Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Brenda H
Following on from a recent thread I posted regarding the malfunction of one of our cherry pickers, I know have further info, and queries!
The vehicle went in for further inspection (LOLER 9(3)a(IV) and came back without any faults being found.
The vehicle went back into operation and lo and behold, it happened again!
The company re-checked the vehicle and still couldn't find anything wrong.
Can anyone tell me what period the electrics are required to be inspected/maintained in these types of vehicles?
I assume they're not checked as part of the 6 month loler checks. But given that they go under quite a bit of duress because the nature of the equipment, it would be routine for them to be checked at some point?
Thanks, B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By LynneR
Brenda
We had similar and it was found that the insulation on the cabling in the lifting mechanism was cracked inside the 'elbow' (moving and folding parts) and in use yhis caused a short circuit.
This was only found after we had a specific check done and the only way we stopped it was by having it re-wired.
Our machine had also passed the LOLER inspections.
It may cost but the accident that led us to check and strip the electrics in the arm was VERY nasty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brenda H
Well this is just the kind of thing I would imagine happening due to the way the CP moves and how often!
Did you make changes to the electrical systems having a general overhaul on a frequent basis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Brenda
What is sometimes forgotten is that LOLER and PUWER derive from the same roots. What has tended to happen is that the lifting part has been taken as the sole focus for the engineers examining this equipment and thus enable certification to a machine which could have a maintenance fault as you have described. Strictly they should tie up but they often do not.
I always look for both the LOLER certification AND the maintenance records. In Lynne's case the lack of maintenance led to an accident, in yours it was fortunate that you did not. Remember that a failure of any part de facto means that it was not adequately maintained in accordance with regulation 5 of PUWER 1998. Note that the duty is not qualified by either practicable or sfrp and is thus an absolute duty - if it fails it was not maintained in an efficient working order.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brenda H
Well the failing of the electrics did lead to an incident, although it was the direct action of the individual that lead to his injury, not the failing of the electrics, if that makes sense.
The electrics of these systems can't be easy to access can they? Given that half of them are encased in the arm of the CP.
What would you suggest is a reasonable frequency for electrical inspection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Brenda
The frequency is a matter for your maintenance persons and the manufacturers to define. But even if you follow their schedules and it fails there is still a regulation 5 breach of PUWER. The leading cases on this include a colliery winding cable that failed even though it was inspected weekly. The maintenance was deemed not adequate because there was a failure. You are unfortunately facing the same issue.
I am sorry that there are no definitive answers. The fact that the cables are difficult to view does not actually defend your position. In fact this suggests greater care must be taken.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By LynneR
Brenda
We had to make changes to the electric wiring within the arms, boom and joint. It was not possible to see until we had experts disassemble the machine involved in the accident. As a result we had all our MEWPs rewired with extra insulation on all hidden cables to prevent recurrence (the circuits were placed in an armoured casing on each side to prevent contact and short circuiting).
We found that a further two machines had the same fault developing! and all had passed their inspections!!
one of my guys decided it was too expensive and just had theirs rewired - we had to have it done properly to prevent reoccurence of the shorting fault!
Since then we have got rid of our own and lease/hire to send back when any fault is found.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brenda H
Ok thanks for the advice:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.