Generally, therefore, rigging comprises portable and loose items of equipment which are temporarily assembled for a particular task and, after completion, are dismantled and re-used for the next task.
Every item of equipment will deteriorate with age and usage. Wear, fatigue, corrosion and other forms of degradation will ultimately end its economic life. Most of these are slow processes which, if properly monitored, give ample warning before they become dangerous. However, in some environments, corrosion in particular can quickly cause equipment to malfunction. Similarly, exposure to heat, strong sunlight or chemicals can rapidly damage some materials. Moreover, because of the way in which rigging gear is used, it is also prone to suffer damage which will affect its serviceability for further use.
Everyone concerned with lifting operations should be well aware that each item of lifting equipment is rated for a particular working load which should not be exceeded. However it is not always understood that, depending upon how the item is used, it can be overloaded or damaged even though the weight of the load being lifted is less than the working load of the item. How can that be? The answer encompasses geometry, sharp edges and dynamic or shock loading. In the worst case, misuse can lead to immediate failure. More often, it results in damage to the equipment. If undetected, such damage can lead to premature failure when next used. Clearly anything likely to result in dropping a load is a serious matter and the consequences in both human and monetary terms can be enormous.
I have often made the point that a properly set up and serviceable crane of whatever type is, by comparison to the rigging gear, operating in a very controlled environment. Many, although not all, types of crane have some form of load indicating or overload protection to prevent accidental overload. Barring deliberate overload, collision, or operation outside of permitted weather conditions, there is not much which can go catastrophically wrong. In contrast, the sudden failure of the equipment connecting the load to the crane not only drops the load but causes a recoil which can damage the crane. Furthermore, on a counterbalanced crane, it might result in overturning or collapse. Clearly this is a situation to be avoided.
The objective of proper inspection is therefore to ensure that the equipment is serviceable and consequently safe to use. To do so requires a regime which will detect the type of damage that can easily occur every time the equipment is used. It must also detect and monitor the type of deterioration which generally occurs over a longer period.
The key to ensuring a proper inspection regime is to have control of the rigging gear. In a very small organisation with relatively few items and one rigger a simple system is adequate. For larger organisations, a more formal system is necessary. Without one, equipment is all too often kept by departments or individuals in private stores and toolboxes. As a result, it escapes inspection, a recipe for eventual trouble.
Every item should be accounted for within the inspection regime. Ideally there should be a stores system, with equipment drawn from the store as required and returned after use. The store controller should operate a control and issue system which ensures that only equipment which has been inspected and found to be serviceable is issued. It should only be issued to someone authorised to obtain it and that may require a formal authorisation document to be presented at the store. The store controller should record who it is issued to and get their signature in acknowledgement. It is also good practice to record how long it has been issued for so that, in the event of it not being returned on time, action can be taken to recover the equipment.
If equipment is not returned to stores after a job is completed there is obviously a temptation for others to use it, particularly if doing so avoids a lengthy trek to the stores and back. However, it is then open to question whether the equipment is still serviceable. This brings us to the reason for recording who it is issued to and the culture of the organisation. The issue record effectively hands over control and therefore responsibility to the recipient. He or she should ensure equipment is returned or, if it goes astray, reported missing.
On returning an item to the stores, the user should report any problems with it. Even in the best managed organisations with the best trained staff, accidents will occur. If equipment has been damaged, any cost has already been incurred. To minimise both the safety risks and further financial losses, it is essential that damage is not covered up. For that reason, management should encourage a ‘no blame’ culture. The alternative, a blame culture, encourages people to hide problems and ‘lose’ or not return equipment. All of which usually proves more expensive in the long run.
There are a couple of other important issues related to the same subject. These are the handing over of equipment where the job involves shift or crew changes, and having adequate amounts of equipment available. Relative to the value of the load or the consequential losses arising from delays, let alone the value of human life, the cost of most rigging equipment, particularly those items most vulnerable to accidental damage, is very low. Having sufficient amounts available removes the temptation to use unserviceable equipment because of commercial pressures.
Equipment returned to stores should be inspected before being made available again. If this cannot be done immediately, it should be quarantined. The inspection should be done by someone suitably trained but, without wishing to understate the importance of inspection, most general purpose rigging gear is not complex and can be inspected by someone with a few days training and simple facilities such as good lighting, somewhere to lay out or hang the equipment and clean and operate it as appropriate. A record should be made of the inspection. This should identify the item, who inspected it, when it was done, and the result – clearly stating whether it was found to be serviceable. Unserviceable equipment should be quarantined until repaired or disposed of.
This type of in-service inspection aims to identify the sort of problems which can arise every time the equipment is used. However, the job for which the equipment is issued may involve several lifting operations and therefore several rigs. It is essential that the rigger is capable of inspecting the equipment and keeps an eye on it in use. If the rigger sees any malfunction of the equipment or anything occurs which might damage the equipment, he or she should inspect it and, if appropriate, withdraw it from service. This is not a formal inspection requiring a record but is nevertheless an important part of the regime.
Equipment should be stored in conditions which will, in so far as possible, prevent deterioration or damage. However, some equipment can be affected simply by the time spent in storage. The brake of a hand chain block is an example. For such equipment it may be necessary to check it again at the point of issue. The system should identify any items which need such checks.
Whilst on the subject of identifying items, it is essential that every item is uniquely identified. Unfortunately, as manufactured, many types of equipment have only batch identification and there can be many thousands of items in the same batch. Who in their right mind would sign off as serviceable an item only identified by a batch number, knowing full well that there are thousands of others with the same ID, any one of which might be dangerously unserviceable? Uniquely identifying items can be a costly exercise but it can be most effectively done at the point of manufacture or supply. Traditionally, items are hard stamped, tagged or labelled, but there are new technologies, such as RF identifiers, which are becoming smaller and more cost effective, even for low value items. Several major manufacturers can offer them embedded in new equipment or as tags for either new equipment or as a retrofit for existing equipment. Whilst there is an initial extra cost, the identity of the item can be read by a hand held reader and linked to the equipment record. With traditional markings, a significant amount of time during an inspection is often required to clean up and read the ID then find the relevant record. All of this can be avoided with RFID technology.
The procedures covered so far fall into the category of in-service inspection, carried out as and when equipment is issued, used and returned to storage. If this is done properly then it should be highly unlikely that unserviceable and therefore potentially dangerous equipment will be used. However in most countries there is legislation requiring lifting equipment to be inspected at certain intervals of time or in accordance with a documented scheme. In the UK, to distinguish it from the in-service inspection regime, this is referred to as a thorough examination. Periodic inspection is probably the term more widely used internationally. This should be a long stop safety measure and, if the in-service inspection regime is effective, nothing untoward should be found. Unfortunately, experience shows that many organisations rely far too heavily on this periodic inspection and are, in practice, gambling that defective equipment will not fail for a few more months until the periodic inspection comes around. Moreover, the person doing the periodic inspection is not necessarily infallible. They are, after all, human and humans make mistakes. It is not easy to examine, for example, hundreds of supposedly identical shackles without losing concentration.
In the UK and many other countries there is no official licensing system for the persons who do this work. Generally the requirement is that it be done by a ‘competent person’ – meaning someone competent for the purpose. Consequently, organisations do not need someone capable of inspecting a tower crane if all he or she has to inspect are chain slings. There are, however, some qualities everyone who claims to be a competent person will require and these divide into three groups.
The first is sufficient theoretical knowledge of the equipment to be inspected. Second is the ability to put the theory into practice. This also requires sufficient practical experience of inspecting the equipment so that good judgement has developed. Few items which have been in service will be without some wear and tear. It would be easy but clearly not cost effective to reject everything showing the slightest signs. There are some objective rejection criteria but often it is a matter of assessing the combined effects of several factors and this calls for professional judgement, which takes time to develop.
The third group of qualities a competent person needs are certain personal attributes. These range from the practical, such as adequate eyesight, to moral character, particularly their ability to act impartially and with integrity. The latter can be influenced by their relationship with the organisation for which the inspection is being made. Some authorities specify that the inspection must be done by a third party but, unless restricted by law or contract, there is no practical reason why properly organised manufacturers, suppliers or other interested parties cannot inspect their own equipment competently, impartially and with the utmost integrity.
There are several essential elements to a competent inspection body. The most obvious is the qualifications of the inspectors. However the organisation behind the inspector is equally vital. The supervision, the technical resources which can be called upon, the systems of work and the record keeping are all equally important for the inspection body as a whole to be considered as competent.
There is an international standard for inspection bodies, ISO/IEC 17020. This is an accreditation level standard which started as a European standard aimed at organisations seeking recognition as a notified body for the purposes of certain European Directives. Since then it has found application in fields as diverse as taxi meters and food hygiene. Although a useful standard, it is general in nature and not specific to any particular product and so needs supplementing for specific applications.
By contrast, the Lifting Equipment Engineers Association (LEEA) has, for some 50 years, had a qualification scheme for the tester and examiner (for example, the inspector) of lifting equipment. For over 25 years the association has had its own training courses to support those qualifications. We have a documented set of technical requirements for members which address the attributes of the organisation and these must be met to be admitted as a full member. In the UK, an applicant for membership is audited against these requirements by one of our technical officers and a report submitted to our governing board. Often we find that the applicant does not fully comply but, if we consider them to be of the right calibre, we offer provisional membership. This is a staging post which gives access to the resources of the association to help the organisation achieve full compliance. Once admitted, the organisation is subjected to a regular surveillance audit to ensure that standards are maintained.
Since 2006, we have been rolling out the same regime to all our overseas members. In 2007 we changed the rules to remove the distinction between UK and overseas members. As each audit is completed we will re-classify the organisation accordingly, thus rewarding those which fully comply with the enhanced status of full member and giving the others the incentive to improve. Once the first round of audits is completed, the transition will be complete.
LEEA qualification of the individual inspector backed by LEEA membership of the inspection body organisation therefore provides an assurance that they have the necessary capability to inspect competently.
I began this article by establishing why a proper inspection regime is vital. A robust regime should comprise of several stages starting with control and issue, the monitoring and checks made by the rigger and finally the longstop periodic inspection. Each is an important part of the overall regime and is mutually supportive. Humans do make errors, however diligent they are. Equipment will be accidentally damaged and inspectors will occasionally miss something important. When accidents do occur, it is rarely only one thing which has gone wrong. This combination of inspection stages allows for that and stacks the odds firmly in your favour.
