Butterfly Harness

T

Todd_K.

I am currently using a Butterfly harness and I have found it to be the best performing harness I have ever used and I've used many. While at a local T.C.C.I was not allowed to use It. I was told it did not meet A.N.S.I. standards. I have seen many other people use it. Whats the deal?
 
Well this sound quite interesting and did they explain why your T.C.C.is run with different rules than the I.T.C.C.?

They cannot do this! What chapter are you from?

I would also love to know what part of this saddle does not meet the ANSI standards, did they say?

At ITCC last year 60-70% of the saddles were Butterfly’s, what is up with that !#$^%&*.

Gentlemen I hope that this is not one of the big US company’s answer to competing with the Butterfly. Yes it sounds like a conspiracy theory but this has happened, we have seen this in the past.
Tony
 
I use the Komet Butterfly and really love it. It is NOT marked as compliant with ANSI standards. It is CE compliant. I have tried to find how the standards differ but have as yet had no luck.

I was allowed to compete in our chapter TCC with the Butterfly. I was prepared with a second saddle if it was found to be unacceptable. I didn't make a big deal about it though and I don't think anyone gave it a second glance.

I don't know what they do at the Internationals. Looking at the copy of the rules that I have (not the most recent version), it says that "All personal equipment shall satisfy applicable safety standards." In this country, thats recognized as ANSI. I expected a narrow "by the book" interpretation. It may not be right, but unless the newest revisions can clarify the matter, its not wrong either.

Louie Hampton
 
I use the harness for work and competetion. I was told the buckles break before 5000 lbs. Bucckingham did the testing. If they did fail you would not fall out of the harness. I would also think that the standard belts on other harnesses would break before 5000 lbs. and again you would not fall out. I think at a chapter level we must conform to U.S. standards and at the International level they follow the C.E. regulations.
 
These types of discussions always interest me. Don't you believe that the importance here should be that the ENTIRE harness (or system) working together as it will be used in the field, that is what should meet the breaking strengths? In which case, the "Butterfly" harness would rely on at least two (legstrap) buckles?

This falls into the same grouping as friction hitches and their strengths. A prusik cord usually breaks well under 5000# when tested in a single strand "vertically". But test it tied and dressed and it will usually be near 7000# or more!

False-Crotches are also similar. Should it not be tested with the rope running through both components if it is used this way)? I heard once that the "Friction Savers" rings would fail under 5000# when tested one at a time as well, but we still are allowed to use them?

A lot of thought needs to go into every standard/regulation that is passed so that it will do it's job and increase safety but not inhibit our production or efficiency senselessly. Common sense must be part of the equation.
rolleyes.gif
 
A test of the system should be what determines go or no-go. I think it is important to also test the individual parts of the system. Most of the problems that I hear of are when we use things in a manner inconsistent with their intended use.

Common sense is something that we learn over time by observing cause and effect relationships. Given enough opportunity we can begin to predict the response of our actions for a given set of circumstances. Some folks haven't had enough experience to form this relationship, and some folks simply don't pay attention. Not everyone possesses enough common sense to keep them out of trouble. While this may be enough to get them out of a tree, I don't think its enough to get them tossed from the gene pool. Be careful with common sense.

Louie Hampton
 
I see your point Louie. What I was saying about common sense, I was really referring to the standards/regulations teams. I feel that THEY need to use common sense when passing these laws or making reccomendations so that they fulfill their purpose. Otherwise things get harder in the field and less people will conform.
 
Z133.1- 2000

"3.4 Arborist saddle: A harness of the Type II design used as part of the climbing system to secure an arborist while aloft."

(Type II comes from ANSI A10.14-1991 Requirements for safety belts, harnesses, lanyards, lifelines, and droplines for construction and industrial use.)

If the saddle is not labeled as meeting ANSI A10.14- 1991 Type II, than it does not meet the standard. Type I, CE, etc. do not meet the standard as defined in ANSI Z133.1- 2000.

ITCC and ANSI are two entirely seperate groups. Just because something is allowed at the ITCC does not mean that it meets the ANSI Z133.1- 2000 standard.

In reference to false crotches,

"3.13...Each component of the system shall have a minimum tensile strength of 5,000 pounds."

This means the strap and each ring are all independently rated at or above 5,000 pounds. Not the system as it is being used.


TMW

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tim Walsh ]
 
Tim in your opinion do you think that ANSI should accept CE standards?
Question two. Do you think the Euro standards are not safe?

It’s a small world after all.

Mark I would love to here your opinion on this.

Tony
 
The following is my personal opinion and is not the opinion of any association, board, committee or other group.

"Tim in your opinion do you think that ANSI should accept CE standards?"

No. If an American company wants to sell equipment in Europe, they pay to have the CE test and have the CE label applied. The reverse should hold true for non-US companies. If they want to sell in the US, they should have their gear tested to the appropriate standard, in this case Type II saddle, ANSI A10.14-1991, and should be labeled as dictated by the standard.

I think I answered your second question too.

Thanks,

TMW

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Tim Walsh ]
 
Tony, I can honestly say here that I don't really know enough about the CE or EN testing standards to have a strong opinion here. I do agree that we should reckognize the standards for a given country/area when applicable, but who's to say which standards are better suited for our industry?

I would love to see a universal standard developed for our industry and the equipment we use (it would work well for the ITCC too), but it doesn't hurt us to have more then one opinion either. Maybe this would make a great topic for further research and studies? To do a comprehensive study of the actual testing procedures as well as where the Arborist community is heading.
rolleyes.gif
 
I hope this does'nt become a big deal because it's the the best leg harness out there! I switched from the master 2 and my balls have been thanking me ever since! How many of you guy's cut that stupid yellow attatchment point off and strung up your beaner's with some cordege instead?
grin.gif
 
Oh you know it will be a problem!

I also believe it to be the best saddle out there. And yes everyone I know changes out that yellow webbing and the lower leg strap support. Tony
 
You can get the Butterfly from Fresco Arborist supplies 763-559-7071 the cost is $210.00. They also carry the super light Triangle shape Maillon Rapide from France that works great for switching out the leg support. Tony
 
Many people find that the Butterfly rides up to often so removing the stock support and installing the link stops the butterfly from ever riding up again. I think it is much more comfortable but it depends on wear you like to wear your saddle (high or low).Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom