Are snap locks unsafe?

[treepanda]

We have just had out ITCC nationals here and a few months ago had our regional climbing comp. The judges were not allowing snap lock connectors on the boys lanyards... their argument was that the ISA ITCC rules state that all connectors must be triple locking... I sent a few emails around the local brains trust because I don't agree, and got a variety of responses.. I am a trainer and I train my climbers that their climbing line should always be their primary attachment point and that a lanyard is always a secondary means of support or to secure a position while cutting or similar..
This of course does not apply when chogging down a spar when a lanyard would be the primary attachment... a steel core flip line...(there is one school of thought that steel core flip lines are dangerous because they encourage cutting close to the rope...I do not understand that logic at all!)

All the height access workers, utility workers, and just about everyone else, use double action snap hooks on their lanyards, why do the ITCC rules discriminate against them?

If they were proven unsafe I would be the first to encourage my students to use triple action karabiners on their lanyards, but I believe they create issues in themselves, difficulty to operate one handed etc, difficulty in maintaining correct alignement along the axis etc.

These rules must have come from somewhere? Does anyone know where or why? Does anyone know of instances where double action snap locks have failed?

Am i just being a close minded grumpy old bugger like I was with helmets, eye protection, chainsaw pants and all the other accoutrements that have been introduced over the years?

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

I always wondered about this. We had a discussion here once about it, and the consensus was that rope snaps were not carabiners, and neither were MR links (screw links, or chain links), which are only single action.
In the US we have ANSI, and as far as I know MR links and and double action rope snaps are acceptable, at least that's how the competition judges and most employers have interpreted it.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

My assumption is that it was the chapters TCC boards interpretation of the ITCC rules.

 

[D Mc]

So does anyone know of any studies showing failures on these double-locking snaps??

I have used them for years and set up my wife's lanyards with them, so definitely want to know if we are just one step ahead of the grim reaper!
:jawdrop:
D Mc

 

[Treetom]

My two pesos worth

I've had double-action, spring-loaded safety snaps fill up with sawdust which impeded the function of the locking part.

 

[booboo]

I've used double action safety snaps for years without a problem. I've found them easier to operate one handed than triple locking biners and last I knew they were ANSI approved.

 

[reachtreeservi]

I'll take a double action safety snap on the end of my landyards and wirecores over a triple locking biner anyday.

 

[tree md]

To be perfectly honest, I hated it when they went to the double action snaps from regular snaps. I use a triple action biner on one end of my flipline and a double action snap hook on the other. I always work with the snap hook end. It's virtually impossible to open a triple action biner with one hand... At least for me it is...

 

[Magnum783]

To be perfectly honest, I hated it when they went to the double action snaps from regular snaps. I use a triple action biner on one end of my flipline and a double action snap hook on the other. I always work with the snap hook end. It's virtually impossible to open a triple action biner with one hand... At least for me it is...

I do the same thing. I have trusted my life to a rope snap long before I climbed trees. We used large man lifts at work (125') and we were putting a panel back on a building on a windy day ( not my idea just a stupid E-7 who thought he knew what he was doing) well long story short while installing the panel a wind gust and out and over the basket I went but to only be caught my lanyard which was attached by a double action rope snap. I will trust them till the day I die; even if it is because of one of them (still trusted them till the day I died)
Jared

 

[ropensaddle]

The only time I have seen a snap locking have a problem
is when climber used his climbline to fall a tree and snapped
it in instead of tying with other end it smashed the locking
part and was retired. I don't know why a climber would use
his climbline for pulling anyway but I did see this so it happened.

 

[Ekka]

TreePanda

You are in New Zealand.

They have their own rules.

A climber fell when he thought he was "clicked" in with a double locking snap ... since then the rules for NZ were no snaps, END OF STORY!

Fact is, sight your gear in EVERY TIME. And the whole industry cops it for anothers mistake.

At ArborCamp here they have their own rules too, they also tried to get everyone off those double lanyard snaps for trilock biners. At their comps and places they can do what they like I suppose.

ANSI says the gates must now take 3600lb (16kn) of load too (also mean the minor axis), many trilock biners wont take that let alone the old snaps. This is new 2007 amendment, many snaps and biners wont take it I assure you.

ANSI rules, there's two!

Z133 for tree guys and Z359 pertains to fall arrest.

As I understand it the biner or snap requires 2 distinct motions for opening, however here in lie the problem with screw gate biners, if you click in and dont screw the gate up then it's one action ... and as it doesn't automatically screw up when you click in then in fact the biner is probably not compliant.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

As I understand it the biner or snap requires 2 distinct motions for opening, however here in lie the problem with screw gate biners, if you click in and dont screw the gate up then it's one action ... and as it doesn't automatically screw up when you click in then in fact the biner is probably not compliant.

That, and their tendency to unscrew if not tightened hard, are why they are listed as unapproved gear.

 

[046]

so what biners will pass new ANSI rules?

ANSI says the gates must now take 3600lb (16kn) of load too (also mean the minor axis), many trilock biners wont take that let alone the old snaps.[/B] This is new 2007 amendment, many snaps and biners wont take it I assure you.

 

[Ekka]

I just confirmed the biners must take the 3600lb gate test from the inside ... as if the rope was against the gate.

And also the biners must be self locking, once snapped closed they require the 2 distinct mechanisms for opening.

Miller make a biner.

http://www.millerfallprotection.com/ansi-z359/compliance/ansi-z359-compliant-products

Start searching, the stuff you most likely climb on now only has a minor axis strength of maybe 7kn to 8kn (has to be 16kn) on a good day!

 

[046]

thanks eka... found this document that explains all...
thanks goodness all my steel self locking biners pass new standards.

but no way any of my aluminum petzel biners pass.

http://www.millerfallprotection.com/pdfs/ANSI-Z359Standard/Understanding ANSI Z359.pdf

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Except that we fight the fall arest designation of out gear, it is body positioning. If it were fall arrest, we would need a dorsal connection on a second line.

 

[Mitchell]

clicking

If they were proven unsafe I would be the first to encourage my students to use triple action karabiners on their lanyards, but I believe they create issues in themselves, difficulty to operate one handed etc, difficulty in maintaining correct alignement along the axis etc.

As mentioned by others, the only issue I have had with my snap is they work very intuitively. clicking in became something I stopped thinking about with my lanyard. Once I clicked the snap to my hip and assumed the click sound meant it was properly attached. I would have fallen when I leaned back had I not been roped in as well. Needless to say I look every time I make the snap now. I found the triple action beaners are by there nature to difficult to snap into place smoothly and consequently it forces me to pay attention.

 

[treepanda]

Shheshh

Thanks Ekka, just looked at that miller publication... That seems a strange specification, I have just picked up the NZAA representative on the A/NZ standards committee role for 1391 ( Height safety and rope access)and am going over to sydney on Dec 11th and 12th for a meeting so will take it along and see how it correspondes with our standards... Historically, I think we have taken direction from the EU and our codes of practice don't generally recognise ANSI although our industry tends to..

As for the incident with the climber not clipping his snap lock corrctly, that is operator error and overhead backwards super duper quadruple locking snap lock is still going to let go if the half wit relying on it doesn't attach it properly..

 

[Ekka]

As for the incident with the climber not clipping his snap lock corrctly, that is operator error and overhead backwards super duper quadruple locking snap lock is still going to let go if the half wit relying on it doesn't attach it properly..

I agree however that NZ climber is still climbing trees and extremely well, is a strong contender in climbing comps ... mistakes can and do happen. Everyones trying to eliminate the possibility of them, but I like my snaps for my lanyard too.

 

[OLD CHIPMONK]

Eric; as a most senior operator, I agree that double-lock snaps are safe unless they become damaged or bent ! I have always advocated checking your equipment before & during each use. Take nothing for granted when it comes to ones' own safety & health.