Types of Biners you use.

Steve Tipton

Good sensible comments TreeD!

__________________
Heightmaster

juniorgilman

TreeD, I agree with you. Regulations here in the states in my industry and many others would break the backs of any small business if they tried to spend the real time and money that it takes to comply.

__________________
Husky 385xp
Husky 334t

TreeHumper

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As an employer you engage someone in the performance of tasks that put them at risk for your financial gain. The law states simply that you are responsible as much as can be possibly expected for the mitigation of those risks. The government may write the laws but they do not do this without extensive input from the industry itself and those that assess the accidents that occur.

I have worked for small companies that have shown both an enviable attitude toward the maintenance of the equipment and an appallingly lax attitude driven by the cost factor. So, in this case size Doesn't matter...

TreeDimensional

Treehumper I believe we are on the same page, safety is more about peoples attitudes than the equipment. I have personally see what happens when OS&S asks for input from the industry All-to-often the small operators feel that their voice is too small to matter. The large companies often have dedicated staff to address issues like OH&S.

One of the shining stars in Western Canada was when a group of interested people from Alberta (working in the arboricultural industry). They decided they would tackle the way ARBORISTS where dealt with by both OH&S and WCB (Workers Compensation Board). It was a lengthy process which was an uphill battle, to my understanding even some long time friendships were strained. The point being is the results would affect ALL in the industry, if the presentation was adopted into law by the government. The regulations were reviewed in January, the report of the injuries isn't available yet, but I will keep my eyes and ears open. .

Much to the surprise of the traditional influences of the OH&S regulations, the input from the arborist committee was adopted. The Section that applies to Arboriculture has its own Section 39 in the OH&S standards. While I don't work in Alberta, I have heard that the premiums dropped significantly with the arborists separated into their own category. The regulations were reviewed in January, the report of the injuries isn't available yet, but I will keep my eyes and ears open.

The purpose I derailed this thread like this was to let you know your opinions do matter in regard to safety, and where it is going. It is hard work changing the system, sometimes you can try and be a bulldozer, sometimes a tactful approach is better.

You now what happens in Alberta doesn't have to stay in Alberta, it could happen in your province, territory, state or even country.

For the folks that want to use screw-gate biners, get together and lobby the regulators for the right to do so.

TreeHumper

My last employer had been on a committee here in Ontario that brought about a significant reduction in WCB rates for arborists. Working from within the system will enable greater success for recognition of the unique qualities of our profession. This will lead to specific regulation for us that makes sense.

Bermy

Even though I trained in the UK, I live and work in Bermuda...
We have NO regulations...NO standards...either for the work done to trees and the landscape, or the people who carry it out, or the equipment they use.
(Other than a bog standard Health and Safety at Work Act with no teeth.)

I CHOSE to get trained and certified by going overseas, because I could see that things were not being done right and I wanted to learn the right way, a safe way.

My time in the UK showed me how national standards, certification and regulation can lead to safe efficient work operations AND what can happen when regulation goes overboard, EU regulations, HSE regulations, etc. etc. etc. "Nanny State' is the oft used phrase. Luckily our instructors were down to earth fellows...

There is a compromise somewhere, to find a happy medium, between the nothing we have now and the overkill of the UK. I've imported some already, offering UK certifications for basic chainsaw operation and felling...at least after a hurricane, we'll have a cadre of trained ground operators not hack and slash merchants.

The saving grace of the UK system is the industry wide consultation process that helps limit overenthusiastic regulation. I was involved in a three day meeting and standard setting operation where industry experts tried out what would happen if the Arboricultural industry had to comply with a new EU working at height regulation that would require two independant support systems AT ALL TIMES of arb operations, including initial ascent and changeovers. This was a regulation aimed at a broad range of those who work at heights:

About 15 highly experienced arborists spent a morning trying out systems, two climbing lines, multiple lanyards, belays, rope grabs, changeover issues resetting lines...it was at times hilarious and frustrating. Then there was extensive discussion. The end of it all was that the consensus was that it was more dangerous to comply to the letter of the law, than to continue using tried and true methods that were already in place and proven to work...using both ends of the climbing line or a lanyard, being tied in at least once at all times, and twice while cutting.
This group recorded their findings submitted them, and subseqently arborist were relieved from the specific portion of the regulation due to the complexities and unique nature of tree work and that they PROVED that what they had in place already was sufficient and doing more could actually be dangerous!

Sounds like Alberta...

Whew...we've gone into deep territory!!
Time for

__________________
Keep smiling, people will wonder what you are up to! (especially if you're gunning a chainsaw!)

TreeDimensional

Bermie you have my utmost respect for the roll you have taken to establish a standard. I have always believed that if you you don't like something, criticism should be levied with alternatives for a better outcome. Unfortunately in Saskatchewan there are too many bitchers and complainers, and the attitude "I don't want to get involved". In my opinion, it is far better to be pro-active in regards to the rules we work under, than reactive to legislation we can't agree with.

You are no doubt a LEADER in my books. I have attended workshops where rival competitors in business attended. There is always interesting power plays going on, and it really is exciting when they are teamed up together for an ariel rescue exercise.

I urge everyone to be knowledgable about ALL the rules we work under, if you don't like 'em, get involved in changing them.

Just so the thread police don't slap me up side the head, I am allowed to use screw gate biners for anything except for attachments to my lanyard and climbing line.

Therrin

I only agree partly with this. It isn't as though you're twisting the employee's arm and *forcing* them to climb or to even work for you. Each person decides what risks *they* are willing to take, for themselves. Yes, as employers we stand to gain financially, but it isn't as though the employees aren't being paid well.

If they decide *they* want to be the employer, and make the wages of such, then they can take on the financial responsibilities, buy ALL of the gear, equipment, build the business, find the customers, etc.

I think people need to be more responsible for their own actions instead of always passing the buck to someone else for choices they make for themselves.

Profit is not a four letter word.

Therrin

ANSI standards state:
"Snap hooks and carabiners shall be self-closing and self-locking and shall be capable of being opened only by at least two consecutive deliberate actions.

When tested in accordance with 4.3.1.1.1, snap hooks and carabiners shall be capable of withstanding a 5,000 pound (22.2kN) tensile load without breaking or distortion sufficient to release the gate. "

PLEASE WATCH BOTH VIDEOS!!!!

The first video is of a screw locking biner, and may seem a bit mundane, but upon watching both, the point is clear.

The first "branch test" is using a 22 KN Screw Locking Carabiner, which is "self closing" and uses a screw device to lock the gate.
(click to picture to view the short video)



The second "branch test" is using a 28 KN Auto Locking biner which is "self closing", as well as capable of being opened "only by at least two consecutive deliberate actions" in DIRECT COMPLIANCE with ANSI standards.
(click the picture to view the short video)




Please note that I realize that a more efficient auto-locking carabiner would be a "triple or quad" locking type.

The POINT, is that the biner represented in my video test complies perfectly with the STANDARD and is completely unsafe. This effectively makes the standard WORTHLESS!!!!
It's the standard that you all (at least in the USA) are so adamantly sticking to.
To more appropriately require the use of an auto-locking biner for safety use, it should state "at least three seperate actions" to open the gate. But it doesn't; and it's flawed.

dannyboysfc

It actually states that it needs to have two consecutive, deliberate actions to prepare the gate for opening. Meaning a total of 3 actions to actually open the biner. The one in your example is not ANSI compliant and is a danger, worse than screw locks.

Therrin

Sorry Danny but that's incorrect...

I didn't type the quoted portion, I copy and pasted from the most recent update to ANSI Z359. (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) – Excerpt from ANSI Z359.1- Requirements for
Personal Fall Arrest Systems,
Subsystems and Components

I'll agree at least that it's worse than screw-locks.

dannyboysfc

You need to check ANSI Z133.1-2006(8.1.11) to be specific.

Therrin

Can you copy/paste quote the section which includes it? or provide a link?


(wouldn't it be great if we still had a chat room?)

dannyboysfc

I actually cant find it on the web anywhere, I have a copy of the book that I use to reference. ANSI Z133.1 is the stantard for tree care operations.

Therrin

Mmmm, yeah I couldn't find it online either. What's the effective date of the standards that you have?

The standard I posted went into effect November 24, 2007; and is the most recent update to my knowledge.



This does bring up the point however, that we've been very loosely using the term "auto-locking" biner.

I'll test my two different styles of triple-lockers and see what the results are as well.

Therrin

Here's a link to my first video-test posting which shows tests of a screw lock, and one type of auto-locking biner:
Types of Biners you use.

However, based on the controversy Danny and I had, I decided to also test my biners which require an added extra action to unlock them. Here are the results:
(click picture to view video)




ANSI standard ANSI Z359.1 states:
"Snap hooks and carabiners shall be self-closing and self-locking and shall be capable of being opened only by at least two consecutive deliberate actions."

As well, Danny suggests the ANSI standard ANSI Z133.1-2006(8.1.11), which supposedly states "that it needs to have two consecutive, deliberate actions to prepare the gate for opening".

The carabiner in this most recent video conformed to that different piece of the standard as well, and failed the test as well. All it took was a simple diagonal rubbing of the gate against a branch for it to pop right open....
an action I couldn't replicate with the screw-locking biner using horizontal or diagonal actions, even when doing so aggresively, untill after several minutes it finally unscrewed.
The action necessary to do so took a ridiculous amount of deliberate action, whereas unlocking the auto lockers took a simple single-stroke brush against it.


It is my personal opinion that screw-locks are inherently safer than auto-locking carabiners, and that many climbers are too lazy to use them properly. And that auto-locking biners can offer a false-sense of security and "fool-proof-ness".

quercus

You've got a point...When I've got the time for it, I'll make a video of how a screwlocker would fail massively with only a twist of the rope.

I tried this at home with a petzl william triple locker, and there's no way I could get it to open with the same actions you used.

But again, you have a point...

Steve Tipton

Therrin,
Thanks for the PM on this.
It's quite scary how the 'biner opened in your experiment. I have had issues with "self lockers" not closing due to sap or bark caught in the mechanism.
As with all snaps amd connecting hardware, I believe you should always LOOK when connecting, not rely soley on feel or sound. I'll have a bit of a play tomorrow and see if I can replicate your experiment with my gear.
Cheers,
Steve

__________________
Heightmaster

dannyboysfc

Lets get past ANSI Z359.1 it is for fall arrest gear. We as climbers use work positioning gear. We need to be looking at the correct standard.

There is no supposedly about it, ASNI Z133.1 is for tree care opps and states that tripple locking carabiners are the standard adopted by them. We shouldnt have to debate this as it is a well known fact among those in the profession.

I do not doubt that a tripple locking biner can fail or open unintentionally, and that there are some poorly designed tripple lockers out there (like the one Therrin used in the video). I personally use Petzl ball locks because I am comfortable with them, I however still keep an eye on them to make sure all is well.

The simple fact is that there is a standard(standards are not always perfect) that is there to protect tree climbers. These standards are good because although they may not be perfect they bring awareness to safety and aslo prevent cheap ass employers from buying below standard gear just to save a buck. Its your choice to agree with it or not, but it won't change. You can choose to work acording to the standard or not, that is your decision. I personally am required by the company that I work for to follow the ANSI standards, and as a future company owner I will continue to do so and train all future employees that I may have to do the same for their safety and protection as well as mine.

Ken I think that you make a good point, screw locks can be safer than some auto lockers. As a private owner operator who does all of his own climbing and has no climbers as employees you are free to climb with whatever you want,even Lowes rope, but if you start training climbers you will need to train employees to work acording to the industry safety standard.

Follow industry standards and use common sense, you'll probablylive longer.

I am done being the biner police take it up with ANSI if you have a problem with it, or just ignore them if you choose.

Therrin

At this point I've gotten 3 different types of auto-lockers to fail using my branch test...

I'm somewhat convinced that the captive-ball lockers are probably the "safest" type of auto-lockers at the moment.

It isn't an issue of money actually, auto's are only a couple bucks more; and weight is a non-factor, the difference being fractions of ounces.

Thanks for your "biner policing"... however now that I'm insured I too must follow ANSI, and have switched to using auto's for safety attatchments. The type I'm using are of the kind shown in the last video, and I'm sure there are SEVERAL climbers out there using a similar mechanism; though I'll shortly be ordering several Petzl ball lockers.

The point of all this, is that screw-lock gates are extremely safe when used *properly*. There is quite a bit of equipment on the arborist lineup which can be unsafe and even deadly when used improperly.
Instead of bending to the lowest common denominator (the lazy operators), I think more attention needs to be paid to using gear the way it is supposed to be used, without taking shortcuts.

This kind of thinking is what makes you LIVE LONGER.... not standards which are rushed into play resulting from operator incompetence.

And as you mentioned, I decided that I will take it up with ANSI; using some of my tests to support my position.

arborjockey

I think you guys are adding a extra motion to your analasys. If its 2 motions, 1 would be pushing the button, 2 would be the twisting the outer sheive. The opening of the gate is not considered one of the motions. The vid. shows a biner that was not approved for me to climb with by my safety guy. Just tryn to help

Therrin

the initial set of videos had a "auto" which only required one motion, a twist, in order to be ready to open the gate.

The second video (on this page), shows a biner which requires 2 independent motions, an upward pull followed by a twist, in order to be ready to open the gate; not counting opening the gate as a motion.

The first "auto", true, doesn't comply with the standard. I'll take blame for that one. However, it brought up the good point that all we've been saying on here is "auto-locking biners" and that there are auto's out there which do not apply in this context.

The second ( the one on this page) does however comply with ANSI standards. And it fails just as easily.

If I might add, my Omega screw locker takes 5 full turns from the point the gate is able to open, till it is fully locked closed.
Even after the first turn and a half, the gate is "locked", though not as effectively as a full screw-down, and not enough to be relied on.

Since you use thumb and forefinger to turn it, a half turn at a time, that's taking a consecutive 10 actions in a row in order to lock, and 10 more to unlock the biner just to the point where it will just barely open.
So thats.... 10 independent motions.... as opposed to 2 for the auto which complies with ANSI and fails my test.

newguy18

Maybe you should show those videos to the ansi so that they might enforce a stricter,safer standard or better make screw-lockers "legal" again.just a thought.

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

arborjockey

OK I see. I think their are a lot of biners to chose from. Use the right biner for the right occasion. Scew types are great until you belay with them the wrong way and the rope unscews it. Or in the case you present in your vid. impact does it. Like the saying gos dont put the right tree in the wrong spot .well dont use the right biner for the wrong situation. Pay attention to where your gate is and what it takes to open it and you'll be fine(Always face gates toward you or away from impact) making something idiot proof now days can be tuff. 1,000 of people are serously injured every year from falling off toilets!!!!. Keeping people safe in trees is verbal, constructive, critsizem. You guys are doing the right thing and that is talk it out. What works....what doesnt...and why Stay safe gentlemen

Eric Frei

All good points.

I read this though.

Maybe time for another thread and surely some-one has the ansi standard and can say what it actually says.

__________________

dannyboysfc

Ekka, that sounds pretty accurate but I'll check in the ANSI book when I get it back.

newguy18

Thats friggin ridiculous whats the resoning behind that one?

__________________
Have your say join us today.


old schooler

Bermy

Back to autolockers...

I was climbing last week, coming down from setting my TIP, had to slide past a branch...darned if I didn't hear my biner clicking, I looked down and it was sliding up and starting to open...first time for everything!

Nothing is 100% safe or totally infallible, use what is appropriate for the situation and keep your wits about you, ears open, eyes looking...

I would still choose the autolockers over screwgates, at least when the pressure is released they spring back closed.

__________________
Keep smiling, people will wonder what you are up to! (especially if you're gunning a chainsaw!)

Tree Machine

Bermy, a quad lock is the simple, simple solution to that. A small, steel, bombproof quadlock. That should be to where the personal safety bar is raised. We have seen the videos, I have seen it, Bermy reports it here and now, triple locks can and do fail,
meaning,

TRIPLE LOCK IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR LIFE SUPPORT.

redstree

Originally Posted by Therrin
"OMG... you've got to be kidding me. I've been using screw-lock biners for YEARS!!! Rock climbing, tree climbing, etc...

Are you seriously trying to say that you guys all just up and got rid of your screw lock biners and replaced your entire inventory with triple-lockers because some person in a suit told you to???
That's pure bureacracy on the part of the equipment manufacturers, and a small amount of climbers who don't use their equipment properly, which impacts all of the rest of us!
That's like saying that before triple-lockers came out that everyone who was using screw-locks was being radically unsafe.

You're also implying, by default, that I don't screw my biners closed. Otherwise they're PERFECTLY SAFE!!
It scares me that you don't think screw-lock biners are safe when used properly."

I agree with you on this. After all, rock climbers have been using non-locking carabiners for years. I'm guessing it is just us dumb arborists that can't be trusted to use them.

__________________
Drive a MINI, the most fun you can have with your trousers on.