of failure.

As far as an inspector requiring a certificate to prove his competency to inspect, well how else do you assess whether someone knows how to check kit thoroughly?

So you inspect your kit daily, how thoroughly do you check it every single day? Crab, yep it opens and shuts, ropes, bit wet oh there's a bit of a pluck that'll do fr today and so on. It's dark and wet and cold most of this time of year, the "Get it done" and go home mentality is in full force, the last thing people will do is faff around carefully checking every single item of every climbing kit and every lowering kit. This is why you need independent inspections... IMO.