21 I controlli sulle funi: casi reali Ecco il primo caso. Imbarazzante, a dir poco. Questo impianto è passato al vaglio di numerose verifiche semestrali e di almeno una biennale. Abbiamo ricevuto i dati di questo impianto per 3 volte consecutive. Alla quarta siamo andati a controllare di persona. Al di là dei 5 fili rotti, visibili nell’immagine in alto (fuori norma), ciò che colpisce è la profonda deformazione di tutte e quattro le funi nello stesso punto. La lettura del diagramma delle funi, in questa sede ne viene mostrato solo uno per motivi di spazio ma gli altri tre sono molto simili, ha comportato da parte nostra uno scarto immediato. Così non è stato. Responsabilità? Manutentore, Ente notificato e condominio, che sicuramente era stato avvisato. Passiamo a quello successivo, che mette in luce una situazione The next one highlights a different but equally serious situation. The image has a high educational value. Next to the colleague’s finger there are 3 worn wires and, just below the nail, there’s a fourth. Result: rejection according to ISO 4344 Annex E. This specific case is interesting as it shows how difficult it is to identify the worn wire through visual inspection. We found it because we knew where to look from the graph, but normally this information isn’t available. Of course, there are some sections that are notoriously more stressed than others, but we are talking about tens of meters of material requiring scrupulous inspection. Such an examination takes hours. In this case, the state of the cable is certainly not as dramatic as the previous one, which led the administrator and the notified body to completely ignore it. The maintenance technician, who should have stopped the facility, asked us for a further inspection to identify the problems. Following the correct inspection, the cables were replaced. Moving on to another equally interesting case with a ‘challenging’ graphic for which we suggested immediate replacement. In this case the problem came up because the data from the same lift kept coming year after year, regardless of the ‘replace’ outcome provided already 4 years ago. From a phone call to the maintenance technician, we learned that he recommended replacement to the administrator, who asked the notified body for an opinion. The latter ignored the maintenance technician’s analyses and suggested keeping the cables in place. As in the previous cases, a purely technical issue becomes a legislative one. Some subjects deliberately ignored the results of a specialist examination carried out with a measuring instrument defined as ‘the state of the art’, and opted for a quick and inconclusive visual examination. The outcome of the institution was’ Worn cables or no. broken wires content (broken wire section <10% of the initial section) ‘. the reference for the reject criteria is also shockinglywrong. In fact, theDPR 1497 of 1963 ismentioned
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDUyNTU=