UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

Treeman805

Treeman805

Location
EVERYWHERE
i dont read or see any CE certification or anything about ANSI compliant. do we need to back it up in the comps like all the other mechanical devices.
thelockjack,microcender,ASAP,all have CE certs the ropeman and tibloc read not ANSI compliant. for a big company (SHERRILL)to market and promote it with no certification is little risky, maybe all that paper work comes in the box.

why wouldnt u go straight to ISA for approval


will the ITCC let it fly (DRT,SRT) in the comp??? someome from the GODS of the ISA must be on tree buzz
 
There is no such thing as ANSI compliant or ANSI certification.

Mechanicals do NOT have to be backed up...if they do, then hitches should be too.

ISA for certification? of what?

There is NO reason for any TCC not to allow the Uni. On what grounds? Even before Rock Exotica started to manufacture them they had been tested to breaking. Have you seen the 'rock drop' test?
 
[ QUOTE ]
i dont read or see any CE certification or anything...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...all have CE certs

[/ QUOTE ]

CE doesn't mean anything other than the product meets certain health and safety standards in order to be sold in the European Union. Phones, flashlights, dental equipment, electric razors, carabiners, etc. can all have CE markings.

In other words... just because a product has a CE mark, doesn't mean it has been tested for use in specific industries for a particular task.

An EN mark will ensure (hopefully) that a product has undergone specific, standardized testing appropriate to the intended use of the product.
 
Mechanicals(some ) have to be backed up at ITCC. Some should be in work practices also.

ie: mar bars,petzl ascenders,etc.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as ANSI compliant

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there is. But the standards don't speak to the question originally asked.

[ QUOTE ]

Mechanicals do NOT have to be backed up...if they do, then hitches should be too.

[/ QUOTE ]

There you go again. I think that statement should be further qualified. Some mechanical devices in appropriate configurations don't have to be backed up.

[ QUOTE ]

ISA for certification? of what?

[/ QUOTE ]

ITCC is affiliated with the ISA. I would assume thats the connection.

[ QUOTE ]

There is NO reason for any TCC not to allow the Uni. On what grounds?

[/ QUOTE ]

If its not labeled with an appropriate rating, they shouldn't allow it. If it is labeled, then let it in.
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

it might be nice to see ISA ITCC approved mark on or about both new and older gear to limit all the questions in comps. they have a rule book why not a gear book







P.S. he who is on one line will see the chosen tree
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

Now in the ITCC regs. are you allowed to do the work climb SRT? I see nothing in the rules that say you must climb double line and not single line if the SRT system used qualifies. Nobody has done it, and why not? As long as you use the same anchor point as all the other contestants, why would'nt you be allowed to anchor off a single line on the same TIP rings that the other Double liners are using? Maybe we need to back up our friction hitch that so many in comps. run so loose it would'nt bight for the life of me, however the judges are good with this useless back up because of the intent and visuals... Yet we will still belay a footlock with a Gri-Gri, which is not an ascender/ decender! We can also use a Cinch or Grion which is not backed up on your flipline, the flipline is also a primary TIP when changing out your ascent system. A mechanical device is not any different than a hitch cord, they can both fail if not properly inspected and maintained...

X-man O.G.
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

After talking with a number of SRT converts there is a theme that is coming into the discussion. The inconsistencies between what is and has been allowed for DdRT climbing isn't talked about in the SRT discussion. Sometimes it seems like I get defensive about my 'baby'---> SRT. What I would like to go on is to start a look at inconsistencies and try to keep things even. Get ready...SRT is here and normal.

Hitches made with exotic cords aren't 'labled' 'approved' 'certified' or 'tested'. To be consistent the Uni or other tools shouldn't have to be put through the mill. If so...do the same for hitches.

To this day climbers show up at TCCs using rope tools with the wrong size rope even when the sizes are plainly stamped on the sides. Sure...they work...until someone gets hurt...then try to defend it. The Gri Gri with half inch rope is the most common culprit here.

From the GG website: "For use with single ropes between 10 and 11 mm in diameter"

ISA is an educational organization not one that makes industry standards for climbing. There is a big difference.

KS...please explain what you mean by 'ANSI compliant'...what am I missing?

What ANSI standard addresses climbing gear?

For years I've maintained that if a rope tool, mechanical or cord, NEEDS to be 'backed-up' then it should be scrutinized. In all of my investigations of rope tools I've found that changing the gear or climbing method eliminates any NEED to back up.

Now...having two attachment points is different! We've gone over this a lot. We can do it again if we need to.

Specifically, what tools, maufacturer's names and models, do you think NEED to be backed up?
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

xman,
I have climbed in three competitions SRT, Michigan, Charlotte, and Warren WIlson (the last two are unsanctioned events).

My SRT system was allowed in the Rhode island ITCC by the head judges before the comp, but i missed a mandatory meeting and so I did not compete. In the comps I have competed in, I climbed work climb, ariel rescue, and masters challenge SRT. At this point, I do not think I would compete if they did not allow me to climb SRT. It would be like making me to climb in a weaver saddle and a taughtline.
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

I had lengthy conversations with the judges at the ITCC about SRT as in regards to my fate system. some of the judges at the ITCC that they would not have allowed the unicender because there was not two points of attachment. I am not sure that the judges had ever seen closely a unicender at work, it was a hypothetical conversation as I have also not flown one to be able to defend it. Some people have expressed that with the uni there presents the possibility of a branch or falling object sliding down the rope to pull the Uni down. There is a big lever on top of the device?
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

Seems like its good idea to back up a mechanical device (or a prussic) when using for an srt ground anchor. It also seems impractical to try and back up a mech. or prussic on a working system like a belay, lanyard, climbing hitch or a mechanical.
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

There is a possibility of a falling branch tripping the Uni. BUT...lets look at that possiblity...especially in a competition. Is it likely? How many times has anyone had a branch fall on them while climbing that might have tripped a climbing system? No one has ever shared a story so far in all the years that the Uni has been around.

A falling branch could trip a hitch, but, of course, the target is smaller and its a 2:1 system.

A simple back up that is required in Tree Climber's International climbing classes is to tie a stopper knot below the hitch.

Not allowing the Uni in a comp because a falling branch 'might' trip it is silly. There are lots of other 'mights' that could get people and are more likely to happen.
 
Hi Guys,
All mechanical accenders/decenders should be certified for that purpose,If they have not be tested by an official test house and passed the requirements for the purpose they were designed for,then in my opinion they can't be used.Has the unicender been officially certified????The statement that hitches are not tested is not completely true there are now certified hitches on the market,and all prusik material should meet at least EN1891B under european requirements,most hitch cord you can buy today is tested for strength although most not in configuration.In the case of the Unicender If it has been certified fit for purpose I would not see any problem with it being used in comp in Drt configuration,much the same way the lock jack and spiderjack are.In Srt configuration there is no way it is safe to use in the workclimb for example,The very nature of the decending configuration i.e wrapping the climbing line over the system to release it is dangerous in a work situation.If your rope catches on something in a swing for example or some idiot grabbed the end of your rope and pulled it while in decent mode you would hit the deck.This is ofcourse unless there has been some change to this decending config that maybe I don't know about????

Regards
Didj
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

[ QUOTE ]

Hitches made with exotic cords aren't 'labled' 'approved' 'certified' or 'tested'. To be consistent the Uni or other tools shouldn't have to be put through the mill. If so...do the same for hitches.

[/ QUOTE ]

We know the MBS of those cordages, and the characteristics of most of the hitches tied with those cords (i.e. do they slide or lock tight when over loaded, etc). Beyond that climbers at TCCs are made to do an "On rope" test to demonstrate that their hitch will hold. If a Gri-gri, Shunt, or other mechanical device is tested and labeled, the Uni should be to.

[ QUOTE ]

To this day climbers show up at TCCs using rope tools with the wrong size rope even when the sizes are plainly stamped on the sides.
The Gri Gri with half inch rope is the most common culprit here.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are stoopid people everywhere.

[ QUOTE ]

ISA is an educational organization not one that makes industry standards for climbing. There is a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the ITCC does offer some guidance in selection of appropriate tools and techniques, that can translate to the production world. The ANSI standards speak about some basic equipment guidelines, like autolocking carabiners, rope size, etc., but for the most part the standards can't touch the vast array of modern gear that keeps filtering into the tree climbing profession.

I recognize that a TCC is vastly different than a real jobsite, but I maintain that the two can positively influence each other.

[ QUOTE ]

KS...please explain what you mean by 'ANSI compliant'...what am I missing?

What ANSI standard addresses climbing gear?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just meant as in "Complying with the ANSI standards." Its a finicky, semantic argument, but in public discussions where people of all skill levels are reading, I think its important to be completely clear. Like I said above, the standards offer very little guidance with gear.

[ QUOTE ]

Now...having two attachment points is different! We've gone over this a lot. We can do it again if we need to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Personally, I don't need to rehash all that, but maybe that's just me.

[ QUOTE ]

Specifically, what tools, maufacturer's names and models, do you think NEED to be backed up?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know that specific tools need backups, but in certain configurations they should be considered. Like ascending with a single ascender, I would use a backup above (cordage or mechanical). Or descending on a Figure 8, a prussic above is a common backup. Either of these examples might not be ideally efficient, but they are real techniques that people use.
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

[ QUOTE ]
Not allowing the Uni in a comp because a falling branch 'might' trip it is silly. There are lots of other 'mights' that could get people and are more likely to happen.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, a man that I look up to in the climbing world always would have the same reply everytime someone would start with the what ifs. " What if what if what if, what if your daddy stuck his little man into a pound instead of your mommy? you might have been a bull frog!"

He would say it to be funny and brake the ice on a student going a little over board with worries, but his point was always under stood.
 
Re: UNICENDER CERTIFICATION

[/ QUOTE ]
" What if what if what if, what if your daddy stuck his little man into a pound instead of your mommy? you might have been a bull frog"

[/ QUOTE ]

No Bro you would probably be A dog <font color="blue"> </font>
grin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom