Hi there,

One of the Clients that my Company works for has a requirement that vehicles are equipped with ROPS.  This is generally no problem on LV, however, on HV installnig ROPS is not always a convenient matter.

In this case our vehicles have a safety rating roughly equivalent to an ANCAP rating which normally fulfills the rops requirement, however, the new MEM on our Clients side is being very particular about the RAW interpretation of the requirement.  

Recently this client has discovered a shortfall in their inspection regime which brought to light that many of the Hv's operating on their site didn't have the 'ROPS' installed.  

So now they've asked for a risk assessment on the vehicles as to why they shouldn't have the ROPS and how they provide the same safety assurance that a ROPS system would.

~~

My question to the forum; what is the best way to argue like for like safety systems (where an AUS standard may not be in place for a foreign system) where the current method is equal to the required method, but the client MEM is leaning on the specific wording of the requirement?

Cheers in advance

It may be beneficial to mention where you and this client are based

ANCAP - Australasian New Car Assessment Program? lilkely has different ROP (Roll Over Protection) requirements compared to the UK/Europe

yes... looked at this (HV and LV) and thought that it was something to do with High Voltage and Low Voltage.

Goes to show why acronyms are generally not a good idea (GTSWAAGNAGI)!

Edited by user 08 May 2018 10:09:26(UTC)  | Reason: who needs spelling