Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Chris Smith RSP
Hi all.
Just a quick one. Does anybody have any knowledge regarding the contents of a WSofE / LOLER inspection for fall restraint equipment (in this particular case - a lanyard).
Scenario: On a MEWP as part of the WSofE an engineer has signed off a work platform itself, however, one of the strops (which shouldn't have been there anyway) in my opinion is damaged (being used as an anchor point extension).
Should the engineer include the strops as they were being used as an anchor point? or at least remove and inform?
Out of interest what are the checks that are carried out as part of these inspections such as correct labeling, lack of frays, non-corroded shackles etc?
Any thoughts greatfully received.
Regards
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Brian Hagyard
Chris
As its a few hours since you posted this i will offer a suggestion and then step back and hope you get some more advice.
The way you have posted the question I am not sure that LOLER applies as the equipment is their to prevent a fall and not actually "lift" anything.
I think you should be looking at the requirements of PUWER and Work at Height.
Brian.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By claret65
Chris,
It is bad practice to use lifting accessories as an extension to a fall restraint.
Fall restraint lanyards come in various sizes depending on requirements. In your scenario I am assuming the restraint lanyard will be used to keep operators within the handrails of the MEWP basket. Therefore, why does your operator need an extension?
The fall restraint lanyard needs to be attached to the designed anchor point in the MEWP basket, with sufficient length for the operator to practically complete his task. An ad-hoc anchor arrangement is unsuitable, since the strop maybe affected by sharp edging and potential 'shock' loading of individual falling out of the basket.
Another point to consider is that when lifting accessories are used in this way, they tend to be left in the elements, miss regular & statutory inspections, leading to poor overall control of other similar types of kit, where the workforce perception could be to 'routinely' use other lifting accessories in this way.
In this case its not LOLER 98 which should be referenced--but MHSAWR 99: Regulation 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Chris Smith RSP
Hi all.
Sorry regards the LOLER reference.
I am aware of the bad practice regards the strop extension. Perhaps I worded my question in haste.
What I was aiming for was that shouldn't the engineer who inspected the MEWP have highlighted that these issues were present rather than just inspecting and signing off the MEWP itself? Hence the request for a 'List' of inspection parameters.
Regards the anchor point, there isn't one, hence the strop improvisation (which is also wrong IMO)
Thanks for the guidance so far folks.
CS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Merchant
If the inspector was being sensible, then yes - but if he was being pedantic then no (as the restraint strop is nothing to do with LOLER and so won't be on the exam scheme). As the insurance thread is discussing, it may be that he didn't believe he was "certified" to get involved with anything related to PPE.
Safety issues aside, it's a bit like a crane inspector finding a sandwich in the driver's cab and being expected to include the expiry date as part of the thorough exam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.