Double action snaphook LOLER Failure?

[Mark_Skyland]

Had a customer contact us saying his LOLER inspector had failed his wire core lanyard as the snap hook wasn't a triple action and was therefore 'illegal'.

 

Now I'm fairly sure he is wrong and as far as I'm aware triple action is recommended for primary lifelines although I cant find any info in regards to work positioning lanyards.

 

I spoke to our suppliers who said this is the first time they have heard this product failing a LOLER inspection in this way.

 

So, my questions are, was the LOLER inspector right to fail it as it should be a triple action snap hook? If so is there any literature out there that states the need for a TA? If he is incorrect again is there literature out there so I can show it to my customer as I doubt his LOLER inspector is going to take my word or that of the importers.

 

Any info would be very much appreciated.

[treequip]

In the circumstance you describe he was wrong to fail it, the purpose of the inspection is to assess the condition of the item with regard to its serviceability.

 

The inspector can offer advice on the use of equipment but should not fail an item unless it is unserviceable.

[Scott Walker]

When I did my climbing course bk 5-6 yrs ago the instructor told me I had to cut the snaplock of my flip line and replace with a triple action carabiner otherwise he wouldn't let me climb with it.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Gollum]

In the circumstance you describe he was wrong to fail it, the purpose of the inspection is to assess the condition of the item with regard to its serviceability.

 

The inspector can offer advice on the use of equipment but should not fail an item unless it is unserviceable.

 

The LOLER inspector was correct.

If the piece of equipment was put forward as a climbing equipment

A flip line is quite often used as a primary attachment

[treequip]

The LOLER inspector was correct.

If the piece of equipment was put forward as a climbing equipment

A flip line is quite often used as a primary attachment

 

You are wrong and I will explain to you why you and the inspector was wrong

 

The inspection under LOLER is to ascertain that the equipment is fit for purpose. As long as it is it cant fail the inspection, what use the kit is put to is entirely beyond the scope of the inspection. What the inspector did is akin to a MOT tester failing your car because you might speed in it.

 

The entire 3 way action thing is nothing whatever to do with LOLER, it is a recommendation from the HSE. That being the case the kit cant fail a LOLER inspection on those grounds because they are nothing to do with LOLER

 

The flip line (or WP lanyard) would normally be attached to the side "D" rings and as such should not be used as a primary attachment unless it is attached to the bridge, in which case it wouldn't be much good as a flip line

Edited October 4, 2013 by treequip
added a bit

[Gary Prentice]

You are wrong and I will explain to you why you and the inspector was wrong

 

The inspection under LOLER is to ascertain that the equipment is fit for purpose. As long as it is it cant fail the inspection, what use the kit is put to is entirely beyond the scope of the inspection. What the inspector did is akin to a MOT tester failing your car because you might speed in it.

 

The entire 3 way action thing is nothing whatever to do with LOLER, it is a recommendation from the HSE. That being the case the kit cant fail a LOLER inspection on those grounds because they are nothing to do with LOLER

 

The flip line (or WP lanyard) would normally be attached to the side "D" rings and as such should not be used as a primary attachment unless it is attached to the bridge, in which case it wouldn't be much good as a flip line

 

That's my understanding too.

[will.morris]

What about when you're on a pole though? Surely that's where a flipline would get used most and would be classed as the primary attachment even on the D's? Or would you just class it as a positioner still and class your choked off mainline underneath as the primary line?

[JimM]

Just had my kit LOLER'd.

The box says "Is the equipment safe to use? Either YES or NO"

Separate box "Details of any part that has or may result in a defect or details of any remedial action required"

 

Two separate areas. I threw my MEWP harness in - the answer to the first question is NO and to the second part "Not a tree harness".

Bear in mind that the LOLER inspection is relevant to the industry you are in.

The MEWP harness quite rightly failed the tree work LOLER, but would pass if put in to the relevant inspector for MEWP work.

 

To my mind the double lock should fail for the same reason. It may well be serviceable, but industry safety requirement/best practice is for triple action. Spiking up a pole even with two lines, if you are moving around a limb then that flipline will be your primary line as you reposition the other line above the limb to carry on up.

Pete McTree does LOLER, I'd be interested in his comments.

[treequip]

Just had my kit LOLER'd.

The box says "Is the equipment safe to use? Either YES or NO"

Separate box "Details of any part that has or may result in a defect or details of any remedial action required"

 

Two separate areas. I threw my MEWP harness in - the answer to the first question is NO and to the second part "Not a tree harness".

Bear in mind that the LOLER inspection is relevant to the industry you are in.

The MEWP harness quite rightly failed the tree work LOLER, but would pass if put in to the relevant inspector for MEWP work.

 

To my mind the double lock should fail for the same reason. It may well be serviceable, but industry safety requirement/best practice is for triple action. Spiking up a pole even with two lines, if you are moving around a limb then that flipline will be your primary line as you reposition the other line above the limb to carry on up.

Pete McTree does LOLER, I'd be interested in his comments.

 

There is no reason a fall arrest (mewp) harness cant be assessed under an arb specific loler inspection, its an assessment of the equipment's condition not suitability.

 

Mewps are used in arb so your argument that isn't not arb kit isn't valid

 

A double lock cant fail a loler inspection simply because its a double lock, there is no criteria under loler to fail it on those grounds.

 

As I have said before, the entire triple lock thing is a HSE thing and has nothing whatever to do with the loler legislation.

[Wolfie]

My flipline was failed once. Not because of the DA hook but because the mechanical rope grab that came pre-attached to the flipline wasn't CE marked although the actual flipline itself was.

It took me about 2 hour trying to drill and remove the rope grab so that i could replace with a hitch climber set-up - I think the rope grab was safe enough!

 

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App