We have just had a robotic system fitted which lifts 20kg bags and satckes them onto a pallet. The robot is inside an interlock cage and has sensors that will trip if the load being lifted exeeds its maximum limit. Do I need to add this onto my LOLER inspection register and have 6 monthly inspections carried out? Many thanks G

Do the LOLER regs allow for extending the inspection period? I did not think so. I understood that it was a fixed 12 months for lifting equipment and 6 months for people lifting equipment and lifting accessories. I was not aware that a competent person could extend it - though I stand to be corrected. From LOLER reg 9: Subject to paragraph (6), every employer shall ensure that lifting equipment which is exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations is— (a)thoroughly examined— . (i)in the case of lifting equipment for lifting persons or an accessory for lifting, at least every 6 months; . (ii)in the case of other lifting equipment, at least every 12 months; or . (iii)in either case, in accordance with an examination scheme; and . (iv)each time that exceptional circumstances which are liable to jeopardise the safety of the lifting equipment have occurred; and

Without wishing to get into an unseemly bunfight over this the OP does not say what the sacks contain and therefore we can't be sure what would happen if the lifting equipment failed. That said, I accept your point. Now where is the nearest bun shop?

Sorry to disagree with colleagues and dear friends but go and look at para 32 of the LOLER guidance. That applies the "duck" test to lifting equipment (you know: if it quacks etc. then it's a duck). I venture to suggest that a robot doing a pick and place job fails the duck test as set out there. It's a machine that happens to go up and down but it's not lifting equipment in terms of LOLER. Were you to accept otherwise as suggested above then just let your mind ramble over the range of pick and place devices that you would need to include on your LOLER plant list. First up in my mind is a machine with an arm that lifts pie shells up, swings them sideways then puts them down on another conveyor. Or think of the silly situation if the robot were programmed just to swing in a horizontal arc dropping the bags from a height onto the load - that would exclude it from LOLER surely? Phew - good things these extra strength brave pills!

Is it lifting equipment? Is there a load, yes. Could someone be harmed. Well, a maintenance guy could be if he was inside the cage and......

Jim Tassell - Beware of the duck test: I was at an event last weekend where a local bird society had several birds of prey on display and one, a buzzard, was occasionaly quacking. It seems that a group of ducks walk past its pen every morning and he has picked up the sound rather well. Just shows that most rules do have point at which they fail to work. Take care John C

Thank you both Johnc and Leadbelly. Pulling both together gives me some comfort that, even though a robot moving something may at first glance look like lifting equipment (it quacks!), when we look a bit wider and particularly look at the limitation placed by para 32 we are entitled to rule it out (it doesn't have webbed feet, waddle etc.!). My parting question is this: does your robot have a principal function of the type associated with "traditional" lifting equipment such as cranes, fork lift trucks or accessories such as chains or eyebolts? That is the core of para 32 and unless your robot is very different from what I envisage then I don't think it has. The crude test of "it lifts so it's LOLER" isn't valid.