is LOLER worth anything?

[bob]

That's what I had always thought, but who am I to argue with an assessor (who may fail me for belligerence)?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

 

On your 41 the question relating to loler is about rigging kit

On your 38 it's about climbing kit

[Tom D]

well, strangely enough, here is 'an accident where kit failed'

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/climbers-talk/56708-zig-zag-failure.html

 

That wasn't a lolering issue, that was a manufacturing fault. Loler wouldn't have picked that up as the zz was fine prior to the accident.

 

Sent from my HTC One using Arbtalk mobile app

[Mat]

 

I can't remember a single one where the kit was to blame, nearly always either climber error.

 

 

Surely that statement knocks the rest of your argument out of the water.

 

If, despite the 'LOLER regulations', people were falling out of trees due to continuing to use knackered kit, then I would agree that LOLER 'was not working'.

 

When I consider the rubbish we used to be expected to climb on when I started in this industry (pre 1998, and therefore pre LOLER), and compare it to the standards of kit used these days, I TOTALLY see the benefits.

 

Why should lads go home in a box simply because their manager is more interested in increasing his bottom line than giving them half decent kit?

Edited June 7, 2014 by Mat

[Andrew Gale]

Bob beat me to it; PPE every 6 months, and lets face it, it doesn't get that much abuse.

 

However rigging kit, which can take a battering every day we use it, i.e. we are loading a rope, sling, karabiner, block etc with an unspecified load, is only 12 months! How does that work?

 

Understand the principles and the need for an approach for assessing kit, but think they've got them round the wrong way. Just my opinion

[Mat]

That wasn't a lolering issue, that was a manufacturing fault. Loler wouldn't have picked that up as the zz was fine prior to the accident.

 

Sent from my HTC One using Arbtalk mobile app

 

Aaaaaah, now I see what you mean.

 

What we need then is an example of an accident that didn't happen because a bit of kit was removed from service as a result of LOLER. Hmmmmm, that may be tricky.

[wood cutter]

All the time I've been involved in arboriculture not ever once have I ever questioned the validity of loler, very good point and to be honest I think your right. It's just a bum covering exercise an I don't really think it's worth the money as you know yourself when something needs to go in the bin. But hey ho!!

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[Mat]

MoT test, maybe a poor example but actually, maybe it's perfectly appropriate because just like an MoT test, a LOLER test is valid on the day it's done and unless the user checks are done before each use, you could just as easily be climbing on treacherously dangerous kit with an in date LOLER ticket.

 

But a user checking their kit prior to using it is EXACTLY what LOLER requires.

 

LOLER also requires a weekly recorded inspection to be made on all items subjected to high wear (which in the case of arb work, is probably everything).

[Joe Newton]

On your 41 the question relating to loler is about rigging kit

On your 38 it's about climbing kit

 

 

This wasn't an assessment question, it was in general discussion.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Mat]

every thing has 6 months Grace from the day it enters service.

 

Sent from my HTC One using Arbtalk mobile app

 

If you choose to follow this, that is fine - its your personal choice. Your statement does make it sound rather like it is accepted 'good practice' rather than an individuals personal opinion.

 

In order to comply with LOLER check out about 1/3rd of the way down this little beauty...

 

Thorough examinations and inspections of lifting equipment - Work equipment and machinery

 

QUOTE:

 

When should thorough examinations be carried out?

In order to verify that lifting equipment and accessories remain safe for use, and to detect and remedy any deterioration in good time, thorough examinations are required throughout the lifetime of the equipment, including examinations:

 

• before use for the first time - unless the equipment has an EC Declaration of Conformity less than one year old and the equipment was not assembled on site.
  

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

But a user checking their kit prior to using it is EXACTLY what LOLER requires.

 

 

 

LOLER also requires a weekly recorded inspection to be made on all items subjected to high wear (which in the case of arb work, is probably everything).

 

 

You capture the exact point I was expressing.

 

A 6/12 month independent LOLER check is an administrative requirement that, in my opinion, will never be as critical and strenuous as the user checks (if done critically) because the user has a vested interest in checking the kit they are about to swing in.

 

There are good points in the thread about protecting employees from using "tired" or shared company kit and I guess we're all coming at the discussion from an individual viewpoint / perspective.

 

I don't borrow / share / loan my kit and I don't outsource responsibility for checking it to someone else.