JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
And to offer advice, and to retract agreements about crewing when the operators is clearly not sticking to the spirit of what was agreed.
But yes, that's the general principal. We don't have to do these things ourselves.
Latest Clipper Ventures MAIB report
- Thread starter dom
- Start date
And to offer advice, and to retract agreements about crewing when the operators is clearly not sticking to the spirit of what was agreed.
But yes, that's the general principal. We don't have to do these things ourselves.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
I wonder why CV have returned to using Spinlock tethers like the one which failed.
[70521]
Well-Known Member
I do hope not. If they understand Safety Engineering it won't be.
lw395
Well-Known Member
It could be that as coded vessels, they are required to use deck safety kit which conforms to the relevant ISO standard.
ISO 12401 seems to be specific to boating harnesses etc and mountaineering or industrial gear wouldn't be marked with it.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Ah, that sounds plausible.
thinwater
Well-Known Member
It's best not to guess.
There are a number of ISO 12401 tethers that use UIAA 121 type K clips, including the Performance series by Spinlock. They were obviously well aware of this. Perhaps you inferred that equipment is approved under one standard or the other, but that is not true. (BTW, the Kongo Tango easily meets the 12401 standard, while the Gibb style fails multiple parameters in other locking carabiner standards, including accidental gate opening force (45 times less), minimum thickness (3 time less), and side load (about 5 times less).
In fact, during a video interview after the accident, RKJ demonstrated how the carabiner was bent with a different brand in his hand, with the courtesy to say that no, this was not the type that failed in the accident. That was rude. He had the actual bent carabiner in the room with him, but did not show it.
But I'll offer several guesses(!) based on comments I heard.
1. They were used to the "feel" of Gibb-style clips. The motion of each locking clip is different, and unless you use a variety of gear, you can become overly used to one thing.
2. They felt the failure was a freak occurrence. They also felt they had prevented the specific circumstance by removing the secondary jacklines.
3. The newer type K clips will clip larger railings, but as a consequence, they require larger pad eyes to clip safety. The new clips might not fit without some hardware up-dates. In fact, my boat has one folding pad eye that was used for tethers that fit a Gibb-style clip but cannot be used with any other brand.
Last edited:
lw395
Well-Known Member
The point is perhaps not whether the clip meets the relevent EN or Iso standard, but whether it has the paperwork and marking that says it does.
If somebody kills themself and you've provided them with the approved PPE to the accepted standard you are much better placed than if you've provided them with something which you believe to be superior but doesn't have the right approval.
I've had some climbing gear on boats and seen corrosion in fairly short periods of inshore use.
I think there are reasons why people prefer all-stainless gear for long term ocean use.
If somebody kills themself and you've provided them with the approved PPE to the accepted standard you are much better placed than if you've provided them with something which you believe to be superior but doesn't have the right approval.
I've had some climbing gear on boats and seen corrosion in fairly short periods of inshore use.
I think there are reasons why people prefer all-stainless gear for long term ocean use.
thinwater
Well-Known Member
You are chasing a red herring!! You are also criticizing gear without having done the homework. In just 3 minutes I was able to find four systems that have the paperwork and that have been in use 5-15 years. One of them is Spinlock!! Several of these systems are used on Volvo boats. I've been using Kong clips for over 10 years and Wichard Proline hooks for 3 years. And the are SO much better with winter gloves.
These ALL have the paperwork. In fact, there are more non-Gibb tethers out there with the paperwork.
https://www.westmarine.com/buy/glowfast--dual-hook-glowfast-hlr-elastic-tether-2-meter--15548621?recordNum=1
https://marine.wichard.com/fiche-A|WICHARD|7034-0203010100000000-ME.html
https://www.landfallnavigation.com/kong-orc-tether-double.html
https://www.spinlock.co.uk/en/categories/safety-lines/product_groups/performance-safety-lines
Finally, the Spinlock has apparently stopped production of the Gibb-style hook. The only one they have in stock is the single-clip version, which I'm guessing no one will buy. Many retailers still have stock. They seem to moving to the Kong-style, though they won't talk about it. Additionally, the MAIB suggested that the Spinlock hook only passes the accidental opening test because no minimum force is stated in the test; food for thought.
Last edited:
lw395
Well-Known Member
Did you read the pages you linked to?
From Spinlock:
a)
"
• Up to 50% lighter and more compact than conventional safety lines
• Easy to use lightweight clip with wide opening gate
• Webbing 'Dry Coated' to reduce water absorption & stay lighter for longer
• Overload Indicator
• World Sailing / OSR compliant
• DW-STR/03 and DW-STR/3L are both compliant with section 5.02.2 of the Offshore Special Regulations. ALL crew members to have a tether with 3 points of attachment, for category 0,1,2 & 3 races"
b)
""
Up to 50% lighter and more compact than conventional safety line
Dry coated to reduce water absorption
Full strength compact line
Lightened safety clips
Overload indicator
Approved to ISO12401 Standard
World Sailing / OSR compliant
DW-STR/03 and DW-STR/3L are both compliant with the section 5.02.2 of the Offshore Special Regulations which shall require from 1st Jan 2018, ALL crew members to have a tether with 3 points of attachment, for category 0,1,2 & 3 races.""
Now, which style of clip is fitted to the lines which Spinlock says are ISO12401 compliant?
From Spinlock:
a)
"
• Up to 50% lighter and more compact than conventional safety lines
• Easy to use lightweight clip with wide opening gate
• Webbing 'Dry Coated' to reduce water absorption & stay lighter for longer
• Overload Indicator
• World Sailing / OSR compliant
• DW-STR/03 and DW-STR/3L are both compliant with section 5.02.2 of the Offshore Special Regulations. ALL crew members to have a tether with 3 points of attachment, for category 0,1,2 & 3 races"
b)
""
Up to 50% lighter and more compact than conventional safety line
Dry coated to reduce water absorption
Full strength compact line
Lightened safety clips
Overload indicator
Approved to ISO12401 Standard
World Sailing / OSR compliant
DW-STR/03 and DW-STR/3L are both compliant with the section 5.02.2 of the Offshore Special Regulations which shall require from 1st Jan 2018, ALL crew members to have a tether with 3 points of attachment, for category 0,1,2 & 3 races.""
Now, which style of clip is fitted to the lines which Spinlock says are ISO12401 compliant?
thinwater
Well-Known Member
Since World Sailing OSR references ISO 12401, this is... obvious. The text is simply difference. Both are compliant.
lw395
Well-Known Member
In my business, if the manufacturer does not claim something is compliant, I would not assume it.
I've seen people go there and pay the price.
The OSR state ISO 'or equivalent'.
Equivalence is often a whole area of debate in standards.
It is a strange thing for Spinlock to omit in one case but not the other.
[70521]
Well-Known Member
A week has past and not even a acknowledgment of receipt of my email.
While I appreciate that the MAIB report will have caused a flurry of interest I was hoping for a "thank you for your message we will be in contact".
penberth3
Well-Known Member
Well, you tried. Would it be unreasonable to have a "no comment" policy on this - if legal action could follow at some stage? That doesn't stop a reply explaining that. On the other hand you are just a random individual, I might not bother to respond if I received a similar approach.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
C. V. is not obliged to have a Safety Case / HSE Case, only a safe system of work, I believe, which in principle I think they do. That does not mean that it is perfect, as incidents have shown, but they are not an organisation that is out of control. I doubt that following HSE Case methodology would put them in a different position regarding control of risk than they are in now.
[70521]
Well-Known Member
I know they are not obliged to have a safety case but thought I'd ask if they appled any of the saftey engineering methodology that I have as the day job.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
It's a fair question, but it's not immediately apparent to me why they would give the information to a random member of the public emailing them.
[70521]
Well-Known Member
Given the MAIB report I am sure there will be a lot of interest in their safety record from random members of the public. I did point them at this thread, allowing them to read the comments that have been made. It is up to them to respond - I have read that they do some safety stuff with experianced circumnavigators, but don't expect to use the same methods as a safety engineer would, or forensically examin an incident in the same way.
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
It's pretty obvious that they do as they have methods of establishing competency and verifying competency, systems for maintenance and inspection and procedures for the operation of their boat, including emergency operations. Hence they have applied a methodology for establishing a safe system of work. I think you are over egging your concern in my opinion but I appreciate that they have areas which could be improved.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Sure, but that doesn't mean they are obliged to reply to questions. If anything, more interest and more questions would mean more time spent replying.
Do they attend the Southampton Boat Show?
[70521]
Well-Known Member
Perhaps, but I suspect you have some knowledge of the subject area and know how inquisitive safety engineers can be
