There are several companies who offer lifing gear examiners courses. Try speaking to LEER (Lifting Equipment Engineers Association) for reccomended providers. As long as the inspections are carried out by a competent person and the certificates issued are compliant with the required information as per Reg 9 of LOLER (requirements are in schedule 1 of LOLER). There shouldn't be a problem.

The main issue is to have a robust auditable system and maintain good records. All this aside I would consult with the employers insurance company and make sure that they don't have any issues and are happy with the move to internal inspectors.

If you would like to discuss this further please contact me off post

Andy

Thanks walkera and db for replies.

I'll try both of them companies, but thinking about it - i can't see how it will be comercially viable for a company do this in-house. After all, if they want to issue a cert of thorough examination, they are going to need to pull test the gear... in which case (i may be wrong) they would have to send it away anyway or get someone in to do this...

I don't see that there is any reason why you can't issue 'in house' certificates, but if you are doing the TE then you shouldn't be involved in the day to day maintenace to ensure 'independancy' of the TE.

Similarly, depending on your experience, qualifications (i.e. competency) etc and the equipment that you are being asked to examine then I don't see that you necessarily need to attend a 'lifting gear examnirers' course either although I am not suggesting that it wouldn't be helpful.

Have a look at the ACoP, paras 294/295 and 296 onwards about the TE. As has already been said schedule 1 also gives information on what to include. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l113.pdf

The ACoP to LOLER para 301, 302, 320, 333 and schedule 1(e)all 'talk about' test/testing

There are a few key points to make on this one.

Competence - the examiner MUST be properly trained and have sufficient knowledge and experience. Training is one thing, but don't forget the other two. Does your intended in-house examiner have any history / experience in this field other than the training you're intending to provide?

Independence - To avoid conflict of interest, your in-house examiner MUST be independent i.e. not under the control of (for that, read reporting to / responsible to) any kind of production manager or Maintenance manager who could exert influence to cause conflict of interest. The reporting chain must be independent.

Thorough Examination - this is a visual check only for the purposes of 6 and 12 monthly statutory testing (for lifting accessories and cranes).
If you're talking about initial testing of new or repaired lifting accessories, proof testing is required for metal bits, i.e. chains and the like, but for web slings these are made to quality approved standards by the manufacturer with one in every so many hundred tested to destruction. You should not get involved with this - or get it confused with the thorough examinations described above.

Hope the above clarify.

I personally have not suggested that training isn't important or perhaps 'essential', what I have said is that you don't necessarily have to attend a 'lifting gear examiners' course. The key issue is what sort of kit you are going to be doing the TE on AND whether you are competent to do so, of which training is ONE element. The competency requirements for one piece of kit could differ radically from another, so I am sceptical about some generic examiners course being necessarily the best form of training in all cases.

LOLER does indeed talk about testing as I have identified.

And, Please , we all know the POTENTIAL, consequences of 'getting it wrong', but they are NOT necessarily INEVITABLE

db - as per post #6, while there isn't a specific reg within LOLER that has the heading 'testing' the ACoP to LOLER does 'talk about' testing and arguably Reg 9 (1), (2), (3) on TE does include the requirement to test WHERE APPROPRIATE as per the interpretation in Reg 2. However, I don't think that this particular issue is worth a great deal more debate, but people should be aware that a test may very well be an appropriate and integral part of a TE depending on the circumstances, and that IS contained within the Reg 9 albeit in a round about way as well as the ACoP.

I really think we are all pretty much on the same side here. Whether we have had to look for a severed head or not, many of us have had to pick up the pieces from various H&S failures, involving all sorts of equipment, substances and processes, and similarly most of us are in the job for the very reason of trying to avoid those failures that have the potential to lead to such catastrophic outcomes. What I was trying to do was to introduce a sense of proportion into the debate, both in terms of the risks associated with different types of LOLER kit and the potential liabilities arising out of a failure of the same.

I think we all appreciate that a 'failure' whether LOLER related or otherwise, may result in a significant injury/fatality and subsequently proportionate enforcement action/prosecution, which I agree may lead to 'life'/unlimited fine, and I don't doubt that many LOLER operation have great potential for that. But as we all know, not all failures end up with such a significant outcome in terms of injury or legal consequence, and would argue that the majority don't.

The risks etc etc associated with a tower crane, a trolley jack and the bin lift on the back of a refuse lorry, all of which come under LOLER, have significantly different risks associated with them and in fairness I think you will agree would have significantly different maintenance and TE requirements and that the competency requirements, and therefore training, experience atc atc would be similarly different.

As I said before, I was just trying to inject a sense of proportion into the debate rather than a '2012 scenario'. The point is that you can't 'broad brush' LOLER, but rather you need to approach it in such as way that is proportional to the risks associated with your kit, your type of operations etc. in the same way as we would approach the risks of other equipment, substances and processes.

To go back to Luke’s original questions. Yes he can do in house TEs and issue certs, IF he is competent to do so, but do heed 'warning' about the examiner having sufficient authority and independence as there is, as he has identified a potential conflict of interests as such. I would assume that a certificate including the information in Schedule 1 would be 'compliant'.

The competency issued has been debated on here many times, and is something for the employer to satisfy 'himself' of depending on the circumstances.

Can I throw UKAS into the debate :-)

MODS - why does this time out EVEN when you are composing a long response? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Ramble over!