LOLER

[librarian28]

Just to be clear, none of the equipment I'm responsible for is load tested. The fly points are visually inspected and the security of the fixings are checked. Load testing of the points is carried out only after initial installation and after any remedial work.

 

(Still not picking on Simon but, maybe, he was a little loose in his earlier comments in using the dreaded word 'test'). So, Simon and I (and trussmonkey) think that load testing is more or less a non-existent figment of ancient theatre folk-lore. And is certainly not to be invoked under LOLER. And could even be called 'bad practice'. This chap's comments are a good read: http://www.hoistmaga...ting-equipment/ Or does anyone out there disagree with that premise? Particularly, is any venue manager being told by their 'lifting inspector' that 6 monthly load testing is required? (I'm still not declaiming what's right or wrong - just trying to get the wisdom of the crowd).

 

Trussmonkey, just to jump from 'load testing' to 'proof testing' - isn't there a sense in the back of people's minds (as with the person at the venue in the OP) that steels should have a 'certificate' to say that they have been proof tested? Can anyone quote this directive and remind me what info should be included in such a certificate? It says in (I think) some British Standards that after you have made up ,say, a swaged eye in a steel that you should then proof test it to 1.5 (though there are different numbers according to how you read the various texts).

[Giles Favell]

BS 7905 pt 5.4.3.2 requires that terminations by Ferrules (crimps, swages, etc.) should be tested to twice their SWL, and the results recorded.

'in-view' flying wires - for Performer Flying (note) should have both wire and termination proof tested to 1.5 times SWL (as well as visual inspection before every use by competent person etc. )

[librarian28]

My paragraph to trussmonkey was meant to be an unloaded question to pick up on his question regarding what load you should test a steel to. (And I was implying that although there is an answer out there, there are probably different opinions ). Though on re-reading his post, I see that he was probably saying that after the steel had been initially proof tested, there was no call to further re- load test. So it would therefore be academic to ask what load to apply.

I regret phrasing it like that, as it gave the impression that I was unaware of BS 7905. Which is, of course, our main reference point. We spent many happy hours meeting with the BS committee who were tasked with drafting 7905. Not being an legal expert, it was an eye-opener about the time needed to make sure, for example, that a proposed word or phrase didn't already have another meaning already defined in some other (maybe obscure & unrelated document). Or contradicted some other standard.

 

But I'm still niggling about the OP........ The larger hire companies may have a point that safeties aren't covered by LOLER, but BS 7905 requires that each safety they make up is tested and recorded and, surely, it's not unreasonable for a punter ask for confirmation. Perhaps Heapsy and the freelance rigger were (strictly speaking) 'wrong' to ask for 'LOLER certs'.

[trussmonkey]

hi Librarian

 

I think I got a little off topic !!

 

all companies who purchase lifting or personal protective equipment will receive a declaration of conformity that covers the items purchased. so if you order 100 x 1t SWR each one wont have its own test cert but the cert of conformity will cover all of the steels. Each item of lifting equipment should have a unique number stamped on it (with the exception of shackles) and that number should be referenced on the cert of conformity.

most companies dont send out these certs as it is a waste of paper. they will send out test certs for hoists etc as their number on a job is relatively low. they wont send out certs for all their lifting tackle as you would be cutting down a tree for every job. all big lighting companies (as refered to above) have got where they are today by being the best. by being the best comes with proper record keeping etc .

 

im sure if you really have to have the certs they would be able to produce them and email them to you but it might take a while to track the certs down as the larger companies have thousands of records like that.

 

safeties are covered by LOLER.

[librarian28]

Trussmonkey, hi.

 

You're not off topic for me - all your points have confirmed / reinforced my train of thought(s).

 

I had a bit of a knee jerk when you lumped together 'truss/shackle/steel' because steels have a slight kink in the usual chain of documentation requirement. (As Giles said). But you were talking of the 'load testing' stage - which, I agree, we should avoid speaking of (except, as you say, for a few specific items of kit). But, your next post implied that 100 x 1t SWR won't each have its own test cert - so therefore won't have been individually proof tested? (Giles?).

And now you have thrown a new spanner in my spokes by writing that shackles are another exception to the normal. I can't quite recall what you are citing there? (I'm not being argumentative - I just hate coping with exceptions to rules and I just love being able to produce an official looking document to help calm a confused venue manager).

I jumped into this thread because I've recently had a difficult conversation trying to negotiate through the meanings of (and requirement for) 'testing' 'proof testing' and 'load testing'. And, in the end, we had to agree to disagree. And I was just needing a cuddle to confirm that I wasn't completely confusing myself.

However.......... I think that a hire company could say that their safeties aren't covered by LOLER because (they would say) it's not their job to come out and thoroughly examine the complete assembly and issue the LOLER cert. Assuming that Heapsy (the OP) was planning to issue the LOLER cert after assembling the lifting machine at the venue, should he have arranged to have had (at least) all the Certificates of Conformity for each item (from, perhaps, several hire companies)? (At least in the hope that the hotel's representative would be happier)

 

Or, can one do a 'cold thorough examination' ? For example, a school asks me to come and give their FOH lighting truss a LOLER cert (NB I'm NOT offering) and there was no historic paper trail and (just to be extra awkward) they had recently bought the truss itself off eBay. So, for LOLER purposes I can visually inspect for cracks (and, of course many other things). Then (to keep Giles happy) I can proof test the steel terminations in-situ to 2x (I'm not sure that LOLER actually requires that). Job done?

 

I'm just, of course, reducing things to the nearly absurd in the hope that someone can shoot an arrow of clarity (preferably in 10 words or less) that I can keep in my book of useful phrases.

[Giles Favell]

 

 

on the subject of BS 'compliant' shackles ..... Shackles shall be permanently and legibly marked with the safe working load and a means of identifyingthem. However, no marking shall be made on the crown of a shackle.

 

Each shackle shall, after manufacture, be subject to a proof load at the centre of the pin equal to twice theSWL, which it shall withstand without showing a permanent set.

 

 

 

 

And wire rope

 

A unique number shall identify wire rope and termination assemblies and be quoted on the accompanyingcertification.

 

 

 

 

In short - all lifting accessories are to be identified and records kept, 'tested' if required.

 

 

 

 

[the kid]

on the subject of BS 'compliant' shackles ..... Shackles shall be permanently and legibly marked with the safe working load and a means of identifying them. However, no marking shall be made on the crown of a shackle.

 

Each shackle shall, after manufacture, be subject to a proof load at the centre of the pin equal to twice theSWL, which it shall withstand without showing a permanent set.

 

In short - all lifting accessories are to be identified and records kept, 'tested' if required.

 

So what is "identify". Our insurance guy says we should etch them or other various methods, with our own serial #, a batch is simply not acceptable.

[trussmonkey]

he have all our equipment marked with a QR code that is read by our asset database. this even extends to karabiners and shackles. for these items we stick the QR code on and then place some heat shrink tubing round it. seems to work for us.

 

etching or stamping is really dangerous as you can not guarantee how deep the stamp or etch is. I think something like the depth of stamp/etch can only be 5% of the total material deep. I defy any one to be able to accurately gauge this.

[Brian]

...a batch is simply not acceptable.

I wonder what the logic behind that is?

 

Consider...

 

1) You buy a batch of 100 new identical widgets, which come with manufacturers paperwork.

2) You mark them with a unique batch identifier.

3) At inspection time you examine all of them, dispose of any that are not up to scratch and issue one bit of paper.

 

What is different to having to mark every single part uniquely?

 

The only reason I can see for having a unique ID is so that a log can be kept for every part as to its usage history.

[the kid]

he have all our equipment marked with a QR code that is read by our asset database. this even extends to karabiners and shackles. for these items we stick the QR code on and then place some heat shrink tubing round it. seems to work for us.

 

etching or stamping is really dangerous as you can not guarantee how deep the stamp or etch is. I think something like the depth of stamp/etch can only be 5% of the total material deep. I defy any one to be able to accurately gauge this.

 

 

I spent a while talking with Flints about this, there is A brand who have a place for stamping/dremel and specific instructions on "how deep etc"

 

Apparently they test "several of the big venues in london" who have to do it.

 

If we are talking loler where should hauling lines come in? Once again I was told that my rope was unacceptable as it had - no swl, no closed eye link to carabina.

 

It is something I HAVE to do now, spend £200 getting some new line, but just wondering an all that.

 

I was going to start a new thread, maybe I will...

[Pete McCrea]

Some of the later posts concur with what my understanding of the LOLER assessments. As a supplier of lifting accessories, I should be able to open a trunk of steel wire ropes, spansets, shackles and half couplers, pull one out, be able to identify it uniquely, then be able to demonstrate that the item in question had the original certificate of conformity when we accepted it into use, and the the subsequent regular inspections that it had undergone.

 

I leave the decision on the assessment type (Visual/Proofload etc) to the professional that we appoint to undertake the assessments...

[Tom]

I'm not sure about Flints, but if you buy rigging accessories from Rope Assemblies everything comes with it's own ID number an associated paperwork.

They operate a clever system where by the ID number relates to their order number - so buy 10 shackles or steel or whatever and they will all have the same number stamped on them with a final number identifying the individual item.

ORDER NO / ID

 

Yes, rope comes under LOLER and should be identifiable and marked with a SWL.

In the grand scheme of things £200 doesn't sound like too much if you've had the lines for a while. If you only got them recently then I guess you could go back to the person who sold them to you and request a certificate. Assuming you had then cut the rope up into shorted lengths I wonder if it would be acceptable to note this on the certificate and mark up the individual pieces appropriately?

 

Hemp houses where all their lines are unmark and of sometimes unknown age is a different matter.

 

In response to librarians question

Particularly, is any venue manager being told by their 'lifting inspector' that 6 monthly load testing is required? (I'm still not declaiming what's right or wrong - just trying to get the wisdom of the crowd).

Until a few years ago, at the venue I used to manage, the reputable company who originally installed the flying system 5 years previously used to return annually to inspect the entire system and to load test 25% of it.

I queried this but they insisted that was what LOLER required so I changed companies and saved a lot of money.

 

You say 6 month testing but a flying system is Lifting Equipment and therefore subject to a 12 month inspection regime.

[the kid]

I'm not sure about Flints, but if you buy rigging accessories from Rope Assemblies everything comes with it's own ID number an associated paperwork.

They operate a clever system where by the ID number relates to their order number - so buy 10 shackles or steel or whatever and they will all have the same number stamped on them with a final number identifying the individual item.

ORDER NO / ID

 

Yes, rope comes under LOLER and should be identifiable and marked with a SWL.

In the grand scheme of things £200 doesn't sound like too much if you've had the lines for a while. If you only got them recently then I guess you could go back to the person who sold them to you and request a certificate. Assuming you had then cut the rope up into shorted lengths I wonder if it would be acceptable to note this on the certificate and mark up the individual pieces appropriately?

 

 

 

oh for sure £200 is nothing .. at the moment I have not had to get it as I have had no need. but it is also £££. My "issue" is the old people never seemed to question it.

 

hmmm I will have a look at rope assemblies. might be less as well.

[librarian28]

In response to librarians question

 

You say 6 month testing but a flying system is Lifting Equipment and therefore subject to a 12 month inspection regime.

Yes, I haven't re-read all this (by now lengthy) thread but I was partly thinking about equipment for lifting people - which probably does require a 6 monthly regime.

 

Yes, rope comes under LOLER and should be identifiable and marked with a SWL.

(I'm so not wanting to stretch this thread to breaking point, but.......) I'm not sure that rope does need to be regarded as you say.

 

http://www.legislati...gulation/7/made

 

(I'm so dreading putting this thought forward). The machine (which probably consists of a myriad of components) needs to be marked with a SWL. In a comedy context, the big black hook at the end of the crane would have 'Acme Cranes. SWL 100 Tons' painted in white. And, maybe, depending on the gag, the big control lever next to the winch marked 'Up' & 'Down' would say 'Danger! Not to be used for lifting grand pianos'. In a theatre context, rather than paint it on each of 30 fly bars, it is often regarded as better practice to put a big notice on the wall giving all that complicated stuff about point load/ uniform load/ total grid something or other.

 

A lifting accessory would be the chains (or whatever you would temporarily attach to the hook in order to lift the piano) and they should be marked with SWL because, although a competent person installed and thoroughly examined the crane and left the site, you never know what's being delivered next nor what type of accessory you'll need to safely pick that up. Sometimes, you may not need an accessory because you can hang the bucket of molten lead straight off the crane hook. The accessories themselves need not all have a SWL of 100tons - the site foreman just needs to select a sling that is marked up with a safe enough working load for the piano.

 

(Deep breath, here goes my contention....) The myriad of components within the machine do not need to be individually marked. http://talkvietnam.c...t-helping-hand/

[trussmonkey]

unfortunately every piece of lifting equipment has to be traceable back to its point of origin and its certificate of conformity. therefore every piece of kit does indeed have to either have a manufacturers serial number clearly marked on it or a unique identifier put there by the purchaser.