Lolering your own gear

[Jspiteri]

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.

 

Is this not question the integrity of the inspector / fellow climber?

[Andy Collins]

Not sure I follow surely having a certificate would give more credence to the inspection? Would you be happy to climb on a kit tested by someone with no qualifications to do so, someone you don't know or don't trust, or someone who can't afford to keep replacing kit tht no longer should pass an inspection?

The thing is, the law states that the kit must be inspected, by a competent and suitably qualified person, a certificate of competency in this field is acceptable in a court of law, it is a benchmark of the standards required. How do you prove competency without it?

[carlos]

how much are these loler inspector courses??

preasumeably it would benefit any climber when checking their own gear, to have a greater understanding of its saftey.

how long are the courses.

[Jspiteri]

Not sure I follow surely having a certificate would give more credence to the inspection? Would you be happy to climb on a kit tested by someone with no qualifications to do so, someone you don't know or don't trust, or someone who can't afford to keep replacing kit tht no longer should pass an inspection?

The thing is, the law states that the kit must be inspected, by a competent and suitably qualified person, a certificate of competency in this field is acceptable in a court of law, it is a benchmark of the standards required. How do you prove competency without it?

 

The law states; 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; I.E being a climber already

[treequip]

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.

 

Again this is an industry specific view of LOLER, its unlikley they will find anything a climber didnt notice (hopefully) BUT, LOLER is HUUUUGE and the climber in arb is but a tiny part of a tooth on a small cog. There are plenty of lifting opperations where people other than climbers use lifting eqipment for tasks where thier own life isnt on the line.

[treequip]

The law states; 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; I.E being a climber already

 

That would be HSE Guidance rather than law.

[Jspiteri]

That would be HSE Guidance rather than law.

 

Who would the law refer to if there was ever an incident, it would be the HSE

[Jspiteri]

I think the HSE is very clear. It doesn't mean it's right and not everybody will agree, but that's what it is. And until it changes that's what we have to comply too as a minimum

[Andy Collins]

The law states; 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; I.E being a climber already

 

if this were to be the case, kit would never fail a Loler inspection by a certificated Loler inspector...yet it does.

Also, if the climbers etc were so good at their inspections, why was there ever a need for a certificated Inspector at all? Because people were not checking kit properly and it was failing in use.

If you inspected your colleagues kit, as a fellow climber, and he fell and was permanently disabled, it went to court, how long would your reasoning stand up under cross examination?

[Jspiteri]

if this were to be the case, kit would never fail a Loler inspection by a certificated Loler inspector...yet it does.

Also, if the climbers etc were so good at their inspections, why was there ever a need for a certificated Inspector at all? Because people were not checking kit properly and it was failing in use.

If you inspected your colleagues kit, as a fellow climber, and he fell and was permanently disabled, it went to court, how long would your reasoning stand up under cross examination?

 

Again

 

I think the HSE is very clear. It doesn't mean it's right and not everybody will agree, but that's what it is. And until it changes that's what we have to comply too as a minimum