LOLER

[mark_s]

I'd be interested to know how this is applied by the large hire companies to their rigging accessories. I spent some time working in the warehouse of one large supplier to theatre, and while I didn't do any specific work in their rigging department I'm fairly confident that they had no way to identify individual shackles or other small accessories, nor a formal inspection regime for items like that. They were picked out of a large bin and thrown into a flightcase when needed after a cursory glance to check there was nothing overtly wrong with them.

[kerry davies]

I am as confident as you that any reputable company does have ID and testing procedures pretty well covered and warehouse workers may have no idea of them. They don't need to know.

 

I think it helps if they do but there is no requirement that they know anything more than to "get the right bits in the right boxes." Those idle blokes sat drinking tea in the office do have a purpose, that's why they are a bit better paid.

[mark_s]

To rephrase - I am very confident that their shackles and other small accessories could not be uniquely identified, which is entirely at odds with trussmonkey's assertion that this is required. I'm also very confident that there was no formal inspection regime (complete with paperwork trail) for such items. Hence my curiosity as to how LOLER is applied by such companies.

[Tom]

Loler is very clear on the matter. They appear, If you are correct, to not have been adhering to the regs.

[Pete McCrea]

Which would also tally with the OP's comments back in post 1...

[Brian]

...I am very confident that their shackles and other small accessories could not be uniquely identified, which is entirely at odds with trussmonkey's assertion that this is required...

I may be missing it but where in LOLER does it say that unique identification is required?

[paulears]

Not being an expert in LOLER, if the inspection of the accessories is carried out be a visual inspection when getting the gear together, then surely identification and detailed tracking is pointless? If the decider as to condition is the absence of distortion, cracks and damage, then any that show damage would be discarded - with all remaining items deemed safe to use. Why would anyone wish to keep records to show that these items are safe, and have been inspected as so X number of times. Surely they are safe until deemed not safe!

 

If the test was some kind of stress test, or other process that generates a numeric 'score' - then I can see the point of record keeping. If it's just a visual check, a nice long list of tests all saying OK, doesn't show trends, doesn't show useful information - so what exactly is the point?

[Tom]

What if the manufacturer identifies a problem with a batch after they have been distributed and issues a recall?

How will you identify those shackles?

 

(Flints make quite an issue of this as being part of their post sales service).

 

Also, is there not a difference between the brief inspection prior to use, that we all should be carrying out, and a more thorough regular inspection as required by LOLER?

 

How are they recording that the equipment going out the door has been inspected. Are they guys pulling the kit and chucking it in the boxes competent to inspect?

[Seano]

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.

 

Surprised no one picked up on this. You were told a hauling rope was unacceptable because it doesn't have a spliced eye on the end!?

 

then surely identification and detailed tracking is pointless?

 

In the case of shackles in general use, it's certainly pointless to mark the body with a unique individual id but not the pin.

[Simon Lewis]

... doesn't show trends, doesn't show useful information - so what exactly is the point?

 

Much of this is going to depend upon what the inspector calls for. With regards to marking, the batch mark shows initial compliance, but when in use it helps to know whether a particular shackle has indeed been inspected (given that zip ties can come off) or is missing. We do get cases where gear has some wear and tear, but it's deemed OK to continue using. That particular device would probably get mentioned in the report, and it helps to say "which one". Devices that fail are removed, broken and our inspector notifies the local HSE office. He was not happy with our system of marking shackles with a sharpy, so we simply replaced them and had serial numbers stamped on.

[librarian28]

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

I'm not sure that rope does need to be regarded as you say.

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.

I may be missing it but where in LOLER does it say that unique identification is required?

I was contending that (maybe - what do others think?) the rope in question didn't need a SWL. Brian then asks about general identification. I haven't bothered to look thru' LOLER 'cause I guess Brian is implying that he has looked and can't find it. So, maybe, the rope neither needs indentification nor SWL.

 

My last post was mainly proposing that items within a lifting machine don't need individual SWL The need for unique identifiers would depend on the situation. I know that a car isn't covered by LOLER, but my MOT engineer noted: 'Some wear on nearside front brake disc. Replace within 5,000 miles'. (That note refers back to the machine's unique identifier). I think the LOLER police would be well happy with that system. Each component is readily and uniquely identifiable. (While composing this, Simon has just posted and to paraphrase him: "What information does an inspector need to do a thorough examination of a machine?" And to be able to say "which one").

 

Many of you already have 30 or so items of lifting equipment permanently installed above your stage. Anyone got a moment to actually go and see what rule the manufacturer has applied to each component?

[Simon Lewis]

Part of the problem faced is that our industry's approach to lifting is often to have a kit of parts which can be reused in an almost infinite manner. If an inspector was faced with a workshop I-beam, a trolley mounted block and tackle plus a couple of slings and shackles, it's easy to inspect that as a system.

 

Most rigging companies will simply present cases and cases of lifting accessories and lifting equipment. Truss can't have an SWL because we can deploy it in many different ways.

[librarian28]

Part of the problem faced is that our industry's approach to lifting is often to have a kit of parts which can be reused in an almost infinite manner. If an inspector was faced with a workshop I-beam, a trolley mounted block and tackle plus a couple of slings and shackles, it's easy to inspect that as a system.

 

Most rigging companies will simply present cases and cases of lifting accessories and lifting equipment. Truss can't have an SWL because we can deploy it in many different ways.

:)! Simon has (almost) pinpointed in (almost) less than 10 words where (I reckon) this thread has derailed itself. There are lifting accessories and lifting equipment and LOLER knows the difference.

 

The employer has provided Simon's I-beam etc. On a case by case basis, it must be determined if there is an interface. If the slings are permanently attached to the hook at the bottom of the block & tackle (because the machine is solely provided to put sacks of cement in the slings and move them) then the slings should have a note on them saying "Not to be used for lifting more than 3 sacks at a time". If the chaps are frequently needing to remove the slings (from the hook) and replace with a cargo net to lift a batch of watering cans, then it would be wise to put a note on the hook (which would be the interface between machine and accessory). All the slings and cargo nets which are kept in the 'lifting accessories' cupboard could usefully be marked with SWL (and maybe other info) so that the foreman who is planning the next lifting operation can make a wise decision about the configuration he needs to create in order to safely lift the grand piano.

 

Plus, whether the truss is part of the lifting equipment or an accessory, you can't always give something a SWL.