competent splicer?

[raafbeard]

NPTC in splicing ??

[Jamie]

Unless thre is a course and qualification i don't think you could easily prove competance across an entire industry (by industry i'm implying all rope applications).

 

As we're all aware rope only develops a function when it's put into use. Until, say, Yale XTC is used as a lifeline it could still be used as anything from a washing line to an anchor line, it may not be ideally suited to that application but it's still just rope.

 

Following on from that i'd say a splicing course would have to ultimately be applicable to all end users. The splices are the same but the end use is different.

 

I know the guy who splices for the MOD and the Navy, he orders his rope by the multiple container load and has redesigned splices for pulling subs off the sea floor so I reckon it's safe to say he knows his stuff. While chatting to him he told me that he knows of no one / organisation who'll / that'll say that you're competant to splice.

 

I have contacted Marlow to ask if they would break test / inspect my splices on Marlow rope so they could provide me with a statement that i was competent. Marlow refused simply saying that they didn't do that.

 

I've had splices i've designed broken by the MOD and the breaking point was at or above the minimum breaking strain of the rope.

Does this say that i'm a competent splicer? Does it prove that i understand how and why a splice works as well as how to carry out a splice?

 

How would i say competence is proved?

Training and assessment followed up by inspections and destruction of samples of ALL splice constructions carried out. Maintenance of a detailed record of all splices carried out.

 

I have a folder of all the splice instructions i have round on the net, included are also myinstructions for my splices i have created. Where i have created my own i've also included the reasons behind altering the splice.

 

Does that put my point across well enough?

 

Jamie

[Arbocop]

Ok you whant the definaative answer......... not sure if you wil like it but this is my opinion and backed up with law well my interpritation of it.

 

so AFAG is best practice and they haev been very carful what they say. in terms of rigging work, yep read it no worries just need to make sure that the person doing the splice is competent, what is that well, trained, assessed, experianceed able to communicate, and demonstrate total commitment to adhearance to rules.

 

for PPE our climbing kit is complex high risk so have a read of this

 

The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002

 

the person needs to be competent but the splice must conform to relivant standard, ie 1891 for strenth, but it can also be iso compliant, so lots of records and testing etc.

 

this is the reson there is a problem with 'approved' splicing, some have stuff cheaked by the factory soem do not and until there is a definative testing protocol this debate will go round and round.

 

there you go

 

kev

[High Scale]

Ok you whant the definaative answer......... not sure if you wil like it but this is my opinion and backed up with law well my interpritation of it.

 

so AFAG is best practice and they haev been very carful what they say. in terms of rigging work, yep read it no worries just need to make sure that the person doing the splice is competent, what is that well, trained, assessed, experianceed able to communicate, and demonstrate total commitment to adhearance to rules.

 

for PPE our climbing kit is complex high risk so have a read of this

 

The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002

 

the person needs to be competent but the splice must conform to relivant standard, ie 1891 for strenth, but it can also be iso compliant, so lots of records and testing etc.

 

this is the reson there is a problem with 'approved' splicing, some have stuff cheaked by the factory soem do not and until there is a definative testing protocol this debate will go round and round.

 

there you go

 

 

 

 

kev

 

 

The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002

 

Is it me Kev or is there nothing in that document that actually refers to spliced ropes within PPE?

[Bundle 2]

The Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002

 

Is it me Kev or is there nothing in that document that actually refers to spliced ropes within PPE?

 

 

 

I have only just started to look thru this text but already.....It

seems to come pretty close to making the requirements known here I think....?

 

3.1.2.2. Prevention of falls from a height

 

PPE designed to prevent falls from a height or their effects must incorporate a body harness and an attachment system which can be connected to a reliable anchorage point. It must be designed so that under the foreseeable conditions of use the vertical drop of the user is minimised to prevent collision with obstacles and the braking force does not, however, attain the threshold value at which physical injury or the tearing or rupture of any PPE component which might cause the user to fall can be expected to occur.

<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>

 

- the proper way of putting on the body harness and of connecting the attachment system to the reliable anchorage point.

 

The text, indeed, the document, is generic in format. It says little more than "fit 4 purpose" as far as i can tell so far?

[Bundle 2]

"this is the reson there is a problem with 'approved' splicing, some have stuff cheaked by the factory soem do not and until there is a definative testing protocol this debate will go round and round."

Oh, and if a manufacturer wishes to place PPE in the marketplace complete with CE markings....in the very least they will need to pass what are termed"periodic" assessments of a quality standard ( designed around proposed end use requirements )......

There is no excuse for failing to do this. Im new to this splicing malarky but isnt it in part because of quality issues with factory mass produced splices that moves were made to try and establish a safer level of understanding and production??

[Jamie]

I believe that we are seeing a whole load more stitched eyes on pre cut rope because stitching eyes can be easily assessed, repeated and inspected.

 

A splicer can make mistakes that from the external appearances of the splice are not apparent. I know i could make a splice that looked safe but was badly put together.

 

To me the only way to prove you know what you are doing is to sit a test and the oly way to prove you keep standards high is to destroy splices and keep records.

 

Jamie

[High Scale]

I believe that we are seeing a whole load more stitched eyes on pre cut rope because stitching eyes can be easily assessed, repeated and inspected.

 

A splicer can make mistakes that from the external appearances of the splice are not apparent. I know i could make a splice that looked safe but was badly put together.

 

To me the only way to prove you know what you are doing is to sit a test and the oly way to prove you keep standards high is to destroy splices and keep records.

 

Jamie

 

 

I agree with you Jamie, some people, I believe, are trying to change things.

Edited November 30, 2009 by High Scale

[High Scale]

Also, if you are going to sit a splicing exam, whoever designs the testing criteria and standards must really have the correct experience and knowledge to be able to run such an exam.

[Jamie]

that makes sense. it'd be the same as sitting a CS unit, you'd expect that the folk in charge of drawing up teaching and assessing the unit would know what they're talking about

 

Jamie