Double action snaphook LOLER Failure?

[Johny Walker]

like this 1, .ISC large captive eye snap hook 2 way (aluminium) | F R Jones and Son

 

sureley if you can buy them you can use them ,with out issues regarding lolar

[Gollum]

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

 

Is this your opinion or are you qualified to make that statement?

 

I think this is an issue where Steve could have a section that only qualified people can answer.

[skyhuck]

Is this your opinion or are you qualified to make that statement?

 

I think this is an issue where Steve could have a section that only qualified people can answer.

 

 

This is the problem with things like LOLER, people pass some exam which which apparently makes them "a competent person" I believe the term is and they think they have some power and authority.

 

Planers and TO's are often the same, going way beyond their remit.

 

This thread has had many contributors, most of whom agree with treequip, but you still think that you should have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot do, when in fact an inspectors job is to check the condition of equipment, not tell people how it should be used.

[Gollum]

 

This is the problem with things like LOLER, people pass some exam which which apparently makes them "a competent person" I believe the term is and they think they have some power and authority.

 

Planers and TO's are often the same, going way beyond their remit.

 

This thread has had many contributors, most of whom agree with treequip, but you still think that you should have the authority to tell people what they can and cannot do, when in fact an inspectors job is to check the condition of equipment, not tell people how it should be used.

 

OK fair comment.

I thought this forum was for people to give there opinion. but not to state out right that someone is wrong.

who may be far more qualified than them.

But lets take this to the extreme.

If somebody presented a brand new bit of polyprop rope for examination should the LOLER inspector pass it?

[treequip]

Is this your opinion or are you qualified to make that statement?

 

I think this is an issue where Steve could have a section that only qualified people can answer.

 

You don't have to be qualified to make that statement, all I have done is cite facts that you can check for yourself. I have explained it for you in a simple a way as I can.

 

If you doubt the validity of what I said get to work with google and check it for yourself.

 

As for qualification I am a loler inspector and am fully aware of the function and limitations of the loler legislation.

[treequip]

If somebody presented a brand new bit of polyprop rope for examination should the LOLER inspector pass it?

 

Why wouldn't they pass it, what have you got against pollyprop?

 

Pollyprop is a perfectly valid tool when used within its limitations. how do you think we managed in the days before modern high specification ropes?

[Gollum]

Why wouldn't they pass it, what have you got against pollyprop?

 

Pollyprop is a perfectly valid tool when used within its limitations. how do you think we managed in the days before modern high specification ropes?

 

 

Sounds like there's a LOLER inspector that's in real need of an update course

[treequip]

I thought this forum was for people to give there opinion. but not to state out right that someone is wrong.

who may be far more qualified than them.

 

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?

[treequip]

Sounds like there's a LOLER inspector that's in real need of an update course

 

Why would that be then, explain if you would why pollyprop cant be included in a loler inspection

[High Scale]

Sounds like there's a LOLER inspector that's in real need of an update course

 

Can you explain your reasoning?