Splicing - Does it need to be certified?

[Peter]

I dont see there is any difference between splicing 3 strand and any other rope. It is still your life that depends on it.

 

Any serious accident or fatality would be recorded under RIDDOR, if an accident occurs which results in hospital treatment it will be reported. The very fact that the anti hand splicing lobby isnt trumpeting about accident statistics suggests to me that there arent any.

 

The Yale factory splice may be different, but that doesnt make it any safer. A properly made hand splice results in very little strength loss, as you said in your first post.

 

Splicing instructions generally come from companies in the USA, who arent bound by CE regs. Again, not aware of instances of splices failing over there.

 

I for one am for eductation about splicing, everyone who uses them should at least understand how they work, instead of shrouding the process in a cloak of mystery. Its not rocket science, and you dont need a 5 tonne machine, just some common sense and a fairly simple set of skills.

[Will Ayers]

id much rather have a splice that was built completely by hand than one which had already undergone 5 ton of pressure, im happy in the knowledge that no part of my climbing system has ever been subject to such strain. the end result is exactly the same, i assume this mechanical process only shortens the time and effort it takes to finish a splice, it definitely doesnt make it any stronger IMO.

 

nick i think you are right there shoult be a distinctive qualification in splicing, just like the cs units. would that stop people from doing it unqualified, no. but it would set a standard and it would promote the knowledge and understanding of how important it is to have splice constructed by a competant splicer.

 

i'd be angry if a LOLER guy cut off all of my splices, but im lucky as he actually did one of them himself.

 

great thread, hopefully it'll promote splicing safely rather than ban it so that bad splicers can do it on the sly for mates.

[Peter]

I know for a fact that Yale facotry splices are 80 - 90% hand done and finished using a machine that draws in the splice by a machine that excerts about 5 tonne of pressure can this be doen by hand? So is a hand splice or a factory prepared CE marked splice safer to climb on? Mmmmmm let me think about that one.

 

 

Just to be clear, are you saying that a Yale factory splice is definately stronger than the equivalent hand splice?

[ArbjobsNick]

Just to be clear, are you saying that a Yale factory splice is definately stronger than the equivalent hand splice?

 

Glad you all agree that we need some form of certification for folk wanting to splice their own kit this would be a good move forward in splicing safety.

 

Re Yale splices as I said before they are 80 - 90% done by hand anyway the rope in pulled back in (Buried) to itself with a machine that can excerpt up to 5 tonnes of pressure you cant do this by hand and it isnt pre loading the rope as you suggest it is pulling the rope back in to itself a task that any hand splicer finds hard to do to a consistant level. My understanding is that the European CE hand splicers are also using a machine to finish thier rope too ensuring a consistant bury.

 

If you want a story about hand splices coming undone maybe you should talk to Puk in Holland who I understand is a European CE approved hand splicer and has personally witnessed a splice coming undone.

 

Is a UK hand splice stronger than a Yale factory one? I don't know as nobody in the UK as far as I am aware has as yet put their splices through the same testing proceedures that are required to pass CE. Maybe we should buy some UK hand splices and test them to compare the results.

 

If its OK to make up your own rope splices without testing them then surely it must be OK to make your own Harness, Karibiners or chainsaw trousers or would that not be acceptable ?

 

Some people need to decide were they stand on UK safety they are either pro safety or not. You cannot change your mind depending on the product or who your mates are. It's simple it either undergoes the correct industrial EN CE testing for its use as a safety line ie EN1891 A or B or it isn't. Black and White.

[ArbjobsNick]

Some other bits from AFAG readers might want to consider:

 

20 All new climbing equipment should be sold with evidence of conformity with the relevant BS EN standard, and carry a relevant CE mark. No structural alterations should be made to any item.[/b]

 

39 The climbing system used must brake reliably and support the climber.

 

42 Splices should be made by someone competent to splice, eg the manufacturer. Competence should be demonstrable for each rope type.

 

So in short you should be buying CE marked and tested kit, kit should show evidence of its conformity ie a CE / EN number showing it has been tested to the right standard, the climbing system should be reliable (consistant annual CE tests ensure reliability).

 

Finally they should be put together by someone competent which I am sure we have here in the UK so we just need them to sort out the CE testing and marking bit and everyone is happy and safe.

[Ray]

Some other bits from AFAG readers might want to consider:

 

20 All new climbing equipment should be sold with evidence of conformity with the relevant BS EN standard, and carry a relevant CE mark. No structural alterations should be made to any item.[/b]

 

39 The climbing system used must brake reliably and support the climber.

 

42 Splices should be made by someone competent to splice, eg the manufacturer. Competence should be demonstrable for each rope type.

 

So in short you should be buying CE marked and tested kit, kit should show evidence of its conformity ie a CE / EN number showing it has been tested to the right standard, the climbing system should be reliable (consistant annual CE tests ensure reliability).

 

Finally they should be put together by someone competent which I am sure we have here in the UK so we just need them to sort out the CE testing and marking bit and everyone is happy and safe.

not quite splicing but looking at point 20, does that mean you should't cut the end off your rope if it gets damaged? especially if is the end with the ce mark on it.

[High Scale]

Odd, I went on a course with Puk and I recall him saying he has never heard of a splice failing.

Edited August 1, 2010 by High Scale
punc

[Peter]

not quite splicing but looking at point 20, does that mean you should't cut the end off your rope if it gets damaged? especially if is the end with the ce mark on it.

 

No, because by shortening the rope you dont affect its construction.

 

The CE certification is available seperately, you should have a paper copy in your LOLER folder, as long as the rope is marked and referenced to that CE cert, then it doesnt really matter if the original label is there or not.

[jarnii]

i would like to make a point slightly derailing a bit but in the same vein. we are discussing wether the splices should be used with out a ce but i see this as a bit of a silly arguement when there are only two rated climbing systems i know off. one being the art systems lj/sj and the ce climb from treemagineers. the only one i would see as fully ce'd is the tm ce climb because it is all set up and ready to go so i personally see the whole arguement of splices invalid unless your rope splice system has all been tested as one and has a package ce. if you divert from these systems then you are mearly just adding a karabiner some hitch cord and a pulley and some other bits that are not rated for compatability so why does afag not state this.

 

i dont think splices should just get the negative attention i think it should be the whole industry and if afag doesnt say this then i just dont pay attention to afag. i also remember it being a guide.

[Peter]

20 All new climbing equipment should be sold with evidence of conformity with the relevant BS EN standard, and carry a relevant CE mark. No structural alterations should be made to any item.[/b]

 

 

42 Splices should be made by someone competent to splice, eg the manufacturer. Competence should be demonstrable for each rope type.

 

 

I think there are two seperate issues here, firstly supplying a splice to a third party, whether it is for financial reward or not, secondly splicing your own equipment.

 

The CE process is relevant to the first, but not the second.

 

With regard to AFAG 401 point 42, "someone competent" is not specifically restricted to the manufacturer. If I can demonstrate competence then I should be able to splice my own rope. Of course, CE certification would demonstrate this, but no other skill demands that level of qualification in everyday use.

 

For instance, the TM comes with double fishermans knots on the bridge. They are part of the CE certification for manufacture and supply of the harness. When its time to replace the bridge, the end user can buy a new bridge and make the knots themself. The new knot isnt CE certified, but it's just as strong as the original. What qualifies the end user to tie that double fishermans?

 

The missing link here is a recognised splicing qualification, but what is to stop an individual from building a portfolio of splices, having them break tested, and recording the results to demonstrate competence? Sure, you still cant sell them, but what is there to prevent the individual using those splices? The only way we will ever find out is for a case to go to court, and who is ever going to take themselves to court for incompetant splicing?