UKH

Would of you rope access/work at height folks have a copy of cen/ts 16415 that I can have a look at? It's for an MR thing. Thanks S

More specifically im trying to undertand how under under EN795 and CEN/TS 16415 which deals with stuff we do for rescue loads and anchors of more than 1 person (those bits we have decent undertanding of in respect of our compliance and are in our risk register) and know it is applied to top rope anchors and devices used in climbing like the DMM Stal or Lyon Anchora (presumably as its commercial use in climbing walls?). What I'm trying to understand is how is it dealt with elsewhere in climbing (given its a 2 person load on the anchor). The technical specification states it does not apply to anchors used in sporting and recreational activity so why is it required for the Stal or Anchora and the like or not for a normal top rope anchor? TIA

Do you mean a normal top rope anchor outside or in a climbing wall? 

Thanks ...both really.
My undertanding is ...
A) if its a wall CEN/TS16415 applies  (hence the products being certified to it) and im guessing that is because its work.
B) If its recreational climbing i.e. you or me top roping as part of our climbing hobby it doesnt apply (the technical specification excludes it)
C) I dont know what happens if I take you out as a client and set up a top rope? (which even though arent an employer or contracted its the standard we uphold ourseleves to if we are doing team training).

This is to do with a ridiculous amount of work to complete some compliance stuff on our rope rescue training facility that is clearly safe and gets inspected etc. but will assure the duty of care compliance aspects are fully documented.   

Compliance is a right arse.

From a box ticking point of view a top rope anchor is only protecting 1 person from a fall from height, so it falls under en795. The load applied to it is largely irrelevant, it is how many people it's protecting.

If you were to be on a hanging belay then it becomes more murky, but there's always the get out of jail card of a competent person assesing the anchor to be suitable regardless of certification and 'industry standard' being mumbled when appropriate. After all CEN/TS16415 is a recommendation rather than something more set in stone like en795.

For the difference in standards this is good https://www.satra.com/spotlight/article.php?id=465

Ta
My understanding is that its the stength of the anchor to support more than 1 person that is relevant. So being a 2 person load  (being a top rope) were it to fail (obviously not a reality) then the 'affords all persons the same level of protection as a personal (1 person) anchor system' applies.
Completely agree but trying to undertand the difference between the spec being applied to a Stal or Anchora and how it works in normal outdoor top roping...Ive always used and undertsood the double crab thing as areducing in rope wear thing but it would also be a a way of ticking a box.
My suspicion is that its probably DMM and Lyon applying the spec so they can sell products (even though it isnt a requirement in use)?

One side of this is recreational climbing where we use recognised recreational climbing techniques and methods to safe guard ourselves and like you say as excluded if we are doing it as a hobby. Now when we are teaching recreational climbing, we continue using recreational climbing techniques and methods, in line with common practice. 

You are over thinking the double karabiner thing on a bottom rope. Its mainly there because that is what people have been taught to do, rather than them being taught to make sound decisions. I frequently teach people to use a single karabiner and to recognise when the use of two (or different methods) would be appropriate. 

Now in the context of a climbing wall, where we have both recreational climbing and Working at Height (route setting, inspections, maintenance) going on of the same anchors, then its not a surprise to find the anchors are confirming to the appropriate specifications. 

In terms of your rope rescue training compliance, I'm assuming industrial rope rescue training as part of purposeful working at height? In which case I would expect the facility to conform to the appropriate standards. Comparing recreational climbing and WaH stuff is like comparing Oranges and Pears. 

Those maintenance activities are 1 person load... I can only guess they are put in for companion rescue, in the event a route setter becomes disabled, assuming you can't use ground based planned rescue system. 

I'm not concerned about our compliance on those bits, that's more than covered we have structural anchors. I am trying to understand why cen/ts 16415 for 2 person loads applies in the wall but not outside. As above my guess is for a companion rescue system? 

Yes and no. 2 ways of assessing equipment suitability.

- 1: You make extensive calculations of the expected loads, both static and dynamic, in every foreseeable configuration, apply a safety margin to come up with minimum strengths for each configuration, direction, etc, take into account potential material variations in performance for age, environmental factors and gremlins. Think out every possible missuse scenario, potential design issues, compatibility and interference with other equipment. Then thoroughly test the equipment and look for farther testing data from the manfacturer and independent bodies, eventualy coming to a final 'report' on whether a certain piece of equipment is suitable and the best choice for its specific use.

Also be prepared to present all of it in front of a judge if anything happens and convince the jury you were competent to do so and did all reasonable steps and due dilligence to comply with your duty of care and relevant legislation.

 - 2: Let the manufacturer and standards bodies do all that and simply choose.equipment that has been tested and certified for the use you intend.

As a user you do not need to know the content of the standards and what strength or parameters the equipment has been tested to, given you follow manufacturer guidelines.

Anything happens, you tell the judge you used a piece of equipment that was certified for the use, and complying with the relevant regulations and standards for the protection against falling from heights, and that he should take it with the manufacturer (and/or the installer) if he wants to throw the book at someone.

So with option '1', yes, the strength of the anchor is one of the many variables you have to consider. With option '2', you just chose the standard covering the expected use as defined.

PPE and en795, as defined, apply when protecting a single user. Weight is irrelevant (other than equipment that might have an stated  WLL besides the usual SWL of '1 person'.) The person being protected is the climber. The one on the ground is not getting any protection as there is no risk of a fall from height for the belayer.

It is not a 2 person load. It is a 1 person load, where the forces at the anchor are doubled. When it comes to bureaucracy is all about semantics.

Belay anchors with possible multiple users in mind cannot be certified as PPE or through en795 only. That's when the TS/CEN comes in. If they were not certified to anything that wouldn't bode well for sales as the climbing wall would have to go through 'option 1' above. If they certified them as en795 they would have to write "for single user only" which would limit their use.

In outdoor climbing you are looking at en959 which does not limit the number of users. And 'industry standard' and 'best practice' thankfully holds the most weight with regards its use. (en795 anchors already installed or held in stock when it was introduced were assumed grandfathered in).

If you were to try and apply WAH regulations to the outdoors in a recreational scenario (including guiding, courses, etc) then you are getting in a whole world of pain in for example, ensuring they are/were installed and are periodically tested in compliance with bs7883

Thanks that's a lot of explanation but the bit I was asking about wasnt really any of that (we've got pretty solid  compliance map in our risk register)... it was for an understanding of why a wall would use a cen/ts 16415 device to satisfy 2 person load but outside with the same paid provider you don't adopt cen/ts 16415. Someone has kindly messaged me with the documentation. Thanks

When you say 'outside', is the the same provider placing bolt anchors on a private cliff where they control access and have a duty of care to anyone using them?

Although I'm sure there are a few level 3s and company directors lurking in these parts, another place to ask is ukcaving.com forums. There are a couple of people who lurk there who quite literally wrote the book on this sort of stuff