LOLER certifiable splices

[AardvarkTreeServices]

Well said Nod.?

 

Really?? You honestly think CE marking and LOLER is an "onerous heep of crap".

[Riggerbear]

Really?? You honestly think CE marking and LOLER is an "onerous heep of crap".

 

 

Yes, when it comes to this, 'if the splice hasn't got a CE mark on it, then I can't pass it' thing that I've heard LOLER inspectors say.

This was the same guy that didn't know the first thing about ropes, their construction or splicing them.

They go on a 3 day course and away they go, he has never climbed in our industry, so how on earth would he know about the type of equipment we use.

[timtree81]

This is very true

[AardvarkTreeServices]

Yes, when it comes to this, 'if the splice hasn't got a CE mark on it, then I can't pass it' thing that I've heard LOLER inspectors say.

This was the same guy that didn't know the first thing about ropes, their construction or splicing them.

They go on a 3 day course and away they go, he has never climbed in our industry, so how on earth would he know about the type of equipment we use.

 

Nods post was directed at CE marking and LOLER.

 

Its the law that PPE is CE marked. So if the LOLER inspector passed a piece of kit without a CE mark and there was an accident due to kit failure the day after he passed it, what do you think his chances of not being sued AND getting locked up are??

 

Anyone passing kit without a CE mark is living on the edge.

[Will C]

Yes, when it comes to this, 'if the splice hasn't got a CE mark on it, then I can't pass it' thing that I've heard LOLER inspectors say.

This was the same guy that didn't know the first thing about ropes, their construction or splicing them.

They go on a 3 day course and away they go, he has never climbed in our industry, so how on earth would he know about the type of equipment we use.

 

The nptc course for loler testers states you have to have and keep up to date with the equipment you are testing. Therefore your tester should be up to speed with Arb gear. If not your prob using a tester that knows about forklifts or any other gear other than Arb. If this is the case you need to look at your choice of tester not only blame the tester:001_rolleyes:

[Riggerbear]

The nptc course for loler testers states you have to have and keep up to date with the equipment you are testing. Therefore your tester should be up to speed with Arb gear. If not your prob using a tester that knows about forklifts or any other gear other than Arb. If this is the case you need to look at your choice of tester not only blame the tester:001_rolleyes:

 

 

I don't use this guy, but had a discussion with him about hand splices and he IS a arb equipment inspector.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Riggerbear

[TIMON]

Nods post was directed at CE marking and LOLER.

 

Its the law that PPE is CE marked. So if the LOLER inspector passed a piece of kit without a CE mark and there was an accident due to kit failure the day after he passed it, what do you think his chances of not being sued AND getting locked up are??

 

Anyone passing kit without a CE mark is living on the edge.[/

 

I would love to be able to inspect splices and pass them as "safe to use". As a recently qualified Loler inspector the truth is I just don't have the depth of knowledge to be able to do that. I know of guys in the industry who have the depth of knowledge ie they have spent the time with the rope manufacturers, done testing on rigs, are experts in that field and are in a good position to be able to say if a splice is safe or not. If the worst were to happen and even if they were able to defend their position in court, would their professional indemnity cover them? Probably not I would think. We all have to start somewhere. I didn't really do the Loler course to provide the service to other firms, I did it to improve my knowledge and as someone who regularly climbs and runs a business to be able to keep our lads safe. If I did have the depth of specialist knowledge and that was all I did for a living then perhaps I could sign splices off as safe, if I knew the splicer and his work etc...

Personally I think that the industry should look at this issue and make a provision for it. Perhaps a splicing component to the existing Loler inspection regs. Or a splicing qualification through NPTC or similar.

I stick a bowline on the end of my climbing line once the factory sewn/spliced/slaiced eye has been cut off due to wear or damage. I know it's not as strong as a good splice done by a competent person.

[R Mac]

Nods post was directed at CE marking and LOLER.

 

Its the law that PPE is CE marked. So if the LOLER inspector passed a piece of kit without a CE mark and there was an accident due to kit failure the day after he passed it, what do you think his chances of not being sued AND getting locked up are??

 

Anyone passing kit without a CE mark is living on the edge.

 

Does that make it illegal to buy 2m of rope off the reel and make your eye to eye prussiks using a fishermans knot at each end, make a prussik loop by using fishermans knots or make a lanyard the same way?

 

None of the above have a CE mark or indeed any manufacturers marking regardless of whether they came off a reel of CE marked rope.

 

Furthermore if a LOLER inspector can't make a judgement on whether a splice is safe or not it's irrelevant whether it has a CE marking, clearly there's more to the integrity of a a splice than whether or not it has a CE mark.

 

That's possibly why it could be considered 'an onerous heap of crap' A guy who can't tell the condition of a splice passing it on the basis of a CE mark yet failing something that equally he can't tell the condition of the splice simply because there is no CE mark.

Edited February 13, 2016 by R Mac

[nod]

A wee bit behind the trail here but going back to the original queries. LOLER is an inspection of whether the kit is Fit For Purpose; if we are selecting PASS or FAIL based on an etching or paper slip with CE on it then we fail in that self-appointed role & as inspector am no longer fit for purpose.

 

The point here is that no equipment requires a LOLER examination until it’s six months old from its in use date, at this point we are assessing its condition & whether its application is fit for purpose. Whether or not it has CE paperwork is now irrelevant; for sure it may offer some thought & direction to the inspector but that’s probably about it.

 

CE is nothing more than a trade agreement where equipment is tested to a predetermined set of EN standards which then enables sales throughout the EEC. Before that we had British Standards on such products or DIN in Germany.

 

As outlined above, EN is the standard; CE is the certification that allows that product to be sold throughout the EEC.

 

It is high time that our industry took this onerous heap of crap by the horns. We are now almost 2 decades into a series of decisions that have impacted on our industry; decisions that were imposed without any dialogue with treework trade bodies or individuals. And consequently we now accept these standards as being relevant & without delving deep into the subject, I mean boringly deep then it's impossible to see the bottom of that pile. In the UK I’d be surprised if there were even a dozen individuals that have done this. If you're not one of those then I’d be fairly confident your opinion is largely or partially based on hearsay. Not the wisest stand point.

 

This is directed at the EN standards that we’re regulated by. Since the late 1990s there have only been minor changes to some of the testing protocol but in essence, my belief is that, our equipment & the testing that they undergo should be led by the application of the product. To my knowledge there has been no updating based on the massive changes that have taken place within the range of equipment that is now available to us.

And then there’s the manufacturers standard; but I’m not even going there!

 

So, it's okay to use a loop sling CE certified & tested to EN566 or EN564 as a rope on rope friction management tool when the test standard has approved it as eye to eye or loop sling for lifting??

 

The relevance & how connected, or otherwise, these standards are can be seen here:

Eye 2 eye slings 8mm EN795 – 10kN

Prussick loop slings En566 - 22kN

Carabiner EN362 - 20kN

Climbing rope EN1891 - 15kN

 

 

Three different break strengths!?; EN566 is a loop sling standard for lifting & not tested for its abrasion resistance or rope grabbing capacity; EN795 is a standard for mobile anchor devices, the same as a cambium saver, not tested for its abrasion resistance or rope grabbing capacity.

 

In my eyes we are completely at sea with this whole area & manufacturer’s dive willing through the hoops that are already in place (EN standards) & oftentimes have no relevance to the manner in which they are. The whole exercise begins to become pointless without a focussed look at how our equipment is used.

 

Hopefully this explains the joined up writing that prompted the less than joined up outburst of a few days ago & I’ll get around to replying to a few of the responses it elicited. Thanks.

[AardvarkTreeServices]

 

As outlined above, EN is the standard; CE is the certification that allows that product to be sold throughout the EEC.

 

 

The CE mark (conformitee europeanne)confirms that a product meets with the legally enforceable essential health and safety requirements and thats your guarantee of safety. EN standards are optional standards that a manufacturer can use to demonstrate compliance with the mandatory ESHRs.

 

CE marking is aimed at product safety, not free trade.