Ropewrench PPE?

[Pedroski]

Regardless of the maker's warning 'Not for primary life support' explain how the Ropewrench would not fall into this category -

 

3. Any system placed on the market in conjunction with PPE for its connection to another external, additional device shall be regarded as an integral part of that equipment even if the system is not intended to be worn or held permanently by the user for the entire period of risk exposure.

 

Try reading this a bit more carefully.... "Any system placed on the market in conjunction with PPE for its connection....".

 

This is where the problem is... if a dealer puts the RW on the market as a "set" with the rope for the hitch cord (the PPE part), then they are indeed placing on the market a "system", and if that "system" is to be used for PPE then the RW would have to be rated for PPE as part of that system. As the RW is not rated, then the whole system sold by the dealer cannot be considered as PPE. If I were a dealer, I would NOT sell the RW and hitch cord together as a system. As an employer, I wouldn't supply a RW and hitch cord together as a system. If I were a LOLER inspector, I wouldn't pass a RW with attached hitch as PPE.

 

This is all similar to what was done with the Hitchclimber.... the whole lot was put together as a system and was put through for proper rating as a system for PPE.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Pedroski

[scotspine1]

Don't worry Tim, found it.

 

directive 89/686/EEC on Personal Protective Equipment

 

3.4

 

Equipment for climbing, rock climbing, speleology etc. (ice-axes, hammers, descenders not fitted with a built-in speed-regulating system, rope-climbing equipment, etc.)

 

Category 0 (ie not PPE)

 

The Ropewrench is not just an descender though is it. As a Loler examiner my initial post was to find out if the Ropewrench would fall under Loler regs.

 

I dont have a problem with the device, I like the idea of it.

 

But on balance and regardless of the EU legislation it seems it should be examined as part of a Loler test as it could easily be argued it's more than just a climbing aid.

 

Just out of interest - why would the industry not want this device to be CE tested? Why shouldn't we test the robustness of a new device or system? surely we owe it to ourselves to do this?

[Peter]

An item doesn't have to be CE marked to be included in loler.

 

As long as it is fit for purpose.

 

What else does the RW do other than act as a descender? It doesn't have any function during ascent.

[kevin bingham]

This is a tricky issue because in all the tests we have done, what we end up testing is the hitch. I hesitate marking a breaking strength on it because that would imply its life support. No you cannot tie a looser hitch than normal because of the wrench. Im not sure how it works over there, do your hitches need to be ce certified?

[scotspine1]

Hi Kevin,

 

from your point of view was the Ropewrench purely designed as a descending device? like a figure 8? cause as Peter says this may help with what constitutes PPE and the European Directive side of things.

 

As Peter and myself have pointed out the Directive can imply the Ropewrench is in fact PPE and not PPE.

 

Just out of interest would you like it CE marked as part of a climbing system?

[Paul Smith]

An item doesn't have to be CE marked to be included in loler.

 

As long as it is fit for purpose.

 

What else does the RW do other than act as a descender? It doesn't have any function during ascent.

 

Well said Peter!

 

So as a LOLER inspector do you also inspect a pantin?

[kevin bingham]

Its a little different than an eight because once you put an eight on the line it is on the line and ready for work. A rope Wrench has a neutral gear which means that it does nothing for you. Also, an eight is designed to work independently. THe wrench should never be used by itself. I would like to do whatever it takes to make people in europe happy, although I dont like the idea of selling it as a kit because there are so many variables. My instinct would be to allow the climbers to work with what sork best for them. I like beeline and poisong ivy but that with a 4:2 VT. Sometimes I change it up though. Remember that I climbed on a wooden wrench for quite some time. I have no problem if my rope wrench spontaneously combusts.

[kevin bingham]

On big fall events, what we are finding is that the hitch can actually fuse to the line so getting down maybe a real task.

[Peter]

No reason to not include pantin and spikes etc on your daily, weekly and 6 monthly inspections.

[scotspine1]

I dont like the idea of selling it as a kit because there are so many variables.

 

Kevin,

 

re CE marking - didn't mean selling as a kit, just tested with a friction hitch and micropulley/hitchclimber as you would use it on a single line.

 

My instinct would be to allow the climbers to work with what sork best for them. I like beeline and poisong ivy but that with a 4:2 VT. Sometimes I change it up though. Remember that I climbed on a wooden wrench for quite some time. I have no problem if my rope wrench spontaneously combusts.

 

What Peter quoted probably cover things from an EU directive point of view?

 

directive 89/686/EEC on Personal Protective Equipment

 

3.4

 

Equipment for climbing, rock climbing, speleology etc. (ice-axes, hammers, descenders not fitted with a built-in speed-regulating system, rope-climbing equipment, etc.)

 

Category 0 (ie not PPE)