ISC double-action snap at stateTCC

Z

zevr

Location
Northeast
I remember that the double-action ISC snap was changed to triple-action due to issues at an ITCC. However, I see no mention of this in the ITCC 2011 rules.

"2.2.7 All rope snaps used in a fall-protection / work-positioning system shall be of the self-closing, self-locking type and shall be manufactured to meet or exceed the minimum accepted industry safety standard."

"2.2.10 A carabiner used as part of a climber’s primary fall-protection/work-positioning system shall be manufactured to meet or exceed the minimum accepted industry safety standard. It shall be self-closing and double auto-locking and shall require a minimum of two separate operations to prepare the gate to open. Failure to abide by this rule may result in disqualification."

I will be participating in the NY TCC, and would like to use my original double-action ISC snap.

Do you think this is acceptable?
 
I heard they were starting to not allow that specific one because of some incident with it but I am not sure. That's why they made the triple action one. They are allowing other rope snaps based off the rules it looks like. The triple action one is great.
 
Zevr. It all depends on what kind of rope snap and what type of rings you have on your harness. The issue is with the carabiner style rope snaps with the larger openings. The have been found that it is possible for it to flip over and rotate in a way that can come loose pretty easily.
 
The way I thought that rule was to be interpreted was 'two actions to PREPARE the gate to open'... A triple locking snap or biner needs two actions to prepare the gate but the double action snap only requires 1 action to prepare the gate to open.

Is this interpretation correct?
 
The key is the interface between the snap and the side d-rings. It will be inspected and if there's an issue it will be taken up with the head judge. Show us a picture of the snap in question.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The way I thought that rule was to be interpreted was 'two actions to PREPARE the gate to open'... A triple locking snap or biner needs two actions to prepare the gate but the double action snap only requires 1 action to prepare the gate to open.

Is this interpretation correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

2 Actions for a krab, before opening the gate.(Pull down and twist)
1 action for a snap, before opening a gate.
 
PUClimber, this is the snap I was referring to:
isc-2-way-snap-hook-280.jpg


Thanks for all the replies. It seems that it is technically acceptable, but at the discretion of the judge. I will bring a back up in case it is disallowed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The way I thought that rule was to be interpreted was 'two actions to PREPARE the gate to open'... A triple locking snap or biner needs two actions to prepare the gate but the double action snap only requires 1 action to prepare the gate to open.

Is this interpretation correct?

[/ QUOTE ]


No. The problem is you have reversed and confused 'locking' and 'action'. 'Locking' refers to the number of distinct motions required to prepare the gate to open. 'Action' refers to the number of distinct motions required to actually open the gate.

Think of a non-locking 'biner and go from there. A non-locking carabiner (or snap) has no locking mechanism (no motion is required to prepare the gate to open), and it requires one (single) action to actually open the gate (the gate is simply pushed, and it opens). Thus:

non-locking = single action
single locking = double action
double locking = triple action

That is the easy way to remember it. A longer explanation:

non-locking = single action
no locking mechanism; one action (push the gate) to open

single locking = double action
one locking mechanism; one action to unlock (prepare the gate to open), a second action to open (push the gate)

double locking = triple action
two separate locking mechanisms; one action to unlock one mechanism, a second action to unlock the second mechanism, a third action to open the gate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom