Terrible news from Clipper

[ShinyShoe]

It takes time to develop a new product, especially a radically new one. That is the two years spent.

But you identified a flaw. Did you attempt to highlight the flaw?
If I identified that my car handbrake didn't work if pointing up hill - I might spend two years trying to find one that did. But should I have told others about the problem in the meantime? Or waited till I had the solution to the problem?

But if you want to think such things, consider why Clipper have not got back to me? I know this works. It used to be my job as a product developer to take products and find ways of making them better. Civil servant pay. Made redundant. Dept outsourced to USA.

You know this works. Based on your individual 2 years of use? How many MOBs have you had?
So that might be one reason Clipper didn't reply.
Another might be they may well get 200 emails a day with things that will make their races safer, quicker, better, generate more income etc. Pick up the phone. Send them a sample in the post. Turn up at their office. Send a sample to the next port for the attention of a skipper...

What are you offering Clipper? A chance to invest? A chance to test? Free product that afterwards you would market with "As now used on the Clipper Fleet?"

You could also send a sample to the MAIB... maybe they will send it for testing alongside the others they will test.

At the moment what you seem to be saying is:

Based on a n=1 study you have a solution to a problem.
This is a problem you knew about but others may not have.
This is a problem Clipper think they may have and so are attempting to mitigate while they continue to investigate
You can't tell anyone what the solution is because you might want to patent it and make money out of it

#I'mOut

 

[Deleted member 36384]

I'd be surprised if there is a test for this - given the number of different ways a side load could be applied. Is any lifting or safety gear tested for side loading?

Lifting equipment is tested for side loading where the lifting device can be used in that situation. Many shackles, such as those manufactured by Crosby have angles marked on them, cast into the body, so that the user understands the reduced load to be applied to the device. On many structures that use padeyes where the padeye is loaded sideways, it is designed and tested in that direction.

 

[penberth3]

Lifting equipment is tested for side loading where the lifting device can be used in that situation. Many shackles, such as those manufactured by Crosby have angles marked on them, cast into the body, so that the user understands the reduced load to be applied to the device. On many structures that use padeyes where the padeye is loaded sideways, it is designed and tested in that direction.

Thank you for that. As I understand it, the problem with a tether/lanyard is that the load should always be in a more-or-less straight line and it should never be allowed to lie across an edge where rope/webbing could be cut or a metal part could be bent. This depends on how the whole system is installed and used rather than the strength of any individual component.

 

[thinwater]

I'd be surprised if there is a test for this - given the number of different ways a side load could be applied. Is any lifting or safety gear tested for side loading?

You would be wrong. UIAA-121 type K and NFPA (US firefighting) carabiners pass a serious side load test. This is quite common. There are several other BS and EN standards including side load tests and gate strength tests. These standards have existed for many decades. They simply are not used by the marine industry in general.

Carabiners passing this standard are not hard to find in chandleries the US or Europe, but I believe they are scarce in the UK. This is probably why they were not aware of them. Ocean racing requires a very broad skill set and I do not claim to possess very much of it. But I know a few things.

 

[lpdsn]

c. The reason you are snagging on webbing is the clips you are using. Not to sound sarcastic, but you've been using two hands and didn't realize something was very wrong? That should never happen. Do you think they could sell even ONE carabiner into the climbing market that required two hands, ever? Of course they could not. So ditch what I presume is a Gibb, Spinlock or Wichard hook and switch to keylock. Again, this is a solvable design problem. My clips never snag.

No way. I've just looked up the Keylock Hook. The reason I use Gibbs is I once sailing with a guy who could flick off the other end of his tether when clips like that were used. He of course never used them himself for real, just pulling it out to do his party trick, but the message was clear that what he could do deliberately could happen accidentally.

There isn't a prefect solution, just a trade off between what is currently available. If you've got a real solution to this market it.

And by the way, tethers in UK & Europe are made to standards. Can't quote the number now as they're on the boat but it is definitely on there.

 

[thinwater]

No way. I've just looked up the Keylock Hook. The reason I use Gibbs is I once sailing with a guy who could flick off the other end of his tether when clips like that were used. He of course never used them himself for real, just pulling it out to do his party trick, but the message was clear that what he could do deliberately could happen accidentally.

There isn't a prefect solution, just a trade off between what is currently available. If you've got a real solution to this market it.

And by the way, tethers in UK & Europe are made to standards. Can't quote the number now as they're on the boat but it is definitely on there.

Your research was incomplete, leading to a bold statement. The party trick was with a non-locking carabiner. Anyone can do that. I did not suggest that. You did not look up key-lock type k carabiners. The key lock ONLY refers to the nose design. The rest of the carabiner is a separate matter.

The climbing market is going to keylock for a number of good reasons. Snagging is just one of them. I have done strength testing with Gibb-style biners and I will not use them. They are a weak, awkward, long-obsolete design IMO. No serious improvements in decades.

These ARE on the market and they meet marine, climbing, and firefighting standards. Very common in the US. I actually prefer them without the quick release, but that is because I sail multihulls (no lee bow wave).


http://www.cmcrescue.com/equipment/kong-tango-carabiner/

 

[lpdsn]

Your research was incomplete, leading to a bold statement. The party trick was with a non-locking carabiner. Anyone can do that. I did not suggest that. You did not look up key-lock type k carabiners. The key lock ONLY refers to the nose design. The rest of the carabiner is a separate matter.

The climbing market is going to keylock for a number of good reasons. Snagging is just one of them. I have done strength testing with Gibb-style biners and I will not use them.

These ARE on the market and they meet marine, climbing, and firefighting standards. Very common in the US.
View attachment 68171

http://www.cmcrescue.com/equipment/kong-tango-carabiner/

I looked up what you said so your own fault if you didn't specify it properly.

Do you have an example of a complete thether without a snap shackle? No one in their right mind trusts their life to a snap shackle.

 

[thinwater]

I looked up what you said so your own fault if you didn't specify it properly.

Do you have an example of a complete thether without a snap shackle? No one in their right mind trusts their life to a snap shackle.

You may need to make your own. Google West Marine and Google Kong Sailing Tether.

My tethers are made from 8mm dynamic climbing rope, but that would start a whole new thread.

OK, it is this. If the tether had more stretch, would the carabiner have broken? Perhaps not. Would the sailor's injuries have been as severe, leading to drowning, perhaps not.

Every tether standard (climbing and industry) OTHER than marine standards has an impact force limitation in the standard. The lanyard is required to absorb energy. But not in sailing, because it is perceived that sailors don't actually fall. This is, of course, obviously completely off the point if the forces are high enough to breaks stuff. That force comes from kinetic energy, and whether from a straight drop or being thrown across a deck and over the side is immaterial. I sincerely hope that when they standards group starts to study carabiners again someone raises their hand and tells them to look at the entire tether as system, to look at it from an energy perspective, and to look at other accepted standards, considering how they plan to explain that they are somehow different from the rest of the world.

https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/37_84/features/Building-a-Custom-Safety-Tether_12322-1.html

Thus, I have tethers that are strong as hell and can absorb a long stumble in comfort, not pain.

 

[lpdsn]

Thus, I have tethers that are strong as hell and can absorb a long stumble in comfort, not pain.

That's a good goal. However you also have the desirable requirement to stay out of the water. The tentative understanding I have from the information published so far is that the clip didn't fail as a result of the fall, but after the casualty had been in the water for at least several seconds. The other MoB was being lifted back on board when it failed, which would indicate, but not prove, that the force to break it came from the drag of the person in the water.

Edit: PS I've heard no reports of injuries causing the death. I believed the cold and ferocity of the Southern Ocean were the cause. What other information do you have to make that comment?

 

[thinwater]

That's a good goal. However you also have the desirable requirement to stay out of the water. The tentative understanding I have from the information published so far is that the clip didn't fail as a result of the fall, but after the casualty had been in the water for at least several seconds. The other MoB was being lifted back on board when it failed, which would indicate, but not prove, that the force to break it came from the drag of the person in the water.

Edit: PS I've heard no reports of injuries causing the death. I believed the cold and ferocity of the Southern Ocean were the cause. What other information do you have to make that comment?

Yes, not falling is good.

Yes, the clip disconnected in the water, but it is also known that the clip opened with 275-350 pounds of initial force (I'm not guessing--I've been testing samples and reviewing data) and was almost certainly wide open when he hit the water. The maximum force is thought to have been about 1000 pounds, as judging from the distortion of the carabiner (See Practical Sailor next issue). Curious as this sounds, it was snagged and for reasons that we will never know, did not release for a few minutes. This sounds impossible, but I think it is the case. I think this will become obvious as more details are released.

Imagine you had the wind knocked out of you on the field playing soccer. The first time it happens you are certain you are going to die, but if you lie still for a few minutes, the spasm subsides and you regain your breath. Now image trying to recover from that muscle spasm while being towed through cold water, in the lee bow wave. No, injuries are not reported because they would not be visible. What I am suggesting is that relaticly minor injury that you would walk off on the field, when combined with cold water and the Southern Ocean, can be more deadly than realized. Does that sound more reasonable? It amounts to the same thing, however--without the injury he may not have drowned, thus the minor injury was a strong contributor. Remember that we know (engineering fact) that Speirs took a 1000-pound impact on the ribs. He could not have escaped that without muscle spasm. I think this is an undiscovered hazard because it leaves few traces.

If anyone thinks a 1000 pound hit on the tether is not a problem, put on your harness and tether, anchor it to a tree, and try to trigger the over load flag (about 1000 pounds). I've offer this challenge dozzens of times, and to my knowledge, no one has taken me up on it. Be the first. Actually, don't. You'll hurt yourself at 500 pounds. I know, I've tried it and got bruises. 1000 pounds is the threashold of breaking ribs and internal injury with a lap and shoulder belt or full body harness. Google it. With a single strap it is very likely. Also remember that this was not a young fit bull, but a retired solicitor. Ouch. I believe he was fit for his age, but that does not make him 25.

I challenge anyone that thinks tether impact is not a problem to prove it, not with anecdotes, but with testing. I will also bet lunch that no rock climber--a person who has actually taken a few falls--will challenge this. No industrial safety expert will challenge this. Heck, the US military considers 1200 pounds on a full body harness to be the threshold above which about 5% of troops will be incapacitated. The figure for a single chest band is closer to 500 pounds. Research it.

 

[lpdsn]

Yes, not falling is good.

Yes, the clip disconnected in the water, but it is also known that the clip opened with 275-350 pounds of initial force (I'm not guessing--I've been testing samples and reviewing data) and was almost certainly wide open when he hit the water. The maximum force is thought to have been about 1000 pounds, as judging from the distortion of the carabiner (See Practical Sailor next issue). Curious as this sounds, it was snagged and for reasons that we will never know, did not release for a few minutes. This sounds impossible, but I think it is the case. I think this will become obvious as more details are released.

Imagine you had the wind knocked out of you on the field playing soccer. The first time it happens you are certain you are going to die, but if you lie still for a few minutes, the spasm subsides and you regain your breath. Now image trying to recover from that muscle spasm while being towed through cold water in the lee bow wave. No, injuries are not reported because they would not be visible. Remember that we know (engineering fact) that Speirs took a 1000-pound impact on the ribs. He could not have escaped that without muscle spasm. I think this is an undiscovered hazard because it leaves few traces.

If anyone thinks a 1000 pound hit on the tether is not a problem, put on your harness and tether, anchor it to a tree, and try to trigger the over load flag (about 1000 pounds). Actually, don't. You'll hurt yourself at 500 pounds. I know, I've tried it and got bruises. 1000 pounds is the threashold of breaking ribs and internal injury with a lap and shoulder belt or full body harness. Google it. With a single strap it is very liiely. Also remember that this was not a young fit bull, but a retired solicitor. Ouch. I believe he was fit for his age, but that does not make him 25.

Maybe we'll just have to wait for the MAIB report. They're supposed to produce the report within 12 months and usually do.

 

[Resolution]

Your research was incomplete, leading to a bold statement. The party trick was with a non-locking carabiner. Anyone can do that. I did not suggest that. You did not look up key-lock type k carabiners. The key lock ONLY refers to the nose design. The rest of the carabiner is a separate matter.

The climbing market is going to keylock for a number of good reasons. Snagging is just one of them. I have done strength testing with Gibb-style biners and I will not use them. They are a weak, awkward, long-obsolete design IMO. No serious improvements in decades.

These ARE on the market and they meet marine, climbing, and firefighting standards. Very common in the US. I actually prefer them without the quick release, but that is because I sail multihulls (no lee bow wave).
View attachment 68171

http://www.cmcrescue.com/equipment/kong-tango-carabiner/

Thinwater
Are you saying that these kong tango carabiners are stronger in resisting the twisting of the top part that seems to have been the problem with the Clipper units?

 

[dunedin]

Thinwater
Are you saying that these kong tango carabiners are stronger in resisting the twisting of the top part that seems to have been the problem with the Clipper units?

The photo of the Kong tango clips is quite low resolution, so difficult to see how they catch. But they look a bit like the single action ones which were used previously, but could detach (rather than break) if pulled at the wrong angle - hence the change to a double action latch some years back. Do the Kong Tango ones have this double action safety feature.
(And certainly they should not be used as shown with a simple snap shackle on the other end)

 

[thinwater]

The photo of the Kong tango clips is quite low resolution, so difficult to see how they catch. But they look a bit like the single action ones which were used previously, but could detach (rather than break) if pulled at the wrong angle - hence the change to a double action latch some years back. Do the Kong Tango ones have this double action safety feature.
(And certainly they should not be used as shown with a simple snap shackle on the other end)

Google Kong Tango. All will be revealed.

Yes, they are double action and locking, with a key lock nose. They are tested for in-line strength, open gate, transverse loading, and cross loading. They are used by firefighters and the US military for helo tethers. I've used them for about 10 years.

These are not the only brand like this. Other climbing gear manufacturers (Eldlerig, Black Daimond, Petzl, and others) make very similar units, all key lock, all double acting. They are built to a standard (UIAA-121 type K). These are shown on via ferrata tethers, which serve a slightly different purpose.




As for the snap shackle, many people and associations swear by them. I will not give an opinion at this time because they too have good reasons. At this time the ISO 12401 standard specifies only that the tether must be removable a the harness end. It does not specify whether the hook can be released under load. Some manufacturers interpret "removable" to include using a knife or quick-cutter, but I hope that it is obvious to all that is a politician's interpretation. Anything is removable with a knife and that is not the commonsense meaning of the standard. The standard needs to be clarified, perhaps by stating it must be detachable and re-attachable.

 

[lpdsn]

As for the snap shackle, many people and associations swear by them. I will not give an opinion at this time because they too have good reasons.

Swear at them maybe.

I'm trying to recollect the number of failures I've seen back when I raced nearly full time in order to estimate a failure rate per use. I'd say something happened to a snap shackle at some point during maybe one in every 50 to 100 races. I'd guess something in the order of 10^-3 per use. OK some might have been operator error but certainly not all and generally the 'operator' had been a good very bowman rather than a makeweight, so much less likely to make a mistake closing a shackle than typical cruising crew. Let's be slightly pessamistic and use 10^-2 for cruising crew per use. That's not an acceptable failure rate and it's significance would likely dwarf any improvement made by changing the type of clip used on a tether.

Your advice also goes against any accepted best practice for using a halyard to go up a mast. PLEASE anyone reading this, don't rely on a shackle to go up a mast - tie a bowline and just use the snap shackle to attach the end to the standing part.

 

[ShinyShoe]

could you not simply loop it back on its own loop to form a cow hitch around the D ring on the harness?

Removable - for maintenance etc.

But not removable under load without a knife.

If I've hung on it under load and needed a knife to release - I'm not re-using it !

 

[thinwater]

Swear at them maybe.

I'm trying to recollect the number of failures I've seen back when I raced nearly full time in order to estimate a failure rate per use. I'd say something happened to a snap shackle at some point during maybe one in every 50 to 100 races. I'd guess something in the order of 10^-3 per use. OK some might have been operator error but certainly not all and generally the 'operator' had been a good very bowman rather than a makeweight, so much less likely to make a mistake closing a shackle than typical cruising crew. Let's be slightly pessamistic and use 10^-2 for cruising crew per use. That's not an acceptable failure rate and it's significance would likely dwarf any improvement made by changing the type of clip used on a tether.

Your advice also goes against any accepted best practice for using a halyard to go up a mast. PLEASE anyone reading this, don't rely on a shackle to go up a mast - tie a bowline and just use the snap shackle to attach the end to the standing part.

Would you please stop putting words in my mouth.

First, I mentioned earlier, in a post you responded to (post 326) that I personally do not like snap shackles. I later said that a number of sailing associations do like them, and this is true. They have their reasons, they are valid reasons, and I didn't feel like entering that debate just now. However, there have been capsizes where snap shackles saved lives, so I believe there are two sides to the discussion.

I did not suggest using a snap shackle to go up a mast. That would be quite stupid. I can supply references about several serious accidents that resulted from that practice. I believe all experienced sailors have seen a snap shackle open unexpectedly. Finally, there is no need for quick release up the mast. The best practice is a proper knot.

 

[lpdsn]

Would you please stop putting words in my mouth.

First, I mentioned earlier, in a post you responded to (post 326) that I personally do not like snap shackles. I later said that a number of sailing associations do like them, and this is true. They have their reasons, they are valid reasons, and I didn't feel like entering that debate just now. However, there have been capsizes where snap shackles saved lives, so I believe there are two sides to the discussion.

I did not suggest using a snap shackle to go up a mast. That would be quite stupid. I can supply references about several serious accidents that resulted from that practice. I believe all experienced sailors have seen a snap shackle open unexpectedly. Finally, there is no need for quick release up the mast. The best practice is a proper knot.

Not putting any words in your mouth. A snap shackle isn't suitable for saving you when you fall overboard or when you go up the mast. I simply wanted to make it very clear that I thought people shouldn't use them for either.

Double-ended tethers are normal practice. I think the Spinlock one is the only one I've ever seen that isn't. Maybe the normal practice in the US is different but it has been accepted that a quick release is necessary on the person end since at least the Fastnet race of 1979. The maligned Gibb hook certainly meets that requirement (and as it fits to a D ring there none of the risk of snagging we discussed regarding jackstays earlier). Absolutely no reason for the much less reliable snap shackle to be used for that purpose.

 

[thinwater]

could you not simply loop it back on its own loop to form a cow hitch around the D ring on the harness?

Removable - for maintenance etc.

But not removable under load without a knife.

If I've hung on it under load and needed a knife to release - I'm not re-using it !

Obviously you can do this. But is it the intent of the standard?

Note: size 2 and 3 are toddler and child sizes, where you specifically want parental control. Thus, I think it is clear that they did not mean detachable for maintenance, or why the distinction? They clearly meant detectable in service. A cow hitch is not detachable in service.

4.3.4 Detachability of safety lines
A safety line shall be detachable by the wearer both from the deck safety harness and from the craft when
tested in accordance with 5.5.4, except in the case of a deck safety harness intended for size 2 and size 3. In
the latter case, the safety line shall be attached in such a way, or the attachment shall be so positioned, that
the wearer cannot detach the line from the harness. When tested in accordance with 5.5, the safety line shall
be detachable from a size 2 and size 3 deck safety harness or from the craft, or from both, by an adult.
Accidental release of a safety line shall not occur when tested in accordance with 5.4.

I'm not arguing what is best, only describing what the standard says.

 

[lw395]

I think the standard was written with smaller, slower yachts in mind.
I'm not sure I could undo a Gibb hook while being dragged underwater at a random angle at 15 knots or whatever.

Another point, I've seen people with krabs sourced from the climbing world, these things often seem to corrode in a nasty way aboard a yacht.