Terrible news from Clipper

I have been following this thread with interest.
Not being a climber I was not aware of the developments there. But I have decided I will be buying new tethers before I set off across Biscay in June.
I feel I have been shortchanged by the suppliers of marine safetykit. I changed my lifejackets to state of the art ones last year, but as I saw no big changes in tethers, I kept what I had.
Off to the climbing store, it is.
 
westhinder said:
I have been following this thread with interest.
Not being a climber I was not aware of the developments there. But I have decided I will be buying new tethers before I set off across Biscay in June.
I feel I have been shortchanged by the suppliers of marine safetykit. I changed my lifejackets to state of the art ones last year, but as I saw no big changes in tethers, I kept what I had.
Off to the climbing store, it is.
Click to expand...

I'd look at the Kong Tethers,the Wichard Proline, and the new Spinlock Performance Safety Lines with Kong hooks. There's good stuff on the marine side. I'm not bashing Spinlock, just a bad design that several manufacturers have used.

I also have some strong feeling about shock absorption in tethers. All three of the documented cases involved high impact force and falls against hard points, not a jackstay, which provides impact absorption (yes, Speirs was on a jackline, but his tether jammed on a cleat, making it a hard point). None of the current tethers are built using materials built to absorb impact and the standard has a drop test, but no impact limits, which is wrong. Every other application has impact limit is built into the standard.

The other problem is the harnesses themselves. UIAA and EN has this to say about chest harness (since 1979):

From EN 12277: Mountaineering Equipment - Harnesses - Safety requirements and test methods
3.1.4, chest harness (type D). Harness which fits around the upper part of the body around the chest and under the armpits.

NOTE 1. This type of harness alone cannot support a person in the hanging position without permanent injury in less than one minute.

Nothings is said about falls, drops, or impact, because it is inconceivable. We say "they are just to keep you onboard (which is true in theory), but industry standards have banned then from positioning applications since 1983, and sailors do fall in them. If you fell over the side in one, without question you would at least suffer muscle spasms that would inhibit your ability to help yourself, and that is enough to get you dead. You would recover if this happened on dry land (ever get the wind knocked out of you playing football?), but along side the boat, it would be enough to contribute to drowning, which is what I believe we are seeing.
 
Funnily enough, my spinlock deckvest has a 'Petzl' label on it. Petzl being the famous French manufacturer of climbing and industrial high access equipment. They also make very good head torches. The new spinlock tethers (link posted up thread) look much more like their Via Ferata sets.
 
It seems that the Gibb-style hooks may not lock as tightly as we believed. This took a 25 pound pull (measured) and used a u-bolt of dimensions specified in the standard. However, the standard does not specify how hard you should pull. This caught me by surprise.


If a clip was pressed against an object while clipped to a tight jackline, the gate will open under 25 pounds pressure. In this configuration, the carabiner begins to bend at about 300 pounds.


Source:
https://www.practical-sailor.com/blog/Safety-Tether-Clip-in-Caution-12376-1.html
 
thinwater said:
It seems that the Gibb-style hooks may not lock as tightly as we believed. This took a 25 pound pull (measured) and used a u-bolt of dimensions specified in the standard. However, the standard does not specify how hard you should pull. This caught me by surprise......
Click to expand...

That is surprising. I am going to change all of my safety lines now. Just received Practical Sailor through the post (overseas) with testing of safety line hooks.
 
Just got my Kong Tangos through the post. They look and feel like great bits of kit teamed up with 10mm climbing rope. Bye-bye Gibb-style sh1t.
 
penberth3 said:
No surprise, they're not designed to take load on the gate as shown.
Click to expand...

This is a fair objection. The standard does not specify (it should have--all other locking carabiner standards do). What is acceptable? If the answer is one ounce (I believe the climbing standard is 0.5N, or about 2 ounces), any non-locking carabiner would pass. Therefore, there is a number between 2 ounces and 110 pounds (see below). Or perhaps for sailing it needs to be more. Whatever the right number, it should be in the standard.

The ANSI number for US industry is 3700 pounds. The EN 362 standard for work-at-hight carabiners is 1 KN (225 pounds), though in a different orientation with about 1/2of the leverage, so lets say 110 pounds). This took 25 pounds. Other locking carabiners tested over 100 pounds (test discontinued at that force without damage).
 
Last edited:
thinwater said:
This is a fair objection. The standard does not specify (it should have--all other locking carabiner standards do). What is acceptable?...
Click to expand...

Do they? The short video above shows the load applied to the outside of the gate. I think you posted the UIAA standard which shows a test across the short axis, but this was applied from the inside.
 
Popeye & Olive said:
Wow, didn't realise sanctimonious script could make your eyes bleed, ouch!
Click to expand...

john_morris_uk said:
I thought it was informative and interesting.
Click to expand...
I understood it to mean the Popeye & Olive do not understand the use of international standards and methods of engineering testing. I'd like to thank thinwater for all the postings he is making on the subject.
 
penberth3 said:
Do they? The short video above shows the load applied to the outside of the gate. I think you posted the UIAA standard which shows a test across the short axis, but this was applied from the inside.
Click to expand...

You may be correct about UIAA. I was thinking of the EN 362 standard. I amended my post.

However, other standards include a gate face loading requirement, and UIAA locking carabiners also do, so far as I know. Many or most are EN 362 certified, explaining my confusion.

EN362--225 pounds. The ANSI standard was the same as the EN standard for a time, but was increased after a few fatailities. 3600 may be overkill for most applications, but 225 pounds is probably not enough, based on this accident. Heck, the overload tag on the tethers is set at 1200 pounds.
ANSI 359--3600 pounds

I don't know the right number, but I personally feel it is significantly more than 25 pounds, and 1 KN would be a reasonable starting point, well established in standards. UIAA should add this, as there have been climbing accidents related to gate face loading under body weight (NOT FALLS). This is a serious issue.
 
Last edited:
thinwater said:
You may be correct about UIAA. I was thinking of the EN 362 standard. I amended my post.

However, other standards include a gate face loading requirement, and UIAA locking carabiners also do, so far as I know. Many or most are EN 362 certified, explaining my confusion...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Whatever the figure, loading the outside of the gate should be avoided as well as the side-bending scenario already discussed on this thread.
 
penberth3 said:
Fair enough. Whatever the figure, loading the outside of the gate should be avoided as well as the side-bending scenario already discussed on this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes. User training is vital. What ever the specs, the instruction packet or spec always caution against loading the gate.

But this can be hard to avoid on-deck. People move. Biners slide along jacklines. You need to think about it each time you clip... which is why ANSI moved to a higher standard. You can't always think.
 
Important newly publicised guidance on use of tethers....

https://www.practical-sailor.com/blog/Safety-Tether-Clip-in-Caution-12376-1.html?ET=practicalsailor:e37071:129057a:&st=email&s=p_Blog030118

Given the Original Post and the very long gestation here, several think this is certainly important enough to justify a thread of its own. Knowing this place, someone will disagree.....

Several members have made significant contributions to understanding this problem. Foremost among them is Thinwater.... It would seem that we are now moving towards defining a form of Solution, at least in part, which requires we users to raise our game and adopt slightly, but vitally, different practices.
 
Last edited:
Read more at http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthrea...-news-from-Clipper/page56#03RutvMRsKHKwjTk.99

Sandy said:
I understood it to mean the Popeye & Olive do not understand the use of international standards and methods of engineering testing. I'd like to thank thinwater for all the postings he is making on the subject.
Click to expand...

I understand standards and the need for engineered testing.
I also understand the practical side of things, such as maybe the use of dropping a tethered sand bag from a height as was suggested, only to be disregarded in a way I found rather sanctimonious and condescending.

I cringe at the word engineer, it reminds me of the times struggling to undo the two bolts engineered under and down behind the back of the motor.

As for the thread very informative from page one by the many contributors and I will be adding an extra clipping on line. Not just for double security as we do when using two anchors or two lines when going up the mast but for when unclipping and transfering from position to another.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps this is a better way to put it.

The probability of a cross-load or gate impingement on a boat seems about the same as industry and slightly greater than climbing. That is my observation, after spending 35 years climbing, in industry and sailing. Cross and gate loading is probably less likely in rock climbing but far more likely in via ferrata climbing.

The straight line strength standard for sailing (before they changed to a drop test) is the same as climbing and industry. About 20 KN (greater for specific standards).

Industry adopted cross and gate face standards after people died. Quite a few.

Thus, the sailing standard should be similar to the industry standard. For this logic not to hold, a lot of people have to be wrong about a lot of things. I'm really just agreeing with the majority and their accumulated experience. This is nothing new, just flushing out a loop hole that was overlooked. It should not be controversial since it is nothing more than an up-date.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top