liftable platforms on machinery

[Iena]

Good morning.
I bought platforms from a supplier/builder, to be integrated into our production machinery. the platforms in question are fixed on our machina and are not mobile. have a maximum horn of 2 mt.
now the final customer contests us these platforms asserting that the en5070 norms have not been respected and the machinery regulations 2006/42/ce
I wanted to ask you whether or not these platforms are part of Annex 4 of the machinery regulations and if this is not what essential requirements for safety I must take into account.
Thank you.

 

[gerod]

I moved the discussion to the appropriate section.

1. Tell us what platforms are, are ple (higher work platforms) for lifting people or for just things?
2. 5070? but what norm is it? It is not one of the harmonisations and it is not in the single catalogue.
3. Non-standard machine directive!
4. write what they contest.
5. do not fall, even if for lifting people, in Annex 4 (fall height greater than 3 meters, here we are on 2).
6. If you provide a machine equipped with a platform, you probably need to mark the set of machines as there is.
7. you must check all the essential safety requirements applicable. What? You only know that.

Take a consultant and let him do the verification ... if you want I am here!!!
I know very well the ple and en 280 (this is the norm of ple).
Hi.

 

[Fulvio Romano]

but above all... what certificates have they given you along with these platforms? Compliance? incorporation? Res residue?

 

[Iena]

Thank you.
starting from gerod
1- the platform is for things and a person
2- the norm is the uni en 1570, I was wrong to write
3- thanks for the clarification
4- practically challenge me everything, from cables, to position, type, distance of controls, unauthorized use, lack of sensors for chain tensioning, calculations performed for dimensionalization of chains etc. etc. etc.
5- so if you do not fall in Annex 4 what does it mean?
6- So the builder, our phoner, is free from responsibility?

in response to lightning:
the manufacturer supplied me the manual instructions with the residual risks, correct uses and not, hydraulic patterns and compliance, where it declares that the machine is made according to machine regulations 2006/42/ce and that respects the technical specifications of en 1570

 

[Fulvio Romano]

in response to lightning:
the manufacturer supplied me the manual instructions with the residual risks, correct uses and not, hydraulic patterns and compliance, where it declares that the machine is made according to machine regulations 2006/42/ce and that respects the technical specifications of en 1570

Well, I think it's okay. Why then, in the first line, don't you turn the contest to your supplier? he is certainly more prepared than you on the specific legislation, maybe he can with a few words to solve, right?

It seems to me a thorny problem, of heads more than norms.. .

 

[Iena]

Well, I think it's okay. Why then, in the first line, don't you turn the contest to your supplier? he is certainly more prepared than you on the specific legislation, maybe he can with a few words to solve, right?

It seems to me a thorny problem, of heads more than norms.. .

I think you've got the problem, because I've tried to get the builder involved, he says he's right, while our client, who among other things is a big industrial reality, advances his perplexity.

 

[gerod]

the fact that they challenge you everything seems abnormal. a contest based on a foundation. I think there's something wrong.
I'm not in all. If who gives you the documentation, what do they want?
calculations are not part of the documentation to be supplied to the user.
I think there's a mess, I'd like to see what they're contesting and what you have to defend yourself.
Hi.

 

[Iena]

the fact that they challenge you everything seems abnormal. a contest based on a foundation. I think there's something wrong.
I'm not in all. If who gives you the documentation, what do they want?
calculations are not part of the documentation to be supplied to the user.
I think there's a mess, I'd like to see what they're contesting and what you have to defend yourself.
Hi.

the problem arises from the fact that this company has given charge to another company to certify the line, until the certification has been drafted does not leave the leasing. I have little in hand, except the documentation provided by my supplier, which insists to be in order as it also provides large industrial groups, and my 2006/42/ce.
They even challenge me the lack of safety valves on the system that are present...... frankly I no longer know what saint to address, we find ourselves between the enchantment and the hammer, with the risk of a big economic loss.

 

[gerod]

but contest the platforms or everything?
if a contest must prove what it claims.
if they tell you that there are no maximum valves but you have the hydraulic scheme that confirms the presence instead and, if they really are installed, you are appropriate.
big or not big reality, the thing is to fight point by point but first, make sure that it is actually okay.

 

[Iena]

but contest the platforms or everything?
if a contest must prove what it claims.
if they tell you that there are no maximum valves but you have the hydraulic scheme that confirms the presence instead and, if they really are installed, you are appropriate.
big or not big reality, the thing is to fight point by point but first, make sure that it is actually okay.

They contest security, in fact certain points are able to fight schemes to the hand.
What difference is there to be in Annex 4 or not? should they comply with the rules of Annex 1 in any case?

 

[gerod]

Can I give you some advice? Yes!
If you don't know the machine directive well and what it's about, you better inform yourself. if the counterpart is strong on the arguments will eat you!
If you take all. iv you will find which machines are included and which are not.
between the lists there is written (memory vade): machines with danger of falling persons more than 3 meters. If you're under no problem, but the iter is the same for all the machines, either outside or inside al. iv. the all. iv imposes a verification by on (notified body) or, in the case of construction according to a standard of type "c", you can also do without it (but the discord).
we can give you all the tips of this world but risk making a hole in the water with forum info because we do not see the problem.
Hi.

 

[Whooring]

I think they're looking for a way not to pay or to pay less the car...... these days I'm seeing all the colors