Double action snaphook LOLER Failure?

[Mark_Skyland]

Cheers for the replies and info fellas.

 

Although it looks like more questions required to try and clarify things, as I will need some black and white evidence if the customer is to convince his company that he can use the piece of equipment as the inspector has no right to fail it.

 

So, the LI (loler inspector) basically checks to see if a piece of equipment works to spec and is serviceable, he doesnt need to know what its being used for?

 

Can DA snaps can be used in tree work in regards to HSE recommendations? I presume they can as the manufactures of said products promote their use in tree work and many retailers like myself sell those pieces of equipment primarily for the use in tree work.

 

IF the above is in correct ie HSE says no, then im surprised I haven't heard this mentioned before!

 

I have looked through the HSE web site and through all the related documents and drawn a blank as to looking for a black and white 'use this for this', the only thing I find is in AFAG 401 where they state a triple action karabiner should be used for connecting the harness to a lifeline, says nothing about connectors on lanyards.

[marcus_arb]

There must be some legislation some where that says two way connection equipment can be used otherwise why would this equipment exist, there are not only snaps on the market, there are also two way krabs from skylotek and black diamond out there

[treequip]

Cheers for the replies and info fellas.

 

Although it looks like more questions required to try and clarify things, as I will need some black and white evidence if the customer is to convince his company that he can use the piece of equipment as the inspector has no right to fail it.

 

Correct

 

So, the LI (loler inspector) basically checks to see if a piece of equipment works to spec and is serviceable, he doesnt need to know what its being used for?

Well he needs to know what its for in as far as they should have sufficient technical knowledge to assess the equipment, if you gave a pulleysaver to a non arb he probably wouldn't know up from down

 

 

 

Can DA snaps can be used in tree work in regards to HSE recommendations? I presume they can as the manufactures of said products promote their use in tree work and many retailers like myself sell those pieces of equipment primarily for the use in tree work.

 

IF the above is in correct ie HSE says no, then im surprised I haven't heard this mentioned before!

 

I have looked through the HSE web site and through all the related documents and drawn a blank as to looking for a black and white 'use this for this', the only thing I find is in AFAG 401 where they state a triple action karabiner should be used for connecting the harness to a lifeline, says nothing about connectors on lanyards.

 

 

Yes provided its not for a primary anchor

[JimM]

Earlier this year we dropped by Clark Forest to do some shopping on the way home. Along with our purchased goodies, Yvonne gave us a couple of double action krabs as gizzits, stating they would be handy for tools, but not PPE as they were not triple action. I found this a very responsible position to take. Whilst I sympathise that a purchased bit of kit has been failed, regardless of semantics, with HSE recommendation that triples be used perhaps that stock line could be replaced with a suitable TA item.

When I'm spiking up a multistem and it forks, that flip line or lanyard on my side D's undeniably becomes the primary attachment that stops me falling whilst I re-attach my climbing line. It's PPE. The side D's on the TM harness are listed as PPE and rated the same as the other points. When I'm climbing normally and doing a changeover with a standard lanyard, it is my primary form of

PPE while I reset my climbing line tip.

So it's a pity the kit was failed, but I have to side with the LOLER inspector and suggest that the lanyard krab is replaced.

[treequip]

Earlier this year we dropped by Clark Forest to do some shopping on the way home. Along with our purchased goodies, Yvonne gave us a couple of double action krabs as gizzits, stating they would be handy for tools, but not PPE as they were not triple action. I found this a very responsible position to take. Whilst I sympathise that a purchased bit of kit has been failed, regardless of semantics, with HSE recommendation that triples be used perhaps that stock line could be replaced with a suitable TA item.

When I'm spiking up a multistem and it forks, that flip line or lanyard on my side D's undeniably becomes the primary attachment that stops me falling whilst I re-attach my climbing line. It's PPE. The side D's on the TM harness are listed as PPE and rated the same as the other points. When I'm climbing normally and doing a changeover with a standard lanyard, it is my primary form of

PPE while I reset my climbing line tip.

So it's a pity the kit was failed, but I have to side with the LOLER inspector and suggest that the lanyard krab is replaced.

 

You are mixing terminology here, its all PPE.

 

To get back to the point of this thread, the assessor can pass or fail whatever he wants but in this case there is no justification to fail the item under the loler regulations. My MOT tester cant fail my car because it can break the speed limit

 

I would have no problem using that item and I would be looking for a different inspector.

[Craig Johnson]

 

I have looked through the HSE web site and through all the related documents and drawn a blank as to looking for a black and white 'use this for this', the only thing I find is in AFAG 401 where they state a triple action karabiner should be used for connecting the harness to a lifeline, says nothing about connectors on lanyards.

 

there is a big difference between 'should' and 'shall'

[nod]

Hey Guys

 

My feeling is that there are two conversations taking place here!?

 

On the one hand, Andy(Treequip) is correct in saying that the kit cannot be failed on the basis of it not being fit for purpose if it is, in fact, in good functional condition. At manufacture the product must have met strict manufacturing & testing procedures for it to have passed the European Norm (EN)standards & therefore have been certified with an EN number & CE certified. LOLER is looking, primarily, at the condition the kit is in at the moment in time the inspection is carried out.

 

On another hand, our industry relies on specific guidance from a variety of organisations that are prominent in areas of safety etc, AFAG, HSE, Arb Assoc. This guidance, kind of, becomes the unwritten regulation & would certainly be referenced should a matter come to court where clarification be required of how/what we should do when carrying out our work duties.

 

Bear in mind that at least one of these documents states that triple action auto locking connectors should be used at all points of primary attachment to a climbing system; not the exact words.

 

The lanyard in question can be used as a work position lanyard (when working at the outer canopy) or as a restraint lanyard (when doing changeovers etc). Within these two examples the equipment is being used differently; in one it is a secondary protection & in the other it is primary. The equipment should therefore meet the standards & guidance for its specific use.

 

Back to the LOLER inspection. There is a requirement for advice to be given within the context of the inspection should it be deemed necessary by the inspector. The advice in this case should be that the equipment should not be used as primary support based on the guidance as supported by AFAG, HSE etc documents but is good to use as a secondary work positioning tool.

 

There really should be no grey area within this debate as legislation & industry guidance are really very clear. If, as an industry we understand what we ask of our equipment with greater precision we would likely be in a position were the application would guide our choice through knowledge. I'm gonna stick my neck out now...

 

By & large we are an industry that is somewhat illiterate in the face of technical understanding, often using hearsay, hereditary knowledge & peer pressure as the defining factors of how we come to our PERSONAL beliefs which then dictate our choices. Sadly the technical understanding is out there but it's too long winded or has come from a source that's up there own @rse or something else reason why not to engage with it. I know it's a bit of a minefield but it is possible to negotiate it, for sure! Be careful of opinions because that's all they are, & it's nearly always possible to get to the bottom line when it comes to asking a question about anything you choose to..... so long as you pursue the answer to its end.

 

We should all be considerate of where we turn to when seeking out our new knowledge base. We'll find that this place changes as time goes on from workmates, foreman, bosses, industry peers, shop keepers wherever, but be sure to see it the end. Arbtalk is a phenomenal resource & should be lauded as such but don't forget that our voices are only opinions based on whatever we choose to remember of everything we thought we had learned & limited by everything we choose not to hear! And maybe most importantly what we hope that others will think of us!!!!?!!!??

Edited October 6, 2013 by nod

[Steve Bullman]

good post Nod and spot on

[High Scale]

As usual a great post Nod and very well put.

[colemanjessenz]

well put mate