Calling all Camp Gyro users

[Paddy1000111]

Just now, Stubby said:

Like passed in parliament and shit ?

I'm not 100% sure on how the ins and outs of the law system works but from what I know- The Health and Safety at work act 1974 made it a legal requirement for an employee to follow the legislation laid out in the act. An act is an act of parliament. If you do not follow the rulings of the act it is a criminal offence.

 

Part of that act is statutory instruments (regulations) which form part of the law, the Work At Height Regulations 2005 are part of that. As they are rolled into the act above it is also a criminal offence to break those rules too. 

 

 Below that are ACOP's or Approved Codes Of Practice which are psudolaw effectively. They are re-written versions of the Act and its regulations which are easier to read than sections and subsections.

 

Then there is Guidance which isn't part of the law. That Is given by HSE as a "Best Practice" and isn't punishable in any way. 

 

Here's some references if anyone thinks I am completely off I would love to know: 

 

Health and safety at work: criminal and civil law - Health and safety law (criminal law) - HSE

WWW.HSE.GOV.UK

---

The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is the main legislation covering occupational health and safety in Great Britain.

 

The Work at Height Regulations 2005

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

---

 

 

[mikedrums69]

**************** me! This threads a decent advert as to why arbtalk was, is and always will be filled with complete assholes

[Paddy1000111]

2 minutes ago, mikedrums69 said:

**************** me! This threads a decent advert as to why arbtalk was, is and always will be filled with complete assholes

Going to back to where we were on page 4 😂 What DMM grommets are you using on yours? 

[mikedrums69]

There widely available. Just search for them

[skyhuck]

On 03/02/2021 at 19:35, Paddy1000111 said:

Going to back to where we were on page 4 😂 What DMM grommets are you using on yours? 

 

[Steve Bullman]

On 03/02/2021 at 19:32, mikedrums69 said:

**************** me! This threads a decent advert as to why the earth was, is and always will be filled with complete assholes

Fixed that for you

[mikedrums69]

So here’s a solution to you woes. Just insert a dmm compact shackle. Increases the bend radius and if you wanna, thread another bridge to it. 
personally I don’t see a reason for camp to do anything. The gyro has many other possibilities/uses other than our bridges 

[krummholz]

I was under the impression that it wasn't kosher to run 2 rope systems through a single attachment point to the harness (such as a Gyro) and had started to write a justification for using it, but going back to the ICOP and draft Technical Guide 1 I can't actually find anything stating that you can't do that...In fact I found the opposite - In the draft technical guide 6.6.1 b) states       "The same point on the harness may be used to connect the primary and backup systems".

 

Has this changed? Or where am I getting the 2 seperate connections to harness thing from?😵

 

 

[JAG63]

My understanding of the published Tech Guide 1 is it's the connection to the bridge that's the difference, independent connections are OK whilst single connections are not. So two anchors to a zigzag connected to the bridge by a crab is non compliant whilst a swivel directly on the bridge (becoming part of it like a ring would) with two anchors attached is compliant. Presumably a swivel attached to the bridge by a crab and then to two anchors would be non compliant whilst a zigzag directly on the bridge and then to two anchors would be compliant. 

Sect 6 page 32

Sect 14 page 88

[Paddy1000111]

I think it's fine as long as it's a closed system. A gyro threaded into the bridge is a closed system, same as a ring. A carabiner would be an open system so you can connect two anchors to one ring but not two anchors via one carab to a ring