Double action snaphook LOLER Failure?

[Pete Mctree]

the examiner has to assess whether the item is Fit For Purpose the application in this case is arboricultural climbing operations so lets set rigging aside.

 

the examiner has many resources at his disposal to form a decision on whether or not the item is FFP for this application, many of which nod has noted.

 

this decision can certainly be described as an opinion and ultimately the responsibility of the decision on the record lies with competent person.

 

My decision relating to 2-way HOOKS for this application differs to my decision in relation to 2-way 'twistlock' karabiners.

 

in certain theater & circus rigging applications these 2-way hooks are regarded as a far safer method of attachment than a 3-way karabiner as it requires two synchronized, opposite opposing motions to open it as opposed to the single diagonal motion on a 3-way krab, i'm sure many of us have had one 'roll open' against a branch?

 

Many of these hooks are designed to click onto 'end bolts' of a set diameter which have a double nut stopper on the end to prevent them from sliding off naturally earning them the name 'clickers' in some industries

 

Ultimately the decision rests with the individual examiner if he/she is satisfied that the design of the connector is FFP they may 'Pass' it if not then they are entitled to 'Fail' it.

 

The fact that a 2-way hook is 2-way would certainly not lead me to fail it, i know of a firm that had every rope failed because it did not have a manufacturers marking on the outside of the rope, that company decided to go back to their old examiner who did not deem this necessary, perhaps you should look to change your examiner if your not happy?

 

Hits the nail on the head

[Mark_Skyland]

Quite a bit to read through and digest there!

 

In response to a few questions of why not replace the DA with a TA, well TBH its a £160 item that was designed for a job that it does very well so the guy is loath to get an angle grinder on it! I dont blame him.

 

I dont understand how it can come down to personal opinion/interpretation (no offence to anyone) as to why a piece of kit can/should or cant/shouldnt be used to conform with HSE, best practice etc.

 

Surely it should be black and white. Does an Employer know where he stands if one inspector says its OK but another says definitely not. Who should he trust? Least me selling said item of kit!

 

The only piece of literature I have to go on is AFAG401 which allows the use of DA only by omission that it doesnt say what should be used on WP lanyards!

 

Regardless of whether its safe or not(imo it is without doubt safe enough) how many non LOLER inspectors would let an employee use a DA WPL now, Or for that matter spend out on one when it might get knocked back on your next inspection?

 

It comes down to a duty of care thing rather than common sense and experience unfortunately, imo.

[agrimog]

it is once again a case of someone oversteping the mark and asuming authority they do not have. the equipment is either servicable, ie free from damage or inoperability, or unservicable, damaged or inoperative, the inspector has no right to comment on its proposed use. it is not his place or his right, complain to his employers and refuse his payment as he has NOT carried out his designated job

[Xaltu]

Been following this thread with interest and had a look at the HSE pages (I'm not a LOLER inspector, but have to get a variety of kit inspected each year). This page states :

LOLER also requires that all equipment used for lifting is fit for purpose, appropriate for the task, suitably marked and, in many cases, subject to statutory periodic 'thorough examination'.

So I would take it that the examination is based on the stated purpose that is given at the time of examination. Therefore if you stated different use to each examiner, then it could pass or fail on that difference.

[Stubby]

Been following this thread with interest and had a look at the HSE pages (I'm not a LOLER inspector, but have to get a variety of kit inspected each year). This page states :

 

So I would take it that the examination is based on the stated purpose that is given at the time of examination. Therefore if you stated different use to each examiner, then it could pass or fail on that difference.

 

Ah ! So just offer up for inspection and don't give a stated purpose ? or are you obliged to give a purpose ?

[explorer arb]

Skyland: sorry it was a bit of a long winded response but I hope it helped. If an examiner has passed an item as safe to use then an employer stands on firm ground as you would term it. In fact if you are to use an item that was not designed for lifting or at least not as WAH PPE it must be examined BEFORE first use and the examiner’s decision trumps the fact it wasn’t designed as PPE

In the same sense as a mot if your car fails at one station then you take it strait to another & it passes you have a valid mot. MOT’s are not the greatest example as they have FAR FAR stricter rules on failure criteria etc especially since it went computerised. For example did you know that a car battery must be secured but in a type 7 (3-3.5 ton) the battery does not have to be secured but its examined position must merely not be obstructing/ causing damage to any vital components such as breaks, steering etc.

In either case failure can come down personal opinion/ interpretation and in this case many would not consider it black & white, for me as an examiner I view the issue of 2-way HOOKS being FFP as black & white but only through literally 10’s of hours of research & consulting arming myself with numerous defences should the worst happen.

Most things in our industry that are black & white become muddied or ignored by people in our professional community and before long they blur from black & white to grey due to rumour & manipulation which has its advantages & disadvantages there are allot people on this forum that complain about over-regulation and fight to make things/ keep things as muddy as possible often for their own ends.

Perhaps you should recommend an examiner to your clients that has liaised with you to advise you if he/ she considers any of your current stock as not FFP as PPE?

 

Agrimog: it doesn’t appear to be the case that someone has overstepped ‘the mark’ or assumed authority they do not have, despite the fact that I would disagree with the examiners reasoning and he. She has every right to comment on its proposed use, that is the only thing here that IS! black & white! The fact that you refer to he/she as an inspector is grey though but most people slang a Thorough Examination By Competent Persons, As Defined By Lifting Operations And Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 as a ‘loler inspection’ by a ‘loler inspector’ which I personally think has the ability to confuse people. Might I also add that I have a great deal of experience when it comes to refusing payment in these circumstances and it seldom ends well for the complainant, I had a firm that had had £1000’s of gear failed which when I examined it one week later the vast majority of that failed equipment passed. Despite the fact that I advised them that I believed it off the top of my head highly unlikely they would be able to successfully make a claim against him they paid me to appraise the legal situation. Despite the extremes of their situation I advised them that they had less than a 15% chance of a judge up-holding their claim and suggested mediation or surrender. They mediated outside of the court’s mediation service with me acting as their advocate and negotiated a 60% refund which is far better that they should have hoped for, after my fees this was far from a profitable exercise.

 

Stubby: you are indeed obligated to state the equipment’s current & intended application; most professional loler examiners re-iterate this in their T&C’s all passed equipment should be returned marked clearly for PPE or non PPE use

[Stubby]

 

Stubby: you are indeed obligated to state the equipment’s current & intended application; most professional loler examiners re-iterate this in their T&C’s all passed equipment should be returned marked clearly for PPE or non PPE use

 

Ok . Understood . Thanks .

[Danavan]

As far as I am aware if a piece of equipment is designed to perform a certain task that is out layed in the literature provided with it and it dose so then this not ground for falure. If this fails to meet the requirements stipulated then I see no problem with subsequent falure of said piece of equipment.

 

If you choose to use a bit of kit that is not designed for what it is for and fall foul of a falure then I asume any subsequent insurance policy would become void.

[nod]

Skyland: sorry it was a bit of a long winded response but I hope it helped. If an examiner has passed an item as safe to use then an employer stands on firm ground as you would term it. In fact if you are to use an item that was not designed for lifting or at least not as WAH PPE it must be examined BEFORE first use and the examiner’s decision trumps the fact it wasn’t designed as PPE

In the same sense as a mot if your car fails at one station then you take it strait to another & it passes you have a valid mot. MOT’s are not the greatest example as they have FAR FAR stricter rules on failure criteria etc especially since it went computerised. For example did you know that a car battery must be secured but in a type 7 (3-3.5 ton) the battery does not have to be secured but its examined position must merely not be obstructing/ causing damage to any vital components such as breaks, steering etc.

In either case failure can come down personal opinion/ interpretation and in this case many would not consider it black & white, for me as an examiner I view the issue of 2-way HOOKS being FFP as black & white but only through literally 10’s of hours of research & consulting arming myself with numerous defences should the worst happen.

Most things in our industry that are black & white become muddied or ignored by people in our professional community and before long they blur from black & white to grey due to rumour & manipulation which has its advantages & disadvantages there are allot people on this forum that complain about over-regulation and fight to make things/ keep things as muddy as possible often for their own ends.

Perhaps you should recommend an examiner to your clients that has liaised with you to advise you if he/ she considers any of your current stock as not FFP as PPE?

 

Agrimog: it doesn’t appear to be the case that someone has overstepped ‘the mark’ or assumed authority they do not have, despite the fact that I would disagree with the examiners reasoning and he. She has every right to comment on its proposed use, that is the only thing here that IS! black & white! The fact that you refer to he/she as an inspector is grey though but most people slang a Thorough Examination By Competent Persons, As Defined By Lifting Operations And Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 as a ‘loler inspection’ by a ‘loler inspector’ which I personally think has the ability to confuse people. Might I also add that I have a great deal of experience when it comes to refusing payment in these circumstances and it seldom ends well for the complainant, I had a firm that had had £1000’s of gear failed which when I examined it one week later the vast majority of that failed equipment passed. Despite the fact that I advised them that I believed it off the top of my head highly unlikely they would be able to successfully make a claim against him they paid me to appraise the legal situation. Despite the extremes of their situation I advised them that they had less than a 15% chance of a judge up-holding their claim and suggested mediation or surrender. They mediated outside of the court’s mediation service with me acting as their advocate and negotiated a 60% refund which is far better that they should have hoped for, after my fees this was far from a profitable exercise.

 

Stubby: you are indeed obligated to state the equipment’s current & intended application; most professional loler examiners re-iterate this in their T&C’s all passed equipment should be returned marked clearly for PPE or non PPE use

 

At last, music to my ears!

[High Scale]

Well, well, well.