Petzl sequoia buckle serious failure

[Mark Bolam]

The buckle wouldn't have been there but your main line in your central ring would have been, so nothing much happens.

I know, because I unclipped my Sequoia buckle up a willow this week after reading the original post.

I can see how it could potentially get ugly if you weren't below your mainline though, like blocking a stem for instance.

Thanks for the heads up, be interesting to see what the fault was.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Marc]

Had the buckle undone, which it could easily have done during any movements involved with tree climbing and pruning, and had I sat back expecting support, then it wouldn't have been there.

We're talking about a harness buckle failure, not wether or not I'm following good climbing practice, which a was at the time, hence why I survived.

 

This sort of thing happens a lot more frequently than you imagine. All the major brands have kit which have had do have flaws which could potentially cause serious injury. It is up to us as professionals to be vigilant and make sure our kit is maintained and functioning correctly.

Still thanks for alerting us to a potential problem.

[DrewB]

the amount of time ive started climbing then realised i hadnt done my leg straps up.....

[Mark Bolam]

Spiking 50' up a pine stem and realising I'd forgotten my main line was a bit of a Darwin moment for me.

Groundy with throwline skills saved me spiking back down again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Johny Walker]

Spiking 50' up a pine stem and realising I'd forgotten my main line was a bit of a Darwin moment for me.

Groundy with throwline skills saved me spiking back down again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

did the same many,many yrs ago on a shutdown.can :laugh1:now

[Buzzsurgeon]

Spiking 50' up a pine stem and realising I'd forgotten my main line was a bit of a Darwin moment for me.

Groundy with throwline skills saved me spiking back down again.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

 

I do that frequently !

[explorer arb]

The difference between an EN standard and, for example, the BS (Bristish Standard), so far as I understand it, is that compliance with the EN standard is certified by the manufacturer whereas the BS is tested and certified by an independent laboratory. The highest profile case of the ability of a manufacturer to shortcut/abuse/cheat/lie (choose most applicable) the EN system is the PIP breast implant scandal. The EN clearly stated the standard required, the manufacturer claimed to have met the standard but knowingly and fraudulently used sub-standard components with devastating effect. There's no suggestion this might be the case here with such a respected brand name, it's just offered as an observation that might inform understanding of the difference between EN and BS standards. EN is equivalent to marking your own homework.

 

this is so far from correct its worrying. An EN is a European norm, the bsen is the British standard European norm, they should be considered as the same thing.

 

certain types of ppe (eg gloves) must be produced in compliance with the relevant en but the testing can be done in house and they can self certify the product. Other types of PPE eg harnesses must be interdependently certified as compliant.

 

I think these matters are best left in the hands of professionals and we let petzl do their job. We should concern ourselves with understanding OUR obligations and not those of the manufacturers; in my experience few arbs understand the implications of en's & ce as far as buying and placing equipment into service (which they should) let alone what the implications are for those who wish to bring a product to market.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

this is so far from correct its worrying. An EN is a European norm, the bsen is the British standard European norm, they should be considered as the same thing.

 

 

 

certain types of ppe (eg gloves) must be produced in compliance with the relevant en but the testing can be done in house and they can self certify the product. Other types of PPE eg harnesses must be interdependently certified as compliant.

 

 

 

I think these matters are best left in the hands of professionals and we let petzl do their job. We should concern ourselves with understanding OUR obligations and not those of the manufacturers; in my experience few arbs understand the implications of en's & ce as far as buying and placing equipment into service (which they should) let alone what the implications are for those who wish to bring a product to market.

 

 

I shouldn't worry too much old chap, it'll only prematurely age you. But to reinforce the comment I made above, here is a definitive description of the difference between the British Standard (that which I referred to) and the CE mark:

 

http://www.bsieducation.org/Education/about/what-kitemark.shtml

 

Hope that clears up any confusion you may have? I've no comment to make on the BSEN you have referred to, I'm not familiar with it. Have a look at the link and see if you find enlightenment!

[explorer arb]

in fact you didn't mention ce at all!................ only bs & en. i'll stick to my genuine copy of the PPED, and my genuine copies of every bsen relating to climbing equipment ever written to supply me with enlightenment, thanks all the same. old chap.

 

perhaps you would like to borrow them some time, only a few 1000 pages & pounds worth in total but hey who's counting?

 

british standards have nowt to do with climbing equipment. en's do.

 

also: btggaz petzl are responsible for the sources of their components and furthermore they must even detail the EXACT companies from whom they source their raw aluminium & raw fibers in their technical file which they submitted for the harness to the certifying body when it was tested to the relevant en's & ce certified. if they wanted to switch to a supplier not detailed in the file they would have to apply & pay to have it amended.

[explorer arb]

kite marks on harnesses? perhaps you can enlighten me after all!