Rank: New forum user 
|
Hi all. Whilst i'm fairly certain i know the answer to this, i wanted to get the group opinion. We recently had a collision between an overhead gantry crane and an FLT that was in the area with it's mast fully raised. No-one was injured and the fault lay with the crane operative who did not check the area or maintain line of sight with the crane. My question is, is it a legal requirement to have the crane checked for any damage before using it again? Obviously, I had the crane isolated and brought our crane company in to check it over - it was given a clean bill of health. Although this is operational H&S common sense, there is nothing specific i can find in the LOLER regs, so wanted to know if any crane experts know if there is any written regulation regarding this. Thanks in advance for any guidance you can offer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with you that this is a logical precaution to take, regardless of whether LOLER explicitly requires it.
I'm not aware of anything so specific in LOLER, but overhead cranes are also work equipment, and PUWER has this at reg 6(2)
Every employer shall ensure that work equipment exposed to conditions causing deterioration which is liable to result in dangerous situations is inspected—
(a)at suitable intervals; and (b)each time that exceptional circumstances which are liable to jeopardise the safety of the work equipment have occurred, to ensure that health and safety conditions are maintained and that any deterioration can be detected and remedied in good time.
A collision such as you describe could well be characterised as exceptional circumstances under 6(2)(b).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2306/regulation/6
Edited by user 06 November 2024 16:37:34(UTC)
| Reason: correction of reeference
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Hi Kate and thank you for your response.
I had seen that in PUWER but as is usually the case, it's a little vague and open to interpretation. I agree though that it could be applied in this case. I'm thinking it's as close as we'll get to any kind of regulation or official guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I got that wrong - later in that reg is an exemption for lifting equipment!
However LOLER does have the equivalent at reg 9 (3) (a) (iv) which says that lifting equipment must be thoroughly examined
each time that exceptional circumstances which are liable to jeopardise the safety of the lifting equipment have occurred
I would see a collision as being that.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/2307/regulation/9
Edited by user 06 November 2024 16:57:50(UTC)
| Reason: sphlling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apologies, our posts crossed.
The guidance to the ACoP for LOLER does identify "damage" as an exceptional circumstance, and of course in the case of a collision you could reasonably be concerned that there might be damage.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l113.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.