Lolering your own gear

[treequip]

Andy. Loler wasnt brought in for tree work, it wasnt brought in because tree workers needed it or because they wernt checking kit, it was brought in for all work at height and tree work is included in that.

 

So we are complying with a policy for all work at height, not specifically for tree work and not because we particularly need it.

 

If you can check you own gear and never have an accident then you must be doing ok, but HSE wants to see records of those inspection and so getting a loler inspector in a ONE way of doing it, but most inspectors seem to think they are some kind of authority and end up confiscating kit or destroying it needlessly.

 

:dito:

[Andy Collins]

I humbly stand corrected

Has inspecting climbing kit in tree work reduced accidents re kit failure due to tighter controls, such as routine inspections, since the Loler regs came out? Has Loler actually made things safer, or is it really a thick wad of paper to cushion the impact of the fall when things go wrong?

Anyway, can an employer inspect his teams equipment, in compliance with Loler regs? Or should it be an independent inspector?

Edited December 14, 2012 by Andy Collins
To get back to the OPs question

[treequip]

I humbly stand corrected

Has inspecting climbing kit in tree work reduced accidents re kit failure due to tighter controls, such as routine inspections, since the Loler regs came out? Has Loler actually made things safer, or is it really a thick wad of paper to cushion the impact of the fall when things go wrong?

Anyway, can an employer inspect his teams equipment, in compliance with Loler regs? Or should it be an independent inspector?

 

They can go in house but they need to prove (if asked) that the in house man was free to make his own decisions.

[Rupe]

I was once told that the HSE would rather see in house loler inspection than no loler inspection, but treequip is right it still has to be a proper inspection.

 

I personally feel in house is better than getting someone in who fails more kit than necessary just to justify his existance.

[Andy Collins]

I do not know of many employers, whether tree industry or not, who would not allow financial gain to influence the outcome of any H&S check, Wwhether Loler, Puwer, Fire prevention or general H&S. what I have seen in my working life makes a farce of all systems, but that's ok, so long as nobody gets hurt or worse. If they do, it just takes longer to cover it all up that's all.

This is why I think it should be an independent, unbiased and un-influenced inspector, at any company. Of course, not all employers cut corners, just some (Not tarring all with the same brush.)

[skip]

it's a real shame some CP's have left you with a feeling they unnessiseraly fail equipment during a thorough examination

 

You cannot Examine your own equipment and the HSE suggest that "this is typically someone from outside your organisation" this means you need a bloody good reason to have someone in house do it.

 

When i perform Thorough examinations people are typically surprised how much passes! this is a little worrying if they have been climbing on it all the while even though they thought it unsafe!

 

I NEVER destroy or take away peoples equipment unless they would like me to, if failed equipment persistently turns up being used again then i strongly advise people to let me take the failed equipment away with me. I have 2& a half metric tonnes of failed equipment and much of it gets used in testing & research.

 

I would far rather reduce an items safe working load, or reduce it's examination period than fail it, items are maintained and cordage shortened to remove damaged sections when necessary etc i know that a failed karabiner could be clearly marked that it is not for PPE and could then be used as a saw biner or a frayed up rigging line reduced to becoming a light duty control line etc

 

have you ever heard of accumulative familiarisation? this is the question we should be asking of your boss not CTF's!!!!

have you ever had someone remark that "My hasen't your son grown!!!!" and your not really sure he's grown at all in the four weeks that they've not seen him, this is the same of our equipment, I am a very experienced thorough examiner carrying out more than 500 examinations every year, i have over £35,000 of my own climbing & rigging equipment yet i DONT examine my own equipment, it would save me allot of money, and my examiner frequently rings me with questions & queries. I am not happy examining my gear, if i worked for a firm & they wanted me to do theirs i would only do so on very strict terms, as an employer i wouldn't want my guys to do it, not only from a safety perspective but from a legal one

 

If your boss thinks he'd be a happy man after standing up in court arguing against a professional barrister and expert witness that his in house examiner was not in fear of favor then IMO he is a foolish one. Court is traumatic enough even when thee other party doesn't have much of a case let alone when they clearly do (typically means)

 

and at £45/kit it's not really that expensive IMO, that said you get good ones & bad ones, just like MOT examiners! some may have a vested interest in flogging you replacement equipment, some may lack knowledge of modern equipment & techniques and end up failing equipment to save face, i have great sympathy for those struggling to tell them apart.

 

Peace out & climb safe x

Edited December 14, 2012 by skip
nto clear

[Andy Collins]

So who would be best to get in for such an inspection. I currently use a local company, but they also sell products and I can't help wondering if they might fail kit to boost sales, or am I a cynical old git?

[Rupe]

I do not know of many employers, whether tree industry or not, who would not allow financial gain to influence the outcome of any H&S check, Wwhether Loler, Puwer, Fire prevention or general H&S. what I have seen in my working life makes a farce of all systems, but that's ok, so long as nobody gets hurt or worse. If they do, it just takes longer to cover it all up that's all.

This is why I think it should be an independent, unbiased and un-influenced inspector, at any company. Of course, not all employers cut corners, just some (Not tarring all with the same brush.)

 

Sure, but influencing to a point of using dangerous kit is a whole different thing, the fact that any company is doing a loler check (or any check) kind of suggests they want to run a proper company. So I do think that outside inpsections are going to be more harsh, and if these inspectors sell kit then thats financial gain influencing it, but in the other direction.

[Rupe]

it's a real shame some CP's have left you with a feeling they unnessiseraly fail equipment during a thorough examination

 

You cannot Examine your own equipment and the HSE suggest that "this is typically someone from outside your organisation" this means you need a bloody good reason to have someone in house do it.

 

When i perform Thorough examinations people are typically surprised how much passes! this is a little worrying if they have been climbing on it all the while even though they thought it unsafe!

 

I NEVER destroy or take away peoples equipment unless they would like me to, if failed equipment persistently turns up being used again then i strongly advise people to let me take the failed equipment away with me. I have 2& a half metric tonnes of failed equipment and much of it gets used in testing & research.

 

I would far rather reduce an items safe working load, or reduce it's examination period than fail it, items are maintained and cordage shortened to remove damaged sections when necessary etc i know that a failed karabiner could be clearly marked that it is not for PPE and could then be used as a saw biner or a frayed up rigging line reduced to becoming a light duty control line etc

 

have you ever heard of accumulative familiarisation? this is the question we should be asking of your boss not CTF's!!!!

have you ever had someone remark that "My hasen't your son grown!!!!" and your not really sure he's grown at all in the four weeks that they've not seen him, this is the same of our equipment, I am a very experienced thorough examiner carrying out more than 500 examinations every year, i have over £35,000 of my own climbing & rigging equipment yet i DONT examine my own equipment, it would save me allot of money, and my examiner frequently rings me with questions & queries. I am not happy examining my gear, if i worked for a firm & they wanted me to do theirs i would only do so on very strict terms, as an employer i wouldn't want my guys to do it, not only from a safety perspective but from a legal one

 

If your boss thinks he'd be a happy man after standing up in court arguing against a professional barrister and expert witness that his in house examiner was not in fear of favor then IMO he is a foolish one. Court is traumatic enough even when thee other party doesn't have much of a case let alone when they clearly do (typically means)

 

and at £45/kit it's not really that expensive IMO, that said you get good ones & bad ones, just like MOT examiners! some may have a vested interest in flogging you replacement equipment, some may lack knowledge of modern equipment & techniques and end up failing equipment to save face, i have great sympathy for those struggling to tell them apart.

 

Peace out & climb safe x

 

I only just read all this. WTF!!

 

If you dont truct yourself checking your own kit then you should be climbing, or rigging, and with that much kit you probably shouldnt be doing either anyway.

 

 

"You cannot Examine your own equipment" Yes you can, or course you can. As long as it genuinly passes.

[Rupe]

accumulative familiarisation

 

Yes, we all know about that, but its called Boiled frog!