Karabiners failing loler inspection.

[Stubby]

im lucky, i dont employ any monkeys

 

Careful ! That could be deemed discriminatory

[nod]

I've come across this characteristic in carabiners from most manufacturers ( DMM, ISC, Petzl, Edelrid) & when discussing the matter have been told, 'That the manner in which we ( arb industry) test carabiners is not in line with the manufacturers guidance on proper function'. I'm not trying to defend any no functional biners but if, as an industry, we create test regimes outside of manufacturers & EN standards approval surely these disagreements will always occur?

 

All manufacturers will be blamed at some time or other but what we know, from the HSE Research paper, is that the biggest failing of carabiners is through not keeping them clean. Incidents of equipment failure are rare.

[kev7937]

But it's loler that set the guidelines and train the inspectors isn't it ?

[Stubby]

When I first strated work in engineering I worked for a firm that manufactured seat belts . My foreman used to be able to " half latch " a seat belt in an inertia reel proving it was a danger ( it seemingly latched but any miner force would pull it out ) . No one else could do it . I think if you go out of your way to fail something you will eventually find a way to fail it . Equally if you go out of your way to be sure its locked safe it will be .

Edited August 2, 2013 by Stubby

[treequip]

But it's loler that set the guidelines and train the inspectors isn't it ?

 

Nope

 

Loler is a piece of legislation, nothing more than words on paper.

 

It says kit should be pukka and well maintained.

 

NPTC/lantra/City and Guilds are the main agents for training and testing inspectors.

 

Any judgement call is down to the individual inspector, arb is a dirty job and one of the main causes of a biner failing an inspection is crud preventing the barrel rotating and achieving the lock position. This has to happen when slammed shut and when closed under force of the barrel spring alone.

 

Once clean they usually pass and whilst giving the used biner a dose of WD or similar I can well see how the inspector would hand a brand new unit back to the client for them to make the call.

 

In this case they have sent the item back to the manufacturer who hasn't tested it in the same manner as the inspector that failed it.

[kev7937]

Nope

 

Loler is a piece of legislation, nothing more than words on paper.

 

It says kit should be pukka and well maintained.

 

NPTC/lantra/City and Guilds are the main agents for training and testing inspectors.

 

Any judgement call is down to the individual inspector, arb is a dirty job and one of the main causes of a biner failing an inspection is crud preventing the barrel rotating and achieving the lock position. This has to happen when slammed shut and when closed under force of the barrel spring alone.

 

Once clean they usually pass and whilst giving the used biner a dose of WD or similar I can well see how the inspector would hand a brand new unit back to the client for them to make the call.

 

In this case they have sent the item back to the manufacturer who hasn't tested it in the same manner as the inspector that failed it.

 

Ah ok, my point was meant to be that it's not our industry that sets the tests, someone else makes the rules

[treequip]

Ah ok, my point was meant to be that it's not our industry that sets the tests, someone else makes the rules

 

Well Lantra and NPTC set the standard and they are our industry

[kev7937]

Ah again, I had thought they oversee and test others as well landscapers green keepers etc not specifically arb

[treequip]

Ah again, I had thought they oversee and test others as well landscapers green keepers etc not specifically arb

 

When you do the arb loler course you get a cert that says you are competent to inspect arb gear for the purposes of loler, I don't know how much more arb you can get

[nod]

But it's loler that set the guidelines and train the inspectors isn't it ?

 

It's my understanding that LOLER is in place in order that equipment is systematically checked for correct function & condition, therefore deeming it fit to be used. This is carried out at pre-use, weekly & 6 monthly inspections. That's it!

 

EN are a series of standards that manufacturers will aim at reaching or surpassing, which lay down a series of characteristics that the product will adhere to & be governed by. Correct function is therefore in the realm of the manufacturer & can be changed by the design of the product so long as it stays within the constraints of the EN standard.

 

If a controlled slow closure of the carabiner gate is not part of the manufacturers testing then it's in the realm of the user/inspector to decide whether or not this is applicable. I don't believe this test is advised in any arb guidance. So, as an industry we can speak with a single voice & encourage manufacturers to design in accordance with our demands which are of course not necessarily in line with the controls as laid down in the EN standards that seem to be control the kit we are offered.

 

I feel that until we have a specific set of standards that are 100% applicable to our industry, & not borrowed from elsewhere, we will always come across these incongruities with equipment use & testing.

 

:001_smile: