Question on life support carabiners with auto locking bypass feature

Matias said:
I totally get that it's their slogan, but I have seen the same basic warning in the literature for all climbing gear, and further warnings on some products about not using without having recieved proper instruction in their use.

I don't have handy the exact wording from the Z. Could I trouble you for the exact wording? My internet connection is pretty lame.
Click to expand...
I don't have access to my copy this weekend... I'll quote it on Monday but my recollection is something along the lines of carabineers need two consecutive motions to prepare the gate to open. Up, twist, then push to open. Or for the petzl ball locks....push ball twist, push to open.

The orca can be rendered in a push to open config, which even watching the video linked above, will not auto lock unless it's a full open to close motion.
 
Phil said:
I don't have access to my copy this weekend... I'll quote it on Monday but my recollection is something along the lines of carabineers need two consecutive motions to prepare the gate to open. Up, twist, then push to open. Or for the petzl ball locks....push ball twist, push to open.

The orca can be rendered in a push to open config, which even watching the video linked above, will not auto lock unless it's a full open to close motion.
Click to expand...
But if it can only be put into that mode by two separate and distinct movements, which is how I remember it, then it is exactly as safe as a standard locker. I can make a locker open up in a way that kind of simulates an accidental opening, but it requires pressure on the gate that would fully open it, not just render it openable. I don't see a real world scenario where it wouldn't be functionally the same as a regular locker.
 
Matias said:
But if it can only be put into that mode by two separate and distinct movements, which is how I remember it, then it is exactly as safe as a standard locker. I can make a locker open up in a way that kind of simulates an accidental opening, but it requires pressure on the gate that would fully open it, not just render it openable. I don't see a real world scenario where it wouldn't be functionally the same as a regular locker.
Click to expand...
A busted/sticky carabiner can be said to do the same thing. "Look, I did two things and it's stuck in push mode but it'll still auto lock if I do this other stuff to it". The logic is the same. The orca operates in a way that a faulty carabiner can operate.
 
Phil said:
A busted/sticky carabiner can be said to do the same thing. "Look, I did two things and it's stuck in push mode but it'll still auto lock if I do this other stuff to it". The logic is the same. The orca operates in a way that a faulty carabiner can operate.
Click to expand...
Except that the ORCA should behave reliably. and it returns to the auto lock mode after clipping it onto something properly. I still see a properly funtioning locker with a feature that makes it unsuitable for less experienced users
 
Phil said:
I don't have access to my copy this weekend... I'll quote it on Monday but my recollection is something along the lines of carabineers need two consecutive motions to prepare the gate to open. Up, twist, then push to open. Or for the petzl ball locks....push ball twist, push to open.

The orca can be rendered in a push to open config, which even watching the video linked above, will not auto lock unless it's a full open to close motion.
Click to expand...
Personally I think you’re looking at it backwards. It is a locking carabiner that takes three distinct separate motions to operate the gate, open or closed. It has an additional distinct motion that allows for the gate to bypass this feature to open and if used properly it automatically resets to a full locking carabiner.
It does allow for some risk though of only partially opening the gate that doesn’t trigger the auto reset. In my book this is operator error and not a regulatory design issue. Shit dos happen, and I’ve clipped in to a standard auto locker that decided to become sticky unknowingly for the duration of an ascent.
I’ve had triple action open on me when aloft too. Namely when taking a top and crossing my body with the saw lanyard to flop the saw on the opposite side. It actually captured the saw lanyard and had enough weight on it it didn’t fully close. 100% my fault and safe as I was tied in twice.
I choose not to use a orca lock as well. It doesn’t fit my climbing style as dislike Swiss Army knife type kit.
 
southsoundtree said:
How do typical locking snaps fit into legal requirements?
Click to expand...
I believe legit as long as they use three separate distinct motions to operate. The common steel core lanyard snaps technically don’t qualify.
Palm latch then the gate operates = two motions
Those triple isc ones are compliant, but I hate those as I’ve gotten the first lever stuck under the mechanism and had to call for a saw wrench to detach.
 
Remember we have a new draft waiting to be published, and it has some substantial changes in it. Some of which I’m quite grumpy about
 
For me, I love the chunky steel snaps found on most steel core lanyards…. There are enough reports of those ISC snaps opening or failing without all three actions being intentionally engaged that it makes me question how much we should rely on “compliance” alone. At the end of the day, we’re working at height, often with a saw in hand. It’s inherently dangerous work, and no piece of hardware is infallible. Over-reliance on gear doing exactly what it’s supposed to, every time, can create a false sense of security. That’s why, throughout a climb, we’re doing hundreds—if not more—checks, double checks, and triple checks on every moving part of our system. That’s just a part of what keeps us intact and going home at the end of the day.
 
southsoundtree said:
I feel fine on steel snaps. I don't really climb on a flipline without a climb line, so its really just when changing TIPs that I'm alone on a steel locking snap.
Click to expand...
I too don’t see an issue with them. 9 times out of 10 though I’m on a rope lanyard with a steel carabiner. I’ve become so accustomed to it I rarely pull out the steel core unless it’s a up and down conifer removal
 
evo said:
I too don’t see an issue with them. 9 times out of 10 though I’m on a rope lanyard with a steel carabiner. I’ve become so accustomed to it I rarely pull out the steel core unless it’s a up and down conifer removal
Click to expand...
Samesies
 
Treetopflyer said:
Love me an orca
Expert use only
I thought mine was defective at first before I understood its behavior more
Better
Click to expand...
Well if anyone actually cares, I posed this question to members of Z133 comittees at the same time I posed it here. The unofficial/official response was it is not compliant. They also, of their own accord, reached out to Arbsession to request they add language to the product description indicating these are not compliant for life support in our industry. https://arbsession.com/rock-exotica-rockd-orca-lock-carabiner.html

So there you go. I guess I ruined it for everybody lol.
 
Phil said:
Well if anyone actually cares, I posed this question to members of Z133 comittees at the same time I posed it here. The unofficial/official response was it is not compliant. They also, of their own accord, reached out to Arbsession to request they add language to the product description indicating these are not compliant for life support in our industry. https://arbsession.com/rock-exotica-rockd-orca-lock-carabiner.html

So there you go. I guess I ruined it for everybody lol.
Click to expand...
Luckily it's mostly owner/operators here who can use what they please, but that'a good to know in case I ever see an employee with an ORCA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom