ITCC fall protection criteria

[Tom Dunlap]

July 23, 2012 The ITCC Technical Advisory Committee has been developing a set of Performance Criteria which outlines specifications regarding the performance required for fall protection equipment used by participants in ISA tree climbing competitions. The committee is offering a period of public review to gather feedback regarding this proposed documentation. The document review period is July 23 – August 31. You may view the document and submit feedback and inquiries to the committee via itcc@isa-arbor.com during this time.


http://www.isa-arbor.com/newsroom/industryNews/index.aspx


Competent Person
A Competent Person is a member of technical personnel who can demonstrate that they have sufficient professional or technical training, knowledge, actual experience, and authority to enable them to:
***carry out their assigned duties at the level of responsibility allocated to them;
***understand any potential hazards related to the work (or equipment) under consideration;
***detect any technical defects or omissions in that work (or equipment), recognise any implications for health and safety caused by those defects or omissions; and
***be able to specify a remedial action to mitigate those implications.

 

[Treelimbjim]

Its before coffee for me, so.... read the doc.

Scope and duration: Is this a draft of a doc for all ITC events henceforward? Or should we encompass this one for an enactment date, say, September 2012 through some specific date when we can expect a strong revision due to the evolution of the industry, its practitioners, and the equipment we use.

But wait, there's more. We are attempting an autonomous document, but I do see citing from appropriate Standards Organizations (the Rosetta Stone, so to speak). I entirely support this, as it represents thinking beyond "NIMBY". I suggest we not be industry-centric, but rather, defer to other Standards doc collections that I can only imagine exists for definition instead of crafting ours.

There are a few dependencies and hierarchical definitions we have to watch. I was looking at something that spec'd minimum diameter ropes, but not maximum. Then, in another place, a spec for devices added to the rope (search for "midline"); the wording, the way I interpret it, says something like it must encompass _all_ the rope diameters. Not the case for many climbing line and prussik line combinations, and rarely it is the case for mechanicals.

Here's a case FOR hierarchical definitions.
a) Climbing line definition. Here we distinguish composition materials, e.g. synthetic (not first generation organic), and exclude (for now, maybe), say, braided metals and spider silk.
a1) static and dynamic rope definitions, as declared, are true, but useless unless paired with an application. BTW, NOT REFERENCED AT THIS TIME.

Time for coffee,

 

[Treelimbjim]

After much deliberation (about 62 minutes) I think I should dare point at least a few of the tracks of the elephant that is in the living room.

If certain mechanical devices and prussiks have to be backed up upon descent then why is it not requisite to install a backup system for the descent on the Work Climb? Where is the height cutoff?

I'm thinking along the lines of is the classic illustration of where to be in rope support. I find it in my copy of Z133, ISA Study Guide, and many other places, of a tree profile with a measurement at 10 feet: below labeled "The Danger Zone", and above, "The Deadly Zone".

I don't recall (therefore I just might not be /Competent/) seeing mandatory addition of a descent system for more than just one ITC event.

Smokin' a prussik out of Work Climb has always been bad show. That is also operator and equipment sensitive. Let's be careful but also progressive when we write to include or exclude equipment.

We DO need our competition to represent our current safe work practices.

 

[Norm_Hall]

[ QUOTE ]


Competent Person
A Competent Person is a member of technical personnel who can demonstrate that they have sufficient professional or technical training, knowledge, actual experience, and authority to enable them to:
***carry out their assigned duties at the level of responsibility allocated to them;
***understand any potential hazards related to the work (or equipment) under consideration;
***detect any technical defects or omissions in that work (or equipment), recognise any implications for health and safety caused by those defects or omissions; and
***be able to specify a remedial action to mitigate those implications.


[/ QUOTE ]

Which competent person qualifies another competent person?

 

[cbugg]

Ascent anchors are regularly selected from a distance i.e. remotely. A consequence is that the chain of fall protection components from ground to anchor is often difficult to assess visually. Because of the inherent risk associated with the adjustment of remotely selected ascent anchors, ascent systems shall have the ability to dissipate energy when arresting a fall, such that the deceleration experienced by the climber from a 2m vertical fall is no greater than 6g e.g. a 100kg climber experiences no more than 6kN. Rope, connection textiles, energy absorbers or other PPE components may be employed to dissipate energy.

I am having trouble understanding what this means in terms of ascent methods? do we need zip absorbers in our srt systems to meet these requirements? is static rope footlocking going to fit in to these #s? any thoughts would be appreciated.

 

[rich_h]

Are the EN and ANSI standards truly comparable across the board? I profess to knowing next to nothing about EN standards, but in looking at the standards for connectors there looks to be a wide divide between the required strengths:

EN 354

4.4.1 Gate face
After testing with a force of (1 ± 0,02) kN in accordance with 5.4.1, the gate-locking feature of connectors shall
still function correctly.
Where the gate locking feature does not encircle the connector body, e.g. Figure 2b) and Figure 3, the gatelocking
feature shall withstand
a force of (1 ± 0,02) kN without separating from the latch by more than 1 mm.
4.4.2 Gate side
When tested in accordance with 5.4.2, connectors with a gate locking feature that does not encircle the
connector body, e.g. Figure 2b) and Figure 3, shall withstand a force of (1,5 ± 0,03) kN without any partial
fracture. After this test the gate-locking feature shall still function correctly.


ANSI Z-359

1) Gate strength requirements have increased
for snaphooks and carabiners. The 1999 standard
requires a test for 220 lb force against the gate face
and 350 lb force against the side of the gate. The gate
mechanism may not disengage from the nose of the
snaphook or carabiner. The new standard increases
the strength requirement to 3,600 lb in all directions
of potential loading to the gate. Test procedures will
change to exert static loads on the gate face, gate side
and from inside the gate outward.


Is it just me or are the numbers required by these two supposedly comparable standards WAY OFF ?