Jump to content

LOLER and Bars


Brian

Recommended Posts

It's always been my understanding that LOLER applies to flown bars on winches, hand lines etc but would not apply to bars which are permanently fixed to, or are part of, the buildings structure. The fixed bars would of course still be covered by general requirements in the overall HSWA.

 

Could I have a second/third opinion on this please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, sounds about right.

All counterweight, winch etc bars are covered by LOLER as they are lifting equipment and should be check by an appropriate person every 12 months.

Fixed bar come under fixtures and fittings and are subject to having their maximum loads indicated on them but do no fall under LOLER legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't suggest a structural engineer off the top of my head to 'find the swl', but if it's a recent build you could try contacting the one who did the job (or the architect) and/or track down the original structural drawings and calculations.

 

As for LOLER testing, we use Mike Curtis, who is very knowledgeable and pragmatic, and who also runs many of the ABTT courses and contributes to the ABTT guidelines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, sounds about right.

All counterweight, winch etc bars are covered by LOLER as they are lifting equipment and should be check by an appropriate person every 12 months.

Fixed bar come under fixtures and fittings and are subject to having their maximum loads indicated on them but do no fall under LOLER legislation.

Thanks Kevin, I'd read all the LOLER stuff and thought I was right but a second opinion is always useful.

 

The reason for my question was that, at the weekend, I went to a secondary school to advise a local group on lighting for their panto. Their problem is that the whole LX installation has been 'condemmed' as unsafe the week before (though I did notice all the lanterns had passed the PAT test). They have been given a ball-park figure of £18k toput it right. Given the poor state of education funding I cannot see that happening.

 

Whilst I was there I noticed that many of their flown bars are in a very poor condition. They have two types - hand hauled hemp scenery bars and winched wire rope suspended lx bars. The lx bars looked in OK condition but were not marked with the SWL. The state of the scenery bars is very poor. They are made from 38mm dia pipe joined in several places. All the pipes bend at the joins, the rope is worn and again no SWL is marked.

 

The few fixed bars they have look in better condition, apart from a couple of side FOH bars which are made from an ali extrusion with a 20mm gap down one edge, fitted with a removable plastic cover. I guess it's a way of hiding cables? Anyways, with two strand 264s rigged in the centre the whole thing flexed uncomfortably.

 

From the general condition of the installation I would guess that it has never been inspected and I'm suprised that the lx company who did the recent PAT test did not point it out.

 

Whilst I'm going to feel bad about doing it, because I know they won't have the funds to put it right, I'm going to have to point these potential hazards out to them, probably in writing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would diferentiate between fixed bars bolted to or welded to the structure and fixed bars attached to the structure using equipment that could be used as lifting equipment.

 

ie: if the bar is atached permanently using wire rope and beam clamps etc then I personally would get it inspected as if it were a winched bar.

 

 

I would suggest that indication of swl on a fixed bar is possibly more important than on a movable bar. If I saw a hemp bar unlabled I would asume it was rated for 30kg and if I saw a winch bar I would asume the instal was rated to the value on the winch. with a unlabled fixed bar the only way to tell would be proof loading / structual servey which obviously you don't want to do every gig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ie: if the bar is atached permanently using wire rope and beam clamps etc then I personally would get it inspected as if it were a winched bar.

 

Ah, yes but the wire rope and fixings 'DO' fall under LOLER inspection even if used in a 'permanent' place. I would call something like what you are describing as temporary even if it has been there for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find confusing is that even the HSE say...

What equipment is covered by the regulations? - Lifting equipment includes any equipment used at work for lifting or lowering loads , including attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it. (Simple Guide to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, HSE publication)

 

The bold in the above quote is the HSE's own bold type.

 

So if something is not capable as being lifted or lowered does it still fall within LOLER? I know that the HSWA will still be a catch-all here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find confusing is that even the HSE say...
What equipment is covered by the regulations? - Lifting equipment includes any equipment used at work for lifting or lowering loads , including attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it. (Simple Guide to the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998, HSE publication)

 

 

My bolds now. Does this answer the question?

 

I would have thought that it means the entire lifting "system" is subject to LOLER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it depends on what 'it' refers to. I had taken 'it' to mean the equipment that was doing the raising and lowering but I guess the scope could be wider.

 

I am certain though that I would not want to try to define what 'it' means in the event of an accident. I'm also aware that even if LOLER was not to apply to bars hung on rope in fixed positions, it would still be a good idea to treat them as if it did. The damage possible to the rope and fixings would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember a competant person can set a different inspection interval depending on the frequency of the lifting operation - if the operation is "never" or one time only, a reasonable case for a much longer and more financially manageable inspection interval could be made.

 

This is why the competant person who sets your inspection interval should not be the same competant person who gets the money to do the inspections....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.