Petzl TOP harness sternal fall arrest attachment point

Phil

Phil

Carpal tunnel level member
Location
Oak Lawn, IL
So I've been looking at the Petzl TOP harness for the various Petzl harnesses. https://www.petzl.com/US/EN/Professional/Harnesses/TOP
The TOP harness is advertised as turning these work position seat harnesses into fall arrest harnesses. Great, cool, excellent. I dig deeper and see the TOP harness has no dorsal attachment but has a sternal attachment for the fall arrest decelerator/lanyard absorber. I read the TOP harness manual and sure enough, the fall arrest lanyard is to be connected to the sternal point. That got me wondering: Is a dorsal attachment for fall arrest required or have I been assuming that all along. I can find nothing in the current ansi z133 standard addressing this topic. I found the following in an OSHA standard https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.140 :

1910.140(c)(22)
Personal fall protection systems must be worn with the attachment point of the body harness located in the center of the employee's back near shoulder level. The attachment point may be located in the pre-sternal position if the free fall distance is limited to 2 feet (0.6 m) or less."

So what's the verdict? Only good in Europe?

Edit: As a second point of discussion, would a sternal attachment be better than a dorsal in both deployment of the system and potential damage to the body? In a dorsal attachment, there could be metal connectors that smash the back of your head as you fall below them and tension is applied to the lanyard system. The harness also will ride straight up putting a large part of the arresting force on your crotch and legs. A sternal attachment will have the metal connector be above and in front of your face/head and the deployment will apply force into the shoulder/back and legs of the harness which could reduce body damage. You also now have the lanyard in front of you to grab on to, attach a rescue line to, inspect as you're hanging there etc. etc.

Edit 2: I sent a letter of interpretation to the z133 committee regarding the portions of the current z and the proposed changes to the z that pertain to this topic. I'll report back their reply if I get one.
 
Last edited:
Don't know the answers to your questions but how the hell do you self-rescue after a fall on a dorsal attachment point? You're just a hanging rag doll at that point. I can imagine ways out but still.

Sternal attachment for a shock absorbing lanyard seems good for an arb worker. On the other hand for my own climbing/work style, I can't imagine wanting any such thing dorsal or sternal.

I understand that in TCC's dorsal attachment is used for at least one competition. Where else? Bucket work. I'd rather sternal attachment but I can imagine it getting in the way. Everything's a compromise.
-AJ
 
Do not take this as standard at all as it’s been OVER A DECADE since I’ve been around a bucket at all.
From what I recall either sternal or dorsal are allowed in the US. Dorsal is the standard due to keeping the lanyard out of the way while working.
 
evo said:
Do not take this as standard at all as it’s been OVER A DECADE since I’ve been around a bucket at all.
From what I recall either sternal or dorsal are allowed in the US. Dorsal is the standard due to keeping the lanyard out of the way while working.
Click to expand...
The TOP has Velcro to route the lanyard up to the shoulder of the operator. That will keep it out of the way during operation. I'm curious to try it.
 
Phil said:
The TOP has Velcro to route the lanyard up to the shoulder of the operator. That will keep it out of the way during operation. I'm curious to try it.
Click to expand...
I have the older top with the integrated croll, and I have been eyeing the newer one. I hate the stupid chest ascender, and wish that I could remove it and just keep the rest of the top. I have always used it with a too harness, as it's not quick to put on and remove, so I'm totally accustomed to it always being there.
 
Sternal makes a lot more sense to me than dorsal if there was an emergency and I had to hang from it. We had been having this conversation at work recently. My apprentice got a Sequoia SRT and the suspenders but he was surprised that the attachment was in the front. He had been hoping to use it in the bucket...
 
Muggs said:
Sternal makes a lot more sense to me than dorsal if there was an emergency and I had to hang from it. We had been having this conversation at work recently. My apprentice got a Sequoia SRT and the suspenders but he was surprised that the attachment was in the front. He had been hoping to use it in the bucket...
Click to expand...
Why can't he use it in the bucket? It's not that big a deal
 
I guess the only thing to pay attention to is the carabiner that attaches the TOP to the SRT loop. Technically it should have an ansi 3600 lb rated gate. Petzl makes an Oxan that fits the bill I think.
 
Many years ago my neighbour offered me a dorsal fall arrest harness. I pictured myself twisting and squirming trying to reach the rope behind my back to get myself down and concluded a better name is deadman's harness cause you're pooched till someone else saves you.

2 feet fall is the spec for standard screamer elements incorporated into fall lanyards (absorption capability).

In the rock climber's fall testing video they pulled 2 kN on a waist bridge comfortably. Therefore ventral ought to be ok. But, one point, in supporting your lower back the ventral focuses more load on your neck. I figure in dire loading you stand a better chance distributing the load, but if you're knocked out ventral keeps you from inverting. tradeoffs. food for thought
 
Phil said:
Corner trap is irrelevant as far as the wording in the standard. If it doesn't have a 3600 lb rated gate, shouldn't be used as a life link in a personal fall protection system.
Click to expand...
Got it! I'm Mr. Practicality, then there are rules and regs and their reasons why. And OSHA, etc etc.

Obviously a quality alloy autolocker with a corner trap (or equivalent) will not allow the gate to be sideloaded in an actual tree worker falling out of a bucket with a shock absorbing lanyard scenario. But that's not how industry regs are built.
-AJ
 
In the configuration of the carabiner on the TOP harness, I agree, not likely to be side loaded. But there are many ways to side load a carabiner other than it reorienting incorrectly between the two points it's linking. During a fall, the carabiner can smash against something, applying a load to the gate in potentially any direction. I've seen many booms with the approved anchor in a weird spot that would cause whatever connector used to be flopped around and loaded weird. But again, in the case of the TOP, the carabiner is by your belly so likely to not see an odd load on the gate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom