An ice Rink has a harness they use to help figure skaters learn to jump. It consists of a steel cable strung between two points that supports another cable on a pulley system. One end is attached to the harness a skater wears and the other is held by the coach. As the skater jumps, the coach pulls the cable taught so that the skater gets some additional hieght and time in the air to complete their jump.
At the moment the rink only does (or is supposed to do, ive not actually seen any records of checks yet) a monthly check by a "competent person" which in this case is staff members but I cant identify anything that would make them "competent".
The issues I can see are:
The "competent person" can't actualy inspect much of the equipment as its suspended over the rink and they have no sort of lifting equipment or access platform to do so.
The bolts holding the cable in place would ned to be inspected.
The cable(s) would need to be inspected.
The pulley system would need to be inspected.
Would you consider this lifting equipment under LOLER?
Would you consider this lifting equipment?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Anorak Extraordinaire
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:55 pm
- 10
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 204 times
- Jack Kane
- HSfB Site Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 25075
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:13 am
- 20
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/hsfb
- Industry Sector: Manufacturing Subsea XTs
- Occupation: Senior HSE Advisor for TechnipFMC & HSfB Founder
- Location: Sunny Bo'ness
- Has thanked: 254 times
- Been thanked: 199 times
- Contact:
Re: Would you consider this lifting equipment?
That's a good question!
My take on the ACOP L113 - https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l113.htm
Page 12 - is the equipment provided for work purposes or to people at work?
Is the coach an employee of the rink? Regardless, I'm assuming the figure skaters are members of the public, so the decision process figure on P12 says LOLER doesn't apply if the equipment is provided for use by the public. If we were to decide it was for work purposes, then I don't see column 2 fitting with the scenario. My thinking is that the pulley, cable and harness don't 'lift or lower a load' like they would in a care home (P17), they support a load then arrest it's fall I suppose. You agree?
Does that make it fall arrest equipment subject to work at height regs? No matter...
I see this as the employer's duties falling under the HSWA at least, but would likely be more PUWER related. Either way, I'd go with you on inspections and some form of maintenance where the entire thing is taken down periodically to check anchor points, frayed steel cable etc.
I also think that if this went to enforcement action by the HSE, would they head for LOLER where the scenario is a bit grey (to me at least), go for PUWER and look for the link to work and public use, or would they just go direct for HSWA S3? I reckon the HSWA.
My take on the ACOP L113 - https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/l113.htm
Page 12 - is the equipment provided for work purposes or to people at work?
Is the coach an employee of the rink? Regardless, I'm assuming the figure skaters are members of the public, so the decision process figure on P12 says LOLER doesn't apply if the equipment is provided for use by the public. If we were to decide it was for work purposes, then I don't see column 2 fitting with the scenario. My thinking is that the pulley, cable and harness don't 'lift or lower a load' like they would in a care home (P17), they support a load then arrest it's fall I suppose. You agree?
Does that make it fall arrest equipment subject to work at height regs? No matter...
I see this as the employer's duties falling under the HSWA at least, but would likely be more PUWER related. Either way, I'd go with you on inspections and some form of maintenance where the entire thing is taken down periodically to check anchor points, frayed steel cable etc.
I also think that if this went to enforcement action by the HSE, would they head for LOLER where the scenario is a bit grey (to me at least), go for PUWER and look for the link to work and public use, or would they just go direct for HSWA S3? I reckon the HSWA.
Nostephen1974 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:47 pm Would you consider this lifting equipment under LOLER?
RoSPA Awards Ambassador and Mentor #RoSPAAwards #HSfB #Proud
There is no such thing as a "stupid" or "daft" health and safety question!
-
- Anorak Extraordinaire
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:55 pm
- 10
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 204 times
Re: Would you consider this lifting equipment?
Thanks.
The coachs are self employed but do carry out work for the rink under contract. The rink provides them with the harness system. I dont recall it being mentioned that it was used on any rink provided courses however, only private lessons.
I agree that it is not used for lifting in the same way as a lifting chair and thats where my is it isn't it thoughts came in on this. I didnt think to look at it from a use by the public aspect.
I was of the opinion of just going with the PUWER side of things as well but just wanted to double check.
The coachs are self employed but do carry out work for the rink under contract. The rink provides them with the harness system. I dont recall it being mentioned that it was used on any rink provided courses however, only private lessons.
I agree that it is not used for lifting in the same way as a lifting chair and thats where my is it isn't it thoughts came in on this. I didnt think to look at it from a use by the public aspect.
I was of the opinion of just going with the PUWER side of things as well but just wanted to double check.
- ddlh
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:03 pm
- 15
- Location: Aberdeen
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 75 times
Re: Would you consider this lifting equipment?
I would worry that if the set up is designed to stop someone falling and will support their weight during the manoeuvre then may be classed as fall arrest.
What is the potential if the wire doesn't hold?
Are they using an arrest block or just depending on the strength of the instructor? An arrest block must be retested after every "shock" activation.
A picture may help if you can get one?
What is the potential if the wire doesn't hold?
Are they using an arrest block or just depending on the strength of the instructor? An arrest block must be retested after every "shock" activation.
A picture may help if you can get one?
If you think safety is a pain, try a leg fracture.
-
- Anorak Extraordinaire
- Posts: 745
- Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:55 pm
- 10
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 204 times
Re: Would you consider this lifting equipment?
The coach takes the weight.
Imagine a rope going from the coach, up to a pulley, and down to the skater. The pulley is suspended from a steel cable.
It works like this. Obviously this is a beginner, but better skaters wil jump higher for longer with the coach supporting them. The cable will be taking their weight and if it snaps its will be like falling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOAIMyIVm8
Imagine a rope going from the coach, up to a pulley, and down to the skater. The pulley is suspended from a steel cable.
It works like this. Obviously this is a beginner, but better skaters wil jump higher for longer with the coach supporting them. The cable will be taking their weight and if it snaps its will be like falling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEOAIMyIVm8
- ddlh
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 1369
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 4:03 pm
- 15
- Location: Aberdeen
- Has thanked: 20 times
- Been thanked: 75 times
Re: Would you consider this lifting equipment?
That makes it so much easier - certainly not lifting or fall arrest. I think you are safe enough with the PUWER checks.
If you think safety is a pain, try a leg fracture.