Posted By W P F On site, the client has had an incident where a 2 tonne SWL strop failed during a lift. The hook was a 3 tonne SWL and had no damage to it on inspection. Is the strop regarded as lifting equipment, or do we only think that under RIDDOR the jib, crane etc is the equipment. Our site team believe there is an 'accessory' to which they would allocate a strop to and 'equipment' difference. Any thoughts please. Thanks WPF

Posted By justgossip I presume that the strop was supporting the load. LOLLER applies. All our strops have a certificate of inspection and test. We don't send them for a re test, after 6 months, in the bin and buy new, hence new certificate. garry

Posted By Phil Grace WPF As previous poster stated if it was being used to lift object/load rather than simply bind/hold/contain them then it is lifting equipment. Banding that is used e.g. to hold a pack of timber together is not lifting equipment but then again the pack should not be lifted using the banding. But am I missing something - you stated that the stroop had a 2tonne SWL - if it has been tested and given a SWL then surely it must be lifting equipment...?? Phil

Posted By Colin Reeves Concur totally with Andy - the strop is a "lifting accessory" under LOLER Colin

Posted By D H I always understood that lifting equipment was classed as everything leading to the hook. Accessories are things that attach to the hook. This would make the strop an accessory? Therefore not reportable under RIDDOR? Dave

Posted By Colin Reeves Mark Oxford dictionary "• noun 1 a strip of leather for sharpening razors. 2 Nautical, a collar of leather, spliced rope, or iron, used for handling cargo." Hope this does not fall foul of the AUGs! Colin

Posted By Andrew W I meant Lifting (note to self use spell check every time) DH No definitely not reportable unless somebody was hurt of course Andy

Posted By Bob Youel if we ended up in court a layperson jury member would use common sense and call all parts of something that lifted something irrespective of the hook up or the strop down arguement 'lifting equipment' and draw conclusions from there we can nit pick all we like but something that is attached to a hook and is also attached to a suspended box etc is lifting that box if the hook rises up into the air so we need to have the appropriate management system in place!

Posted By Colin Reeves There seem to be a lot of opinions being expressed with many saying that strops are clearly lifting equipment as they are part of the equipment used for lifting. Whilst this may seem logical, the law disagrees and you should make it clear that lifting equipment is your version of the truth. SI 1998 No 2307 The Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 states in Regulation 2(1) that: "lifting equipment" means work equipment for lifting or lowering loads and includes its attachments used for anchoring, fixing or supporting it; and that "accessory for lifting" means work equipment for attaching loads to machinery for lifting From these it is absolutely clear that a strop is an "accessory for lifting" and definitely NOT "lifting equipment". The thorough inspection regime for each is different - essentially equipment is annual, accessory is six monthly (Reg 9(3)(a)). Detail is more complex but that is a simple summary. Colin

Posted By s_jesu Is this the same called "WEBSLINGS"?

Posted By Paddy Tomlinson As far as I was aware webbing slings or "strops" have a factor of safety of 7:1 therefore a 2 tonne sling should not part unless there is 14 tonnes of load, unless as previously stated it has been damaged. The question that needs to be asked along with whether it is reportable is how on earth did the failure happen in the first place and what is being done to prevent it from reccuring

Posted By W P F For you all, the information to hand was that our Client (Under CDM) was conducting their own lift, with the strop being 2t SWL and the hook 3 tonne SWL - the lift had commenced and the weight was being born by the hook and strop, just mm from the ground. The strop failed and the load returned the couple of mm to the ground. No injuries or anything occurred and the Client identified it as a Near Miss in reporting. The Lifting Team had taken all relevant steps, planning and implementing the safety measures accordingly and clearing the path of obstruction and personnel. Lifting alarm sounded, took the weight and bobs your uncle, the failure. Strop failed, looked at the hook and there was no visible damage, but further testing being completed. Load was approx 50% of SWL so the issue wasn't over loading. As the client seemed to surpress the potential of the incident and downgrade to a near miss, I was a little surprised and that is why I asked for clarification on RIDDOR and the accessory/equpment issue on the strop. Thanks all, will look at the relevant website. Regards WPF

Posted By Paddy Tomlinson W P F You said "Strop failed, looked at the hook and there was no visible damage, but further testing being completed. Load was approx 50% of SWL so the issue wasn't over loading." Therefore the sling being used must have been damaged in some way. If the appropriate pre-use checks had been carried out this should have been identified and the sling taken out of service. Without being nasty I think this is calling the competence of the lifting team into doubt as it would suggest that either the checks were not carried or they were carried out incorrectly. The question again is what is being done to prevent recurrence. Paddy