Posted By Graham Sargeant
The tool hire company I work for have recently added to the hire fleet some safety harness with webbing lanyard fitted with shock absorbers and scaffold clip, can any one help with information regards test and inspection of these. At the moment they given a visual inspection with zero tolerance, any grazes, cuts or broken stiches then it's thrown away, the hooks/couplers are checked for operation and it is obvious if the shock absorber has been 'used in anger', the results are recorded against the equipments serial numbers.
Any comments would be appreciated, I think the above is o.k, can I improve anything???
Thanks

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Not specifically on the topic of inspection but can I add some thoughts on landyards. I dislike intensely the fixed length versions. The scaffolders SG 4.00 code doesn't require the use until 4.00 as this is the height for proper full deployment. I would far rather see a push towards the inertia reel type landyard as this locks before any significant fall occurs and thus prevents what can be serious secondary injuries

Bob

Posted By Robert Woods
P.s
I agree with Robert K Lewis that the inertia reel lanyards are preferable. Better still find a way of removing the need for the harnesses altogether.

Robert Woods.

Posted By Kevin Minton
Graham

This is an interesting question: my current thinking is as follows.

Under s6 HSWA there is a clear duty to inspect and test to ensure that equipment supplied by hire is safe.

In the great majority of cases - including this one - this must be done between each and every hire, to take account of the fact that the previous customer is not going to tell you anything about the use or abuse of the equipment.

To this extent, inspection regimes designed for quarterly or before-use inspection may not be appropriate, because they may rely on the equipment remaining with in the control of the responsible person between inspections, allowing them to remove it from service if they detect a problem or they become aware that it has been stressed. The between-hire inspection may have to be stricter.

I would look to the manufacturers for guidance. They should make the equipment in such a way that it displays any wear which may reduce its capability - otherwise how can anyone tell that it is still 100%?

I may have misunderstood one of the other responses, but it is my view that an inspection must be less tolerant of wear on a fall arrest harness than it would be on a roped access harness. The fall arrest harness may have to withstand a dynamic load far greater than the (comparatively) static load of the access harness.

There are arguments to say that fall restraint and fall arrest equipment should not be hired, only offered for sale. This not only avoids all of the above, but also avoids the customer being afraid to use it in case they damage or deploy it. Under these circumstances the supply may contribute more to issues around allocation of liability rather than reduction of accidents. Mostly, ppe is offered for sale, though chainsaw safety kits are a clear exception.

Guidance on use of FR / FA harnesses with MEWPS still has areas of uncertainty. I anticipate that the implementation in the UK of the Temporary Work at Height directive, and Revitalising programmes will drive discussion, understanding of the problems, and hopefully agreement as to the solutions.

Kevin Minton