Types of Biners you use.

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...

Quintrex

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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzfzb...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OqK...eature=related

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

Ekka

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.

__________________

Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory

Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping

Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations and Arborist Reports

Forum Sponsors

dannyboysfc

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