Eye Protection ISA Competition rule

In light of the conversation. The OSHA standard that references the shit I have to pay $75 dollars to understand how to keep my eyes safe (like its a secret worth $75)---money grab.

I would like to amend my stance on this issue. If it says Z87 then as far as I'm concerned go ahead and if you dont have adequate coverage and theres an injury then the Z87 people should field that. This fiasco is frustrating and not easy to solve so I quit. LOL
 
Steve Connally said:
,,,,

Your point is well taken about the stamping on the frames. If it's stamped then it should be good? I guess. Gear check is funny. Whenever there's a question at gear check the person with the gear is requited to prove to the checker that X is ok and can be used in such a say with component Y. I guess, honestly I need to read Z87 and that osha standard. I think I may have said, in general I'll let glasses go as long as they're stamped at comps. You make a good point that if my glasses are stamped....what else could you ask of me to determine if I'm compliant? Its stamped.......
....
Click to expand...
Got an email from ISA with the ITCC rules.
"2.3.14 Competitors, judges, technicians, and other approved individuals shall
wear approved eye protection at all times while inside the event safety
perimeter. Permission may be granted by the Event Head Judge for the
climber to stop and briefly remove approved eye protection for cleaning,
changing, etc. In such cases, the event timing will continue and not be
stopped. Approved eye protection shall be impact resistant, provide
wraparound eye protection, and be manufactured to meet or exceed the
minimum accepted industry safety standard." (emphasis added)

Why not just say Z87.1? I mean it kinda says that in the "minimum accepted industry safety standard" and Z133 3.3.6 says Z87.1 ... unless they have a different accepted industry safety standard in mind??? The ITCC rules say Z89 standard for helmets, so it seems really odd to introduce confusion here.

I think @ClimbingTN asked a fair question of the competitor about "wraparound" eye protection...but how is the competitor to know what the judge deems adequate?
 
ATH said:
Got an email from ISA with the ITCC rules.
"2.3.14 Competitors, judges, technicians, and other approved individuals shall
wear approved eye protection at all times while inside the event safety
perimeter. Permission may be granted by the Event Head Judge for the
climber to stop and briefly remove approved eye protection for cleaning,
changing, etc. In such cases, the event timing will continue and not be
stopped. Approved eye protection shall be impact resistant, provide
wraparound eye protection, and be manufactured to meet or exceed the
minimum accepted industry safety standard." (emphasis added)

Why not just say Z87.1? I mean it kinda says that in the "minimum accepted industry safety standard" and Z133 3.3.6 says Z87.1 ... unless they have a different accepted industry safety standard in mind??? The ITCC rules say Z89 standard for helmets, so it seems really odd to introduce confusion here.

I think @ClimbingTN asked a fair question of the competitor about "wraparound" eye protection...but how is the competitor to know what the judge deems adequate?
Click to expand...
I get it but without the Z in hand I can’t find a wrap around reference or one for side shield. The side shield references osha that circles back to the z. So even though my understanding was side shields or wrap, I can’t prove it in writing so I have to state it as an opinion or assumption. I’ll keep digging
 
My guy who I wanted to sign off on my confabbed goggle setup stated side shields are mandatory to meet z87.1 function.

The actual z87.1 will spec out the testing rig, projectiles, velocities, damage survival criteria etc so I don't think the magic answer lies there. Pretty sure being marked z87.1 and configured per usage instructions literature covers the liability butt.
 
Here is one company's take (including a video with a representative from Wiley X) talking about "straight" glasses needing side shields. vs. "curved" frames having the required side protection built into the design.

Everything I read says if it is Z87 rated, they HAVE to provide side protection otherwise it cannot be Z87 rated. That doesn't need to be detachable shields if the glasses are designed to provide side coverage.

www.sportrx.com

Do You Need Side Shields for Your Safety Glasses?

Do you need side shields for your safety glasses? Check out our blog and Youtube video for a quick and easy explanation!
www.sportrx.com www.sportrx.com

Again, I don't claim to know how that plays out in TCCs, but this prompted me to make sure we are using appropriate protection on the job site. That's easy. Z87 rated/stamped eye protection.
 
ATH said:
Here is one company's take (including a video with a representative from Wiley X) talking about "straight" glasses needing side shields. vs. "curved" frames having the required side protection built into the design.

Everything I read says if it is Z87 rated, they HAVE to provide side protection otherwise it cannot be Z87 rated. That doesn't need to be detachable shields if the glasses are designed to provide side coverage.

www.sportrx.com

Do You Need Side Shields for Your Safety Glasses?

Do you need side shields for your safety glasses? Check out our blog and Youtube video for a quick and easy explanation!
www.sportrx.com www.sportrx.com

Again, I don't claim to know how that plays out in TCCs, but this prompted me to make sure we are using appropriate protection on the job site. That's easy. Z87 rated/stamped eye protection.
Click to expand...
thank you. about to watch this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
That was great. What I wonder is if somebody tries to argue "what defines the adequate curve". Somebody will argue anything and based on the OP the people running the show are inconsistent with their understanding of whats correct. Barts explanation of the standard is pretty likely the case but there may be some language in there to clarify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
Note with removable side shields, when they're removed its leisure mode not z87 mode.

I/m basing my understanding of z87 contents on having read other standards like the one for saddles or power ascenders and a few others "leaked" out of the paywalls, usually one or two versions out of date.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATH
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom