Bryson Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Quick question for you folks. Do you consider a Tallescope to be lifting equipment and therefore subject to LOLER? I'm just compiling my testing and maintainence strategies and I don't know whether to include the 'scope in the LOLER section or just in the PUWER section. Obviously, it makes a difference to the testing regime and frequency. I don't want to discuss the use of 'Scopes, per se. Save that for the other thread on the subject. Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 Poll added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianl Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Obviously, it makes a difference to the testing regime and frequency. Opinions? in what way? surely the testing regime and frequency are set from the manafacturers instructions taking into acount frequency of use and type of use and exposure to anything likely to reduce the life (rain, paintstripper etc), rather than an arbitary decision of whether it is puwer or loler and whether equipment for supporting people is the same as equipment for lifting people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewR Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 For my money, yes. It may not actually lift people up, but its equipment for working at height and is likely to be used in lifting operations. (If you rig off of one for example) And as such it covered by LOLER as equipment for lifting people (in a non-dynamic situation!). Just because the equipment dosen't lift them to working height doesn't mean its not lifting equipment. The Regs call for 6 month inspections for personnel lifting equipment. Personally my risk assesment (if we had a tallie, we have a JLG Axxessor instead) would call for an inspection from an experienced user before every use (a quick once over if you will), with closer inspections depending on the level of usage and storage arrangements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 Obviously, it makes a difference to the testing regime and frequency. Opinions? in what way? surely the testing regime and frequency are set from the manafacturers instructions taking into acount frequency of use and type of use and exposure to anything likely to reduce the life (rain, paintstripper etc), rather than an arbitary decision of whether it is puwer or loler and whether equipment for supporting people is the same as equipment for lifting people Not so. LOLER assigns much more prescriptive inspection regimes for lifting persons (namely, once per 6 months) which I consider to be onerous in the case of my infrequently-used tallescope. That's why it matters. I'm aware that I can write up an inspection schedule that explains why the equipment is to be tested less often, but obviously, why do paperwork you don't have to? If you read all of the given examples, it's clear that LOLER is aimed at lifting or lowering (ie: involving a change in elevation) operations. I'm sure you'll agree that a ladder is not subject to LOLER. Hence my question: it's not that clear-cut in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Quoting the HSE's simple guide: Lifting equipment includes any equipment used at work for lifting or lowering loads, including attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it. The Regulations cover a wide range of equipment including, cranes, fork-lift trucks, lifts, hoists, mobile elevating work platforms, and vehicle inspection platform hoists. The definition also includes lifting accessories such as chains, slings, eyebolts etc. (my emphasis) I would have thought that it fell under access equipment? (therefore under PUWER). A rope operated extension ladder would not be thought of as a lifting device per se? Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewR Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Reconsidering my position! Effectively a tallie is a very specialised form of scaffolding tower. Or a mobile elevating work platform. Unless you are actually lifting equipment up to the basket and rigging from it then it should fall under the same regs as a VPP/MEWP like a geine or JLG. It says quite clearly on my Axxessor that its to be inspected every 12 months, so why would a tallie be any different? As a matter of interest, what do the instructions say? After all, if it says 12 month inspections, then unless you are using/storing it in an unusual manner then your risk assessment would just say that you are following the manufacturers guidelines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryson Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 [devils advocate]Ah, but: Doesn't the Mobile Elevating Work Platform "lift and lower" the load (a person) and is therefore subject to LOLER? [/devils advocate] Whereas a scaff tower or tallescope is a Mobile Elevated Work Platform and doesn't lift or lower the load. The instructions on the unit are silent on this issue. However, they also suggest that you swing the unit into a fully elevated position while it's on it's side and then push the unit up from the side. So I'm not sure about them anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 My opinion is,I dont know how infrequently infrequently is but Id class it under loler,and get it inspected every 6 months.If you dont feel it needs doing every 6 months,like it only gets used once a year I understand that fine as long as there is a suitable RA there to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Lewis Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Id class it under loler,and get it inspected every 6 months. But if it isn't classed as lifting equipment, that approach would appear inappropriate? Would not an inspection regime derived from its risk assessment as required under PUWER be more sensible? This would be similar to that done with ladders..... Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Edwards Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 My 2p, I would not classify the tallescope itself as fallng under LOLER. It is, as mentioned before, a static piece of access equipment. The fact that it is adjustable up and down is not relevent as it should not be adjusted whilst anyone or anything is in the basket. However, any device fitted to the tallescope for the purposes of lifting should come under LOLER and be inspected as such. I have seen many a tallie with rope running through a pully gaffered to it!!! ( ours is properly attached :( ) Drew. (For those of you would argue that it is not static, the movement of the entire thing whilst a person is in the basket is a whole other risk assessment) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikienorth Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 For expert opinion on exactly what regulations the tallescope is liable to fall under, and after consulting my manual to find it complies with a now defunct regulation (Construction (Working Places) Regulations 1966), Might I suggest contacting someone who will know for sure.Bob at Aluminium Access Products. They service, and supply a great deal of the tallescopes in use in this country, and also carry out an inspection service at quite a number of venues nationwide. This reccomendation is based on personal experience of his services. If you want a number for them, just ask, and I'll post it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Edwards Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 AAP came only yesterday to service our tallescope, which occurs annually. Logically this means that it does not fall under LOLER. I echo the previous post, from my experience they would be only too happy to help with any enquiries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyJones Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I don't think it falls under LOLER, BUT I dont see any reason why it shouldn't be tested or checked at least every six months, simply because os the risks involved in it failing. AndyJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seano Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I have seen many a tallie with rope running through a pully gaffered to it!!! ( ours is properly attached :( ) Well glad as I am to hear its not held on with gaffer tape, but I'm afraid its really not good that its there at all. When something weighing x kilos is being pulled up to the handrail, depending on the pulley you'll be exerting a load between 2x and 4x (in surges) on the rail. To add to your problems, this force isn't vertical, meaning there's a sideways component trying to tip the talle over. Not good. I myself have never seen a pulley used on a talle this way, though I don't think I've ever seen one without a bit of sash (with or without a bag on the bottom) for pulling up spare lamps, tools etc. Its only used for very light items, the additional load applied goes through the feet of the person in the basket and the load is directly downward, so I'm not suggesting that is a problem. If you're looking to pull up something heavy enough to justify the use of a pulley, all you have to do to make it safe is take the pulley off the talle handrail and stick it on the bar you're intending to rig whatever it is you're pulling up on. Assuming that the bar is good for the load, of course. The handrail of your talle isn't, I'm afraid. Even though it hasn't failed yet, and probably never will - I'm afraid the value of "probably" you're operating with isn't close enough to "certainly". Seanx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.