Hi-Lift Jack banned by Australian Federal Court

I think it's about time semebody did something about companies that risked other peoples lives so they make a quick buck while putting responsible companies out of bussiness.

R.

TWM I think are the ones that were sold on ebay by tool shops wern`t they.
It would pay to check your jack out if brought on ebay.

Yeah like the a/holes whose jack nearly cost my partner his hand!

On the business side, if it doesn't reach aus. standards the employer, importer, manufacturer can all be held responsible in the event of a failure.

cackles

It's about time this happened.

We came close to importing these hi-lift jacks last year, but decided against it in the end.

It was possible to buy jacks stamped and certified to Australian Standards for $2 more than the regular ones - I have no idea why anyone would not go for the slightly more expensive certified unit. Especially with the huge markup they achieve.....;)

Cheers,

Chump

never had one, never needed one, would never use one.

So how do I identify if a jack is one of these from TWM imports.
What brand name will it have, what colour or any specific markings etc. (if you know)

www.recall.gov.au not listed as a recall "yet"

In a previous life I was a member of the committee that formed the Standard referred to here, AS/NZ 2615:1995.

Would it surprise you to know that this standard is virtually self certifying.
Self certifying to the point where companies affiliated with the manufacturer or even the engineering division of the manufacturer can issue a certificate of compliance.
There is no requirement to use a N.A.S.A. endorsed test facility or even a facility with Q.A. endorsement.

After being turned over in my attempts to have independent NASA labs do the certification I decided that this bullchit was not for me and resigned from the committee.
This standard was designed to protect life and limb, allowing unchecked certification will not accomplish that end.

Almost the same situation exists with garage hoists, self certification to the Standard AS/NZ 1418.9 is acceptable. (Careful where you stand under some)
The refusal of the committee for the hoist standard to call for mandatory compliance with standards as with vehicle jacks eventually saw me resign from this committee also.

One difference is that the jack standard has been made mandatory by Federal Govt. legislation and the rules and regs are much more enforceable.
A suspicious competitor is usually the reason for separate independent tests being carried out, they dob each other in at a great rate.

The legislation re jacks is so strong that a recall notice can be issues because a phrase on the labeling is incorrect.
You may remember many recalls of Asian produced jacks for just this reason, the mechanics were OK, the labels deficient.

Maybe some of this has changed over the past couple of years, I strongly doubt it.

Bob

Thank you Bob..Now that's a well informed reply if ever I saw one..Leaves me somewhat confused though as to what the average,no doubt,non-researching consumer faces when putting life and limb on the line while making a seemingly insignificant purchase..Should almost be compulsory to include a DVD (VHS-RIP) showing safe operation of such a weapon as the high lift jack..We feel quite comfortable supplying the Beaver jacks,rigging and other lines,as we have inspected their test facility and seen their "tests to destruction" in action..We had a funny one one day..A grazier (cows not plows,ploughs) brought back a H/Alloy type lifting chain complaining it broke..I asked the usual questions "what tonnage was etc..." He just indicated he wanted the chain sent away (freight both ways his expence) and tested with a certificate (No doubt,my readers have guessed,the chain was used for snigging,not lifting,for which it is designed and rated) Sure enough the chain was back out here in the bush,in around two weeks..We opened up the package,read the enclosed certificate and the test showed the links broke way above the prescribed rating for that size chain..The chain was no longer " a " chain,but several,as the tests involved "testing to destruction"..Needless to say,we had the satisfaction of knowing we were in the clear annd had a legal certificate to prove it..Of course,the owner of the chain (s) also knows his dollars had got him what he paid for ;-)