Terrible news from Clipper

Resolution said:
Michael
I have been wondering whether this would be a simple answer to the usual dreadful fight to get the hook on my tether around the flat webbing jackstay. Had been thinking of getting two or three s/s rings of perhaps 5cm diameter and thread them onto the jackstay.
Do you find it easier to hook onto your shackle than it is onto the webbing?
Peter
Click to expand...

Clipping on to the shackle is so much easier! Originally, I tried rings bought from a climbing shop but they rusted badly. The shackles I had kicking around, they are so large I doubt they are the weak point in the system.
 
thinwater said:
I think you will find this quite... surprising. It seems as though the Spinlock and Gibb snaps are many times weaker than the competition in some key tests.

Safety Snap Testing

https://www.practical-sailor.com/issues/44_3/features/Safety-Tethers-Under-Scrutiny_12371-1.html
Click to expand...

Yet another example of the huge gap between theory and reality( which some jeeringly call "anecdote")
Nothing like jumping off a height, like a diving board , with it attached, to determine the difference.
 
Brent Swain said:
Yet another example of the huge gap between theory and reality( which some jeeringly call "anecdote")
Nothing like jumping off a height, like a diving board, with it attached, to determine the difference.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you just said. Jumping off a diving board one time, attached to a tether, without controlling the conditions, is an example of both reality and an ancedote.

noun
noun: anecdote; plural noun: anecdotes

A short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person.
 
Brent Swain said:
Yet another example of the huge gap between theory and reality( which some jeeringly call "anecdote")
Nothing like jumping off a height, like a diving board , with it attached, to determine the difference.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty simple - but I simply did not understand this at all.

Maybe if Brent Swain could be a bit more wordy we might understand what he was getting at. Its a pretty serious issue, over 500 posts indicate the levels of interest, so an insight might help.

Jonathan
 
One could put he weight of ones body (ie., sandbag ,etc) on any tether, and drop it 10 feet, or more, and see what breaks and what doesn't. Far more accurate and reliable than mere calculations, and easy for anyone to do.
Seeing the results first hand could be far more confidence inspiring than numbers on a page.
 
Brent Swain said:
One could put he weight of ones body (ie., sandbag ,etc) on any tether, and drop it 10 feet, or more, and see what breaks and what doesn't. Far more accurate and reliable than mere calculations, and easy for anyone to do.
Seeing the results first hand could be far more confidence inspiring than numbers on a page.
Click to expand...

Go for it. No one is stopping you.

For the rest of the readers, I offer the following counter arguments:

The article included pictures of the failed tether. The image has not been released to the public and thus was not published (investigation). However, the distortion of the test carabiners in the articles was carefully measured to be exact, so that is as close to "in person" as you are going to get at this time, unless you chose to do your own testing, which I encourage. The equipment required to obtain qualitative results is not complex. The image in the MAIB release was not the accident clip and was not bent in the same manner; I don't know why this was, but I strongly suspect it is because the accident clip is sequestered and because they did not recognize the actual failure mechanism at that time. I'm sure they will figure it out, in time.

The tests in the article were based standard ISO and UIAA tests that have been run untold thousands of times, and related to accidents in the field.

* The tether that resulted in the fatality passed a straight drop test (ISO 12401). It is off angles that cause the trouble. That is why we test these angles.
* The snap in the fatality (and all Gibb-style clips) may fail another critical test, but that will be in a separate article. This was discovered after the publication data.
* Climbing (UIAA) and industrial (EN and ANSI) have recognized the need for off-axis testing for nearly 40 years. Industrial and climbing carabiners are tested in 5 directions instead of only one for sailing clips. They would not have failed at the forces present in the fall (we know the maximum force, because the tether overload indicator did not deploy). No climber would ever use a sailing clip, not on a dare, because the design is substandard and the quality assurance lacking.
* Dropping a sandbag is a poor test of a safety harness. I could tie the rope around your nuts and drop you; a wooden dummy would pass but I suspect you would complain about it. Drop tests for harness require a human element to be valid. There is no human testing of chest harnesses (EN and ANSI workplace regulations forbid hanging or falling in a chest harness).
* Tethers have impact force limits under UIAA, EN, and ANSI standards. The sailing standard has no impact limit. If I dropped you in a nice comfy harness you would snap you spine. This has happened to climbers and workers using non-stretch tethers. We don't need to test this again since industry (cars and construction) and the military (parachutes) have tested this to death.

As for calculations being reliable, there are no calculations in this type of testing; you pull until the thing breaks. It's pretty simple. You just have to do the tests.
 
thinwater said:
Go for it. No one is stopping you.

For the rest of the readers, I offer the following counter arguments:

The article included pictures of the failed tether. The image has not been released to the public and thus was not published (investigation). However, the distortion of the test carabiners in the articles was carefully measured to be exact, so that is as close to "in person" as you are going to get at this time, unless you chose to do your own testing, which I encourage. The equipment required to obtain qualitative results is not complex. The image in the MAIB release was not the accident clip and was not bent in the same manner; I don't know why this was, but I strongly suspect it is because the accident clip is sequestered and because they did not recognize the actual failure mechanism at that time. I'm sure they will figure it out, in time.

The tests in the article were based standard ISO and UIAA tests that have been run untold thousands of times, and related to accidents in the field.

* The tether that resulted in the fatality passed a straight drop test (ISO 12401). It is off angles that cause the trouble. That is why we test these angles.
* The snap in the fatality (and all Gibb-style clips) may fail another critical test, but that will be in a separate article. This was discovered after the publication data.
* Climbing (UIAA) and industrial (EN and ANSI) have recognized the need for off-axis testing for nearly 40 years. Industrial and climbing carabiners are tested in 5 directions instead of only one for sailing clips. They would not have failed at the forces present in the fall (we know the maximum force, because the tether overload indicator did not deploy). No climber would ever use a sailing clip, not on a dare, because the design is substandard and the quality assurance lacking.
* Dropping a sandbag is a poor test of a safety harness. I could tie the rope around your nuts and drop you; a wooden dummy would pass but I suspect you would complain about it. Drop tests for harness require a human element to be valid. There is no human testing of chest harnesses (EN and ANSI workplace regulations forbid hanging or falling in a chest harness).
* Tethers have impact force limits under UIAA, EN, and ANSI standards. The sailing standard has no impact limit. If I dropped you in a nice comfy harness you would snap you spine. This has happened to climbers and workers using non-stretch tethers. We don't need to test this again since industry (cars and construction) and the military (parachutes) have tested this to death.

As for calculations being reliable, there are no calculations in this type of testing; you pull until the thing breaks. It's pretty simple. You just have to do the tests.
Click to expand...

Wow, didn't realise sanctimonious script could make your eyes bleed, ouch!
 
^^ Did I make a factual error? Are we comfortable with standards that are 40 years behind other applications? Why? Yes, I feel strongly about this. I think that makes me enthusiastic and involved. If you take that as sanctimonious, that was not the intent. My intent was to get others interested, and in this case, that involves shaking up a lot of tradition.
 
1 The worry is that 'our' industry appears to be complacent about testing compared with other industries.

2 The suppliers of our safety equipment are negligent if they are not aware of other test procedures for similar products in similar environments.

3 The suppliers of our equipment do not appear to be proactive in improving our equipment toward the same standards as are demanded in other environments, that are similar to ours.

4 it is difficult to believe that none of the equipment suppliers, that supply to our industry, have not been inquisitive and have not tried the test procedures used in similar applications (and found their products wanting).

5 Why does it take a magazine, printed media - and we know how old fashioned and under resourced they are - to identify a 'simple' weakness in a critical piece of kit - that may have caused a man to die.

The data has been available now for a few days, and the manufacturers may have been privy to the data in advance, but for a critical piece of equipment (they may have caused a man's death) I would expect some form of notice from the manufacturer. The MAIB made their initial findings clear. Clipper made a recommendation to be cautious with the use of the equipment. We now have an update, which has validity, until proved otherwise, yet no words of caution from the industry.

Thinwater might have an anal fascination with safety - I'm glad someone does, because the industry needs a wake up call and we users need some independent thinking and action.

Personally I thought the article lacked emotion and was low key and factual - if anything too muted.

It will be interesting to see if Clipper change their clips at the next stopover.

Jonathan
 
thinwater said:
Go for it. No one is stopping you.

For the rest of the readers, I offer the following counter arguments:

The article included pictures of the failed tether. The image has not been released to the public and thus was not published (investigation). However, the distortion of the test carabiners in the articles was carefully measured to be exact, so that is as close to "in person" as you are going to get at this time, unless you chose to do your own testing, which I encourage. The equipment required to obtain qualitative results is not complex. The image in the MAIB release was not the accident clip and was not bent in the same manner; I don't know why this was, but I strongly suspect it is because the accident clip is sequestered and because they did not recognize the actual failure mechanism at that time. I'm sure they will figure it out, in time.

The tests in the article were based standard ISO and UIAA tests that have been run untold thousands of times, and related to accidents in the field.

* The tether that resulted in the fatality passed a straight drop test (ISO 12401). It is off angles that cause the trouble. That is why we test these angles.
* The snap in the fatality (and all Gibb-style clips) may fail another critical test, but that will be in a separate article. This was discovered after the publication data.
* Climbing (UIAA) and industrial (EN and ANSI) have recognized the need for off-axis testing for nearly 40 years. Industrial and climbing carabiners are tested in 5 directions instead of only one for sailing clips. They would not have failed at the forces present in the fall (we know the maximum force, because the tether overload indicator did not deploy). No climber would ever use a sailing clip, not on a dare, because the design is substandard and the quality assurance lacking.
* Dropping a sandbag is a poor test of a safety harness. I could tie the rope around your nuts and drop you; a wooden dummy would pass but I suspect you would complain about it. Drop tests for harness require a human element to be valid. There is no human testing of chest harnesses (EN and ANSI workplace regulations forbid hanging or falling in a chest harness).
* Tethers have impact force limits under UIAA, EN, and ANSI standards. The sailing standard has no impact limit. If I dropped you in a nice comfy harness you would snap you spine. This has happened to climbers and workers using non-stretch tethers. We don't need to test this again since industry (cars and construction) and the military (parachutes) have tested this to death.

As for calculations being reliable, there are no calculations in this type of testing; you pull until the thing breaks. It's pretty simple. You just have to do the tests.
Click to expand...

Popeye & Olive said:
Wow, didn't realise sanctimonious script could make your eyes bleed, ouch!
Click to expand...

I thought it was informative and interesting.
 
john_morris_uk said:
I thought it was informative and interesting.
Click to expand...

Having climbed all over the world for the last 20 odd years, sleeping on portaledges, falling onto Carabiners whilst rock climbing, falling down the odd crevasse etc, my experience of the sailing world is that it is about 30 to 40 years behind when it comes to safety tethers, harnesses and mast work.
 
steveej said:
Having climbed all over the world for the last 20 odd years, sleeping on portaledges, falling onto Carabiners whilst rock climbing, falling down the odd crevasse etc, my experience of the sailing world is that it is about 30 to 40 years behind when it comes to safety tethers, harnesses and mast work.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that thinwater's comments were inaccurate or irrelevant or wrong?
 
john_morris_uk said:
Are you saying that thinwater's comments were inaccurate or irrelevant or wrong?
Click to expand...

No they are accurate.

I was just saying lots of improvements could be made and the knowledge is already out there in the wider world. Probably a business opportunity for the climbing manufacturers to get involved in the sailing world with their knowledge, experience and already built in cost efficiencies for equipment that is designed to stop falls, and allow people to safely work at height.

Lots of work has already been done on clips/carabiners breaking when they are twisted etc. just seems it hasnt transferred to the sailing world.
 
I think we've gone off on a massive tanget here.
When sailing gets comparable to rock climbing, you're doing it wrong.
 
Thing is....when your running down wind in a rolly sea on the way back from that rock off the south coast of Ireland and having to go up the mast in the dark to cut away the A2 that is in shreds at the top of the mast with the kite halyard wrapped securely around the tuff luff. You do ponder what is safe and what is not safe, whilst your being flown back and forth in and outboard and getting speared by the spreaders.

It is not as bad as climbing El Capitan I will give you that, I should know as I have done both more than once.

But it does make you question what is the acceptable norm versus what is actually the safe thing to do.

Sailing, like climbing takes many forms and bashing across the southern ocean in a race is not comparable to a weekend jaunt to bembridge.

Carabiners/Clips will snap when cross loaded or when the gate is open at very low % of their maximum strength. This knowledge has been out there for decades.

When I look at the safety tethers used on yachts my initial view is that they were designed and made in the dark ages and cost five time the price of what is currently state of the art in other pastimes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top