lifting equipment paperwork

[boardingbob]

I run a small flying venue (no tower, just some hemp and winch bars we can bring in as required). I have recently invested in some strops and rated shackles to use on the rare occasions we need to hang something heavier than a mirror ball from the bars. Now I need to generate some paperwork to keep track of their use and condition - anyone know of something generic that I can tweek to my very small scale needs?

 

Cheers

[jonathanhill]

I would just use a spreadsheet if indeed your needs are very small scale.

 

I am sure that you could tie reminders into your desktop calendar.

[kitlane]

Do you have your lifting equipment/accessories inspected regularly? Possibly by your insurance company? That will generate part of the paper trail. Do you have the Certificates of Conformity and/or test certificates?

[itiba]

Or if you keep records for PAT testing tweak them?

[Paul Jordan]

You will need to have all these loose tackle items thoroughly examined by a competent person every 6 months... You should have in your possession already declarations of conformity for all the items, and this ongoing examination needs to be carried by law under LOLER in the UK (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations). If you do not have these in place and then have a notifiable incident whereby the HSE investigate, they will prosecute for non compliance.... You insurance will probably be invalidated if you don't have ongoing thorough examinations in place anyhow.

 

If you need further help or advice, please drop me a line.

 

Paul

[Giles Favell]

1376593425[/url]' post='479965']

You will need to have all these loose tackle items thoroughly examined by a competent person every 6 months... You should have in your possession already declarations of conformity for all the items, and this ongoing examination needs to be carried by law under LOLER in the UK (Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations). If you do not have these in place and then have a notifiable incident whereby the HSE investigate, they will prosecute for non compliance.... You insurance will probably be invalidated if you don't have ongoing thorough examinations in place anyhow.

 

If you need further help or advice, please drop me a line.

 

Paul

 

 

Interestingly - and I would very much welcome HSE's clarification on this - Regulation 9 (3) of LOLER which specifies the 6 months talks about equipment that is exposed to conditions causing deterioration....... Which the Guidance then defines as 'wet, abrasive or corrosive environments' - none of which describe a flytower (I hope). It obviously doesn't just mean normal 'use', as it would be unnecessary to make any qualifying statement......

 

Don't mis-read me - I'm very much for reasonable inspections - but I'm all for clarity and lack of confusion.

 

There is also scope for an 'Examination Scheme', were relevant, instead of the intervals specified by regulation.

[Simon Lewis]

Giles,

 

The six and twelve month intervals are (somewhat unusually) written into the regulations themselves, rather than just the guidance. It's therefore understandable that these periods are so firmly ingrained amongst testers and safety professionals. I have had a trainer discount the notion that these periods could ever be varied. After citing the relevant LOLER reg twice, I gave up...

 

However, as you point out, an Examination Scheme can be drawn up, and there is good guidance from the HSE on this.

 

They state:

 

 

The examination scheme:

■ should identify the parts of the lifting equipment to be thoroughly examined;

■ can cover a number of similar items subject to the same operating conditions,

eg all the lifting accessories in a factory which are sufficiently similar in age and

subjected to similar amounts of use;

■ may often specify periods that are different (longer or shorter) from the ‘periodic’

examination intervals (ie 6 or 12 months), but a longer period must be based on

a rigorous assessment of the risks;

■ can be drawn up by the user, owner, manufacturer or some other independent

person, as long as they have the necessary competence;

■ should be reviewed regularly, during each thorough examination and after

any event that may alter the risks associated with the lifting equipment. You

must inform the competent person of any incidents that may affect the risks

associated with the use of the equipment.

 

 

The overall feel is that the same or a better level of safety must be achieved if using such a scheme, and given that some equipment can deteriorate through UV exposure or inappropriate storage, it should not be assumed that infrequent use automatically means less frequent inspection.

 

Simon

[Giles Favell]

1376652505[/url]' post='479993']

Giles,

 

The six and twelve month intervals are (somewhat unusually) written into the regulations themselves, rather than just the guidance. It's therefore understandable that these periods are so firmly ingrained amongst testers and safety professionals. I have had a trainer discount the notion that these periods could ever be varied. After citing the relevant LOLER reg twice, I gave up...

 

However, as you point out, an Examination Scheme can be drawn up, and there is good guidance from the HSE on this.

 

They state:

 

 

The examination scheme:

■ should identify the parts of the lifting equipment to be thoroughly examined;

■ can cover a number of similar items subject to the same operating conditions,

eg all the lifting accessories in a factory which are sufficiently similar in age and

subjected to similar amounts of use;

■ may often specify periods that are different (longer or shorter) from the 'periodic'

examination intervals (ie 6 or 12 months), but a longer period must be based on

a rigorous assessment of the risks;

■ can be drawn up by the user, owner, manufacturer or some other independent

person, as long as they have the necessary competence;

■ should be reviewed regularly, during each thorough examination and after

any event that may alter the risks associated with the lifting equipment. You

must inform the competent person of any incidents that may affect the risks

associated with the use of the equipment.

 

 

The overall feel is that the same or a better level of safety must be achieved if using such a scheme, and given that some equipment can deteriorate through UV exposure or inappropriate storage, it should not be assumed that infrequent use automatically means less frequent inspection.

 

Simon

 

Thank you Simon - absolutely - but the six and twelve months would appear to be only specified under Reg. 9 (3), which (possibly due to careless wording) is refering to equipment exposed to conditions causing deterioration, defined in Guidance.

On a practical level, I agree entirely - indeed some materials, including some metals (though hopefully none to be found in the flying environment) 'age' and can harden. Copper, for instance has to be annealed periodically when used in high pressure steam, and some metals even lose some of their alloys over time. So I'm not in any way naive to the situation - but there is an apparent incongruity in the LOLER which would be great to clear up, even though we all know received wisdom has it that we are applying these clauses across the board, regardless.

Giles

[trussmonkey]

I used to be the rigging manager in a well known London venue. Every year we were killing ourselves to keep our 100= chain hoists etc up to date with the 6/12 month LOLER inspections until we sought advice. It was impractical and almost unworkable with the venues event schedule to de rig them all twice a year. So every 6 months we de rigged a selection of hoists for inspection. This carried on on a rolling basis so withing a 2 year period they all got done. We were allowed to extend the inspection period because we were competent to do so and the kit was a permanent installation.

I forget the regulation now but I seem to remember that as the kit was permanently install it fell under a different reg for inspection schedule. Like I say I forget the reg now.

[librarian28]

We were allowed to extend the inspection period because we were competent to do so and the kit was a permanent installation.

 

So (just out of interest) who did you contact to 'get permission' from?

[trussmonkey]

my memory is grey on this but im sure there was no granted permission as such but it was more advise taken by a few "experts" about the wording in the regs.

 

like I say my memory is a bit hazy on this.

[jonathanhill]

(snip) So every 6 months we de rigged a selection of hoists for inspection. This carried on on a rolling basis so withing a 2 year period they all got done. (snip)

I forget the regulation now but I seem to remember that as the kit was permanently install it fell under a different reg for inspection schedule. Like I say I forget the reg now.

 

Sounds similar to the five year fixed electrical installation testing that is normally broken down to 20% of the installation being tested a year.