Interested in your thoughts on this. This activity uses ceiling mounted slings to suspend the person above the floor. They perform their stretches whilst cradled in, and holding on to a fabric sling. This in turn is secured to webbing straps that are affixed to ceiling mounted eye bolts. Leisure centre location with use by the public. My view is, the webbing, sling and eye bolt all form a set of lifting equipment to suspend a load (the person) and my concern is a material failure resulting in said person falling to the hard floor below, possibly head first. (do a search for Aerial Pilates to see the kind of poses and equipment involved). However, LOLER applies to work equipment only, not stuff used by the public. I believe similar dissaplications apply under PUWER and the PPE regs. What legislation (if any) would require the client to carry out a 6 monthly check of this equipment.

Not sure about six monthly checks on equipment used by the general public after all a paying member is not an employee so in that glorious grey area until someone gets taken to court and their systems and procedures are identified as wanting. As a lot of "leisure" equipment (climbing axes, cycle helmets etc.) is standardised under the PPE directive you could try a look at the Europa web site and check if anything jumps from the page as being applicable to the items installed. https://ec.europa.eu/gro...-protective-equipment_en Being a gymaphobic the presence of professional organisations providing industry best practice and guidance is a bit of an unknown - quick internet search shows there are UK activities in the sector http://www.thefitmap.co.uk/healthclubs/basics/fia/

If I am understanding your description correctly, the equipment is static and the person provides the force to lift themselves. I would not classify this as lifting equipment, so LOLER requirements would not apply. PUWER may apply (not sure on that to be honest) but your common law duty of care and section 3 of HASWA will most definitely. You've identified the potential risk from faulty equipment and routine inspection would seem to be a sensible way to proceed to reduce this risk. What checks and how often are probably a question best posed to the equipment supplier in the first instance. I would imagine there is a gym equipment trade association out there as well that may have some advice, hopefully someone more familiar with the sector can point you in the right direction.

Thanks for the replies so far. This link gives some idea of the activity. https://www.google.co.uk...#imgrc=yzdiYWqsQgeA_M%3A David - I face palmed myself at your comment, course it is a workplace. I work for a large insurer so this is not my workplace. I've identified a possible shortcoming in a policyholders management and want them to address this. My initial thought was LOLER but Jimothy's comment gives me pause for thought. I'm starting to think this is more akin to rope access equipment and 6 monthly checks will not be frequent enough. Also, what about pull tests on the eye bolt fixings?

Pikeman, Stevie is the insurer! :) With respect, I have to disagree with your reasoning for LOLER. By the reasoning you've given a step ladder would be classed as a lifting accessory. Fall arrest and fall restraint harnesses are often subject to this confusion as well but are not classed as lifting equipment by HSE. In fairness though that argument is a bit of a red herring. I expect we would both agree that the equipment is put under force and would require regular inspection of some sort in order to ensure it is in good working order. An inspection regime that looked very much like that you would put in place for a lifting accessory may well be appropriate.

Stevie, I work in rope access and I'd be careful of going down the route you're suggesting as you'd have to keep someone certified to check lifting/rope equipment. I've had pad eyes installed in my previous employment and they were subject to a 6 monthly check, I'd suggest this would be suitable but others may disagree.

To me it wouldn't be reasonable to treat the eye bolts as lifting equipment. Let's face it - even if the eye bolts are small, they have lifting capacity of what - 1t, 2t? They are installed indoors, so not exposed to elements - won't rust. I assume they are suitable for the sling they are attached to and nicely polished, so they won't cause any tears to the sling. The slings will not be used to lift any sharp objects that could damage them - it's not a workshop but gym. Slings probably have the capacity of 500kg to 1t and, if the same rules apply to their manufacturing as to normal lifting slings, their safety ratio is 7:1 (it means that 1t sling will only break when 7t load is applied). Let's face it - no matter how big the person is, no one will be able to reach the breaking point of the sling... To conclude, in my opinion everything boils down to proper installation of the whole set up by a competent person and as per manufacturer's instructions. If the eye bolts are welded to the ceiling, I can't see a reason for any further inspections. If they are screwed in to sockets, there will probably be some swivel mechanism to prevent loosening of the bolt, as people on the slings will turn in all directions. After that - visual check of slings to identify any obvious damage which is highly unlikely anyway. In my opinion 6 monthly inspection of such equipment is not reasonably practicable.