Lolering your own gear

[treequip]

This is the information I'm looking for, wether or not anybody can inspect gear. Is it necessary to go on a Loler course?

 

Mike, the only thing to go on is the HSE guidance, anyone know of an arb loler inspector that hasn’t done some sort of accreditation?

 

If it goes wrong for anyone who hasnt they are going to have to explain why they chose not to.

[skip]

The person that requests the thorough examination is the one responsible for ensuring the examiner has the practical & theoretical knowledge & experience and is without fear or favour, this person MUST be named on the 'record' so it is they who must prove that they went to reasonable ends to ensure the 'compitent person' had the PTKE AND was independant, In arb this MEANS as a minimum they must hold the NPTC for thorough examination of arboricultural equipment. If you want to be extra compliant then it might be advisable to e-mail or right to the examiner to confirm that they have the PTKE to inspect........and list any of your equipment that goes beyond the standard Ddrt hitches and basic rigging gear eg lockjacks, uni's, grcs's, wrenches, unusual main lines, unusual friction cord, non-manufac splices cinches etc etc.

 

the nptc only teaches the basics, the ownas is on the examiner to ensure he/she ensures they have the PTKE to examine the equipment presented for examination, they may have to defer decisions or 'fail by default' if items of equipment presented for examination is outside the knowledge base they posses.

 

You cannot Loler your own gear! you can examine your colleagues etc but not your own, if you are a the owner of the firm you CANNOT loler your firms equipment if you think you can stand up in court & argue that you are impartial then good flipping luck lol!

 

also being provided with any accreditation other than the nptc should not be considered a reasonable measure, this includes the lyon course etc these courses do not cover arboricultural equipment!

[mikecotterill]

The person that requests the thorough examination is the one responsible for ensuring the examiner has the practical & theoretical knowledge & experience and is without fear or favour, this person MUST be named on the 'record' so it is they who must prove that they went to reasonable ends to ensure the 'compitent person' had the PTKE AND was independant, In arb this MEANS as a minimum they must hold the NPTC for thorough examination of arboricultural equipment. If you want to be extra compliant then it might be advisable to e-mail or right to the examiner to confirm that they have the PTKE to inspect........and list any of your equipment that goes beyond the standard Ddrt hitches and basic rigging gear eg lockjacks, uni's, grcs's, wrenches, unusual main lines, unusual friction cord, non-manufac splices cinches etc etc.

 

the nptc only teaches the basics, the ownas is on the examiner to ensure he/she ensures they have the PTKE to examine the equipment presented for examination, they may have to defer decisions or 'fail by default' if items of equipment presented for examination is outside the knowledge base they posses.

 

You cannot Loler your own gear! you can examine your colleagues etc but not your own, if you are a the owner of the firm you CANNOT loler your firms equipment if you think you can stand up in court & argue that you are impartial then good flipping luck lol!

 

also being provided with any accreditation other than the nptc should not be considered a reasonable measure, this includes the lyon course etc these courses do not cover arboricultural equipment!

 

What's ptke mate?

[skip]

practical & theoretical knowledge & experience x

[skyhuck]

The person that requests the thorough examination is the one responsible for ensuring the examiner has the practical & theoretical knowledge & experience and is without fear or favour, this person MUST be named on the 'record' so it is they who must prove that they went to reasonable ends to ensure the 'compitent person' had the PTKE AND was independant, In arb this MEANS as a minimum they must hold the NPTC for thorough examination of arboricultural equipment. If you want to be extra compliant then it might be advisable to e-mail or right to the examiner to confirm that they have the PTKE to inspect........and list any of your equipment that goes beyond the standard Ddrt hitches and basic rigging gear eg lockjacks, uni's, grcs's, wrenches, unusual main lines, unusual friction cord, non-manufac splices cinches etc etc.

 

the nptc only teaches the basics, the ownas is on the examiner to ensure he/she ensures they have the PTKE to examine the equipment presented for examination, they may have to defer decisions or 'fail by default' if items of equipment presented for examination is outside the knowledge base they posses.

 

You cannot Loler your own gear! you can examine your colleagues etc but not your own, if you are a the owner of the firm you CANNOT loler your firms equipment if you think you can stand up in court & argue that you are impartial then good flipping luck lol!

 

also being provided with any accreditation other than the nptc should not be considered a reasonable measure, this includes the lyon course etc these courses do not cover arboricultural equipment!

 

 

Do you have a link to the legislation that states this????

[skip]

reasonable measures, when we get a cold we seek a qualified doctor not a qualified vet, other than a qualification (specific to performing a thorough examination of arboricultural equipment) how would you ensue someone has the PTKE Dave?

[treequip]

Do you have a link to the legislation that states this????

 

There can't be any legislation that states that because specifying NPTC is a restrictive practice

 

they must hold the NPTC for thorough examination of arboricultural equipment

[Steve Bullman]

reasonable measures, when we get a cold we seek a qualified doctor not a qualified vet, other than a qualification (specific to performing a thorough examination of arboricultural equipment) how would you ensue someone has the PTKE Dave?

 

ermm, so thats a 'no' then is it?

[likeitorlumpit]

why isn't the owner of the firm trusted to LOLER the kit.

It is him/her who is closest to the climber and he/she who will feel the full force of blame should their be a fail/issue

An outside agent can lose themselves in the woodwork

[Andy Collins]

why isn't the owner of the firm trusted to LOLER the kit.

It is him/her who is closest to the climber and he/she who will feel the full force of blame should their be a fail/issue

An outside agent can lose themselves in the woodwork

 

Or go bust as a business, then set themselves up as a new business name maybe. I wonder if the name on the inspection sheet is worth anything in this case. In just about any other trade it wouldn't be