treequip
-
Posts
10,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by treequip
-
Why would that be then, explain if you would why pollyprop cant be included in a loler inspection
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
There is a bit of an issue connecting a saw to the side D rings, they are a structural part of the harness and if your saw pinches in the cut you could find yourself with a substantial lump of wood hanging off your harness, tope and anchor point. The tool attachment points are designed to give up before the rest of the system without compromising the harness It wont be as much of an issue with a top handled saw as they have a break away built in, or if you use a lanyard with a built in break away but the danger increases with larger saws which don't have a built in breakaway.
-
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.
-
You can send a carrier if you want
-
Correct 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 Yes provided its not for a primary anchor
-
You are a commercial service provider
-
service metals Service Metals UK Depot Location Albert Jagger Albert Jagger Ltd - Commercial vehicle body fittings - Trailer fittings - Machine building elements
-
This is a lump of timber that I came across on a job As you can see from the shape it deserves to be much more than firewood, even though it is Ash So wood carvers, get your hands in your pockets and make a donation of 25 quid to the children's trust and collect it from Oldham OL3
-
I am going to repeat what someone else said because its the simplest fix Take the exhaust off
-
I don't get the life support thing, the side "D"'s are for life support but not rated for a fall, you can happily use a WP strop on the sides for a changeover.
-
The "law" is the petroleum regulations, but it maters not, they are retailers and if they say they will only sell fuel in certain cans that's their prerogative.
-
Anything attached at the side "D"'s cant be classed as primary attachment because the side "D"'s don't distribute forces in the same way that a primary attachment point would and therefore aren't rated for a fall, they are for work positioning only.
-
There is no reason a fall arrest (mewp) harness cant be assessed under an arb specific loler inspection, its an assessment of the equipment's condition not suitability. Mewps are used in arb so your argument that isn't not arb kit isn't valid A double lock cant fail a loler inspection simply because its a double lock, there is no criteria under loler to fail it on those grounds. As I have said before, the entire triple lock thing is a HSE thing and has nothing whatever to do with the loler legislation.
-
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
-
In the circumstance you describe he was wrong to fail it, the purpose of the inspection is to assess the condition of the item with regard to its serviceability. The inspector can offer advice on the use of equipment but should not fail an item unless it is unserviceable.
-
It is, but its entertaining
-
Nope they stopped selling of fuel into cans for that The quantity sold into cans and the colour of the cans come from the petroleum regulations which govern how fuel is stored and sold. So it would seem that the jobsworth is following statute and if the likes of Stihl made cans in green we wouldn't be having this conversation:001_rolleyes:
-
Cool but don't underestimate the ability of neighbours to complain no matter what the range
-
If you change the use of the land you need change of use, if its an agricultural field and you make it into a yard they will be after you sooner or later. You can run a business from a domestic address but operating a business there isn't allowed and is going to cause you problems. Keeping a transit and a chipper on the drive is something may get away with but if you start making noise the neighbours are probably going to be on the barricades.
-
Have to renew all NPTC units every 5 years
treequip replied to lloyd g's topic in Training & education
Not really bothered about where it came from, the point is people moan, they don't like change and they don't like it when they perceive something foisted upon them. Some moan more than others but by and large, moaning achieves nothing. Its difficult to see what could be done in this case, the men dishing out the work have set a condition, comply or die. -
Have to renew all NPTC units every 5 years
treequip replied to lloyd g's topic in Training & education
Well on that theme of driving if you bring this into the remit of the HSE which is commercial drivers there is a requirement for CPD. Its called driver CPC and I am sure there are driver forums full of people bemoaning that. -
Get an industrial leaf blower Mighty Mac LB8-EZ EX Leaf Blower (Special Offer)
