Age of climbing gear

[jamesd]

Thanks for the post loler uk, very interesting info.

 

would you mind expanding a bit more on this please:

 

"Certain components may more be susceptible to age related wear/ defects etc than others, some may be susceptible to developing age related defects that will not present themselves as visible, these are the only items that i find service life & age to be a significant factor in its-self."

 

and what items do you feel are more susceptible to age?

[Loler UK]

So, more specifically an age related defect which may not present it's self as visible is that when a steel-core flip-line's core cycles to failure close to/ between crimps, the visible condition of the sheath does not reliably offer an indication of how often it has been used as if only ever used in dry, clean conditions then even a flip-line that has been cycled many, many times over the only indication that this could be the case is its date of manufacturer and/or purchase. Furthermore there is little/ no visible indicator of how corroded the core may be beneath the sheath.

 

Most synthetic fibres degrade in sunlight, the worst offenders are aramid fibres which are often used in their neutral beige colour which offers little clue by fading unlike (for instance) red dyed polyester or nylon fibres, again other than age and the users account of the items use & storage there may be little to visibly determine the items deteriorating condition.

 

The users account of usage and storage can prove very useful but such accounts may not always be considered the most reliable; this is why my clients that keep some equipment in security sealed bags have me produce & allocate the security tags so that the chance of bags being covertly re-sealed is significantly reduced

[Craig Johnson]

amazing kudos to those who know more than the manufactures of harness and rope.

 

loler's 5 year rule is the default when your too lazy to check what the manufacture says as it could be as short as 6 months

[Loler UK]

No reasonable loler examiner, expert rigger, design engineer or sales rep from any reputable company would claim that their knowledge and understanding of PFP equipment and its degradation isn't ever expanding and evolving new research is being carried out all of the time and much of it in-house, confidential and un-published, knowing what i do of numerous manufacturers they may often be researching the same things, at the same time duplicating research but such is a capitalist system.

 

If an examiner steps outside the manufacturers recommendations then he/ she certainly has lost one ally if it came to defending their decision, allot of weight is indeed transferred on to their shoulders. This should not be done lightly.

 

Unless I've missed something in my reading, the LOLER regs do not offer any suggestion of a default number of years, in fact there are manufacturers that suggest shelf & service life's that exceed 5 years so id be very interested to hear where this "5 year rule" that Craig describes as "default" comes from?

 

I know that for the purpose of the Basic NPTC and when training people to initially become examiners it's best for them to stick well within the manufacturers recommendations detailed in the instructions etc but i've had dialogue with nearly all of the major manufacturers of our equipment across the globe and they've unanimously agreed that in certain circumstances (for example my scenario above) there is no reason that equipment couldn't have a 'service'/ shelf life that exceeds their initial recommendations but anyone making these decisions should do so only on evidence based reasoning.

 

It is only from reviewing/ carrying out evidenced based research and having had dialogue with experts in the production industry that in CERTAIN circumstances i may make the decision to recommend/ allow equipment to remain in service longer than a manufacturer recommends. I treat every one of my decisions on a case by case basis, equipment in security sealed, uv proof, rodent proof dry containers that's never/ seldom been used that is in an exceptional serviceable condition may well be in service past the recommendation that's found in the user instructions.

[Will C]

Having had to claim on my pl insurance once from tree work, also as a loler examiner I wouldn't consider having any one on site with out having there gear tested, if my gear wasn't tested when I needed my insurance I would be out of business now.

 

Also as a examiner I may go outside of the guidelines given by the manufacturer of equipment with regards to service life in some instances, but you need to remember that the day someone gets hurt I have to be able to stand in court and justify my decision. So you need to give the examiner the space to pass or fail a piece of kit as they see fit as it could be there house/business/reputation on the line.

 

Just stop and think you wouldn't go to work with out your pl and employers libality insurance so why make it invalid by not getting you gear tested, it's not expensive in the grand scheme of things!