I wonder how many sharp eyes there were reading the last edition of Cargo Systems. In my article Learning from past mistakes, reference was made to ILO Convention 152 and its core requirement that lifting appliances should be thoroughly examined at least once in every 12 months. For ships' cranes this is supplemented by a test every five years and both these provisions should be reflected in national port state labour laws as well as flag state laws. Separately, in the same edition there was a most thoughtful article To spend or mend that examined the case for refurbishment of lifting appliances rather than replacement. In it, a visual inspection of critical areas of the crane was recommended should be undertaken once every six months, with additional NDT testing once every two years and, in addition, a total comprehensive structural inspection including internal inspection every five years.
In case this causes confusion, it is felt that the situation should be clarified. It must first be pointed out that the crane safety regime should as a minimum comply with the national laws of the country concerned, especially if they reflect ILO 152, as many do. If the laws are patently out of date Ð i.e. reflecting ILO 32 of 1932, which was the previous Convention on Safety and Health in Dockwork Ð or there are no specifically relevant laws at all, the owner/operator of the crane would be expected to apply the up-to-date international standard.
Within the overall requirement, the competent person must decide how often the TE needs to be done. At one end of the scale is the crane that is rarely used, when it would be a proper decision to delay a TE until it is next required to be used. It should, however, not be used again until a TE is carried out. At the other end is the crane that is intensively used and, furthermore, regularly lifts loads close to the crane's SWL. In this instance the TE might need to be carried out more often. The age of the crane and its general state are other factors to be taken into account and these could well combine to require a much more frequent TE regime. All of this must be taken into account by the competent person as far as the timing is concerned but also as far as the thoroughness of the application of the TE. I recall the breaking away of two sections of the boom of a container crane basically because the original welds were faulty when new 20 years before but they had never been checked as it meant building a scaffolding to reach the boom to do so. This aspect of regular and proper maintenance cannot be emphasised enough. The minimum standard should be seen as being that of ILO 152 and I trust that is what enforcement agencies reflect in their laws and plant owners, operators and employers reflect in their arrangements.
