Posted By jon hammond I have almost passed an audit by a client but we have had to agree to disagree on 1 point which is the 6 monthly examination of fall arrest equipment. I belive it should be a thorough inspection visually by a competant person with a written report, the auditor believes it should be proof loaded every 6 months which I feel is going to put extra strain on the components which will lead to premature failure. Could someone tell me where I can find an exact definition in this case for thorough examination (and I dont mean the Oxford Dictionary). Thanks in advance

Posted By jon hammond The company isnt trying to sell us any services but making sure we comply with their guidelines only I think someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The equipment is as Charles suggested i.e. a harness, fall arrest block and other associated equipment (which we have made to our specification and initially proof loaded to 100% over the current guidlines)to arrest a potential fall from loads mounted on the back of a flat container trailer. The load can be approx 3m plus the height of the trailer. The company who supply and test all of our lifting and fall arrest equipment have said I am right but I need to prove it, I know the LOLER guidelines say thorough inspection but they are taking that as proof loading. Another company/competitor (but we do have a good relationship with them) is proof loading their equipment and they have 15 sets to do every 6 months. Any help advice is appreciated Jon

Posted By Robert K Lewis Jon The underlying assumption I am making is that the "client" you mention is actually employing you to undertake work on their behalf. If this is so then their terms and conditions of order/contract will have needed to be explicit about any standard higher than legal or industry norm which they would apply. Without this the LOLER ACoP guidance is the controlling document. As the other respondents have identified the precise testing regime is down to the competent person, who will generally follow the manufacturers guidance. It may be however that you work with the client's view, whether right or wrong, in order to maintain the relationship for future work. You need to get your commercial people to make this decision. Bob

Posted By AlB jon fall arrest equipment is not a lifting eqipment and I would suggest that this may be the route the auditor has taken. Fall arrest equipment should be inspected and examined at given times, but a visual inspection by a copmpetent person is usually more than sufficient. The competent person will immediately remove the item should there be any slight damage or even if there is an amount of oil or grease on the equipment (as this can cause damage to lanyards etc). Proof loading can lead to damage.

Posted By jon hammond Fortunately other than the harness we do not use textile fall arrest equipment.