Double action snaphook LOLER Failure?

[Steve Bullman]

Why cant I state that someone is wrong? Its fact and I backed it with a detailed explanation

 

Who is it that you think is more qualified and what would that matter since they are clearly wrong, how are they more qualified given that they clearly don't understand the limitations of loler?

 

To be fair its all about perception. It's only fact by your perception, as it is for those with opposing views. You shouldn't be so quick to declare everything as fact, have you forgotten the inertia chain break thread already?

[treequip]

To be fair its all about perception. It's only fact by your perception, as it is for those with opposing views. You shouldn't be so quick to declare everything as fact, have you forgotten the inertia chain break thread already?

 

I don't see how there can be any argument

 

The item was failed under loler because it isn't a 3 action gate but the entire 3 action gate thing has nothing to do with loler. That's indisputable fact, where does perception come into that?

[treequip]

have you forgotten the inertia chain break thread already?

 

 

Ha ha, thanks, the reminder to self about Isla Negra and arbtalk was probably due to wear off sometime soon.

[Gollum]

Can you explain your reasoning?

 

If a LOLER inspector thinks he can pass a bit of polyprop that has no relevant

ce markings for the industry, then yes he should, also questionable in his translation of the regulations,

 

by the way I am a LOLER inspector LOLER instructor and have run seminars on LOLER and work at hight regulations at the request of the HSE.

[High Scale]

If a LOLER inspector thinks he can pass a bit of polyprop that has no relevant

ce markings for the industry, then yes he should, also questionable in his translation of the regulations,

 

by the way I am a LOLER inspector LOLER instructor and have run seminars on LOLER and work at hight regulations at the request of the HSE.

 

Thanks.

[JimM]

Can all the LOLER inspectors please put their hands up?

 

Shame it took a few pages of discussion before they started coming out of the closet.

Good post nod.

 

 

Jim (not a LOLER inspector)

[nz paul]

I don't see how there can be any argument

 

The item was failed under loler because it isn't a 3 action gate but the entire 3 action gate thing has nothing to do with loler. That's indisputable fact, where does perception come into that?

 

To me this post closes the whole debate!.

[nod]

If a LOLER inspector thinks he can pass a bit of polyprop that has no relevant

ce markings for the industry, then yes he should, also questionable in his translation of the regulations,

 

by the way I am a LOLER inspector LOLER instructor and have run seminars on LOLER and work at hight regulations at the request of the HSE.

 

Hey Gollum

 

Your reasoning is very sound based on the polyprop rope being used as a climbing rope. If it is being used as a rigging rope & is marked with a BS and/or SWL then not. There are no EN standards for rope used for rigging & therefore no CE certification is required. This is the same for much of the rigging kit we use.

 

This is not, however, my opinion

Nod

[scotspine1]

Can all the LOLER inspectors please put their hands up?

 

me, and I would happily pass a 2 way snap hook and polyprop if they were both fit for purpose.

 

Appropriate Polyprop is an excellent bit of kit which has certain advantages over other ropes when used in the right way, like all things though, when abused it'll cause you a whole multitude of problems.

 

As part of my own rigging kit I use 3200 kgs WWL and 5000 kgs WWL 3 strand polyprop. Also use various other ropes made from various other materials.

[High Scale]

I can hear the crunch of ersatz boots approaching.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2013 by High Scale
Sp