Rank: Forum user 
|
Not sure if this should be reported as a dangerous occurrence or not under RIDDOR? what's your thoughts?
A front end loader lift ram hydraulic pipes burst.
SCHEDULE 2
DANGEROUS OCCURRENCES
RIDDOR
Lifting equipment
1. The collapse, overturning or failure of any load-bearing part of any lifting equipment, other than an accessory for lifting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I wouldn't. it's not a load bearing part in that sense. was it a single or double action ram?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As safety smurf says no it is not. A hydraulic hose is not part of the lifting mechanism
Examples are a load chain on a set of manual/air blocks that became elastic to such an extent that the chain snapped, or the hook snapped whilst lifting of course. Another is where a cog with a mechanical ratio, such that it became a load bearing part of a lifting mechanism failed causing a load to descend could be another.
With FEL's and FLTs it is generally the mechanical parts of the mast and the forks that come under LOLER.
Generally if the item does not need a Report of a Thorough Examination [RoTE] under LOLER it is generally not a piece of lifting equipment. Your front end loader/FLT will be examined by someone who will give the lifting mechanism a RoTE therefore if you are ever in doubt give them a ring. There number will be on the certificate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Sorry, but I disagree... This reporting requirement is intended to capture events that could result in the sudden catastrophic release or lowering of the load unexpectedly.... If there is an effective non-return valve in the system that prevents the load lowering - then its not reportable. If there is no non-return valve (common on smaller units) then a hose failure will result in sudden unexpected / uncontrolled dropping of the load - so I believe the hose is effectively a load bearing part - and the incident should be reported... That would be my interpretation anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Steve...that is the problem ...the guidance for the regulations is very subjective. I am a Chartered Mechanical Engineer and fully qualified Lifting Equipment Engineer and certificated by the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association which I have to renew every 3 years as well as a Chartered Fellow of IOSH and my interpretation is that a burst hydraulic hose should not be reported. The HSE would be inundated if that were the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
steve e ashton wrote:Sorry, but I disagree... This reporting requirement is intended to capture events that could result in the sudden catastrophic release or lowering of the load unexpectedly.... If there is an effective non-return valve in the system that prevents the load lowering - then its not reportable. If there is no non-return valve (common on smaller units) then a hose failure will result in sudden unexpected / uncontrolled dropping of the load - so I believe the hose is effectively a load bearing part - and the incident should be reported... That would be my interpretation anyway...
A hose is NOT a load bearing point
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
steve e ashton wrote:Sorry, but I disagree... This reporting requirement is intended to capture events that could result in the sudden catastrophic release or lowering of the load unexpectedly.... If there is an effective non-return valve in the system that prevents the load lowering - then its not reportable. If there is no non-return valve (common on smaller units) then a hose failure will result in sudden unexpected / uncontrolled dropping of the load - so I believe the hose is effectively a load bearing part - and the incident should be reported... That would be my interpretation anyway...
there wouldn't be a non-return valve between the hose and the ram in application like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There used to be a short guidance note from HSE on the use of excavators as lifting equipment. It made a distinction between lifting loads under 1tonne (where a non-return valve need not be fitted) and lifting loads in excess of 1 tonne (where a non-return was recommended) The intention, clearly, was to prevent a heavy load falling uncontrollably in the event of a hose rupture. I was extrapolating from that guidance. I have applied similar standards for hydraulic rams used to lift and swivel road/rail hoists, and believe there is a case for this sort of equipment to be designed such that a hose failure (which I agree is a (far too) common event) does NOT result in the load falling unexpectedly out of control.
Standards do move on - and I may have learned something today BUT - I would be concerned if I encountered a piece of hydraulic lifting equipment (over one tonne) which does NOT have a non-return valve to prevent exactly the sort of load dropping this section of RIDDOR is clearly intended to capture...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.