Old style safety chains

[greenalien]

I have never known a safety chain to break, but I have twice had wire bonds fail, where a sudden shock load (don't ask!) has pulled the cable out of the ferrule.

 

Chains have the advantage that the links can stretch a little with a shock load; cables can't do this and the ferrule is the weak point. Having said that, I use both, whichever comes to hand - but I make sure that as much slack as possible is taken up during rigging, so that any potential shock load is minimised.

[jonathanhill]

I have never known a safety chain to break, but I have twice had wire bonds fail, where a sudden shock load (don't ask!) has pulled the cable out of the ferrule.

 

Were the bonds home-made or were they stock bought ones from a reputable company. And were they correctly rated for the lantern that they were providing secondary suspension?

 

Chains have the advantage that the links can stretch a little with a shock load; cables can't do this and the ferrule is the weak point. Having said that, I use both, whichever comes to hand - but I make sure that as much slack as possible is taken up during rigging, so that any potential shock load is minimised.

 

Very important on heavy loads such as FoH trusses. I use a shortening clutch wherever possible at the top of the truss safety to take out as much slack as I can.

[greenalien]

The bonds that failed were stock bought from a well-known high street electronics retailer and were supposedly rated adequately; however, there's clearly a big difference between static and dynamic load capacity. Frankly, I reckon a lot of bonding wires are run off in a third world factory, and goodness only knows exactly how strong they are or what levels of quality control are employed. It's not as if each one comes with a proof certificate, you have to take the suppliers rating on trust - and I don't really trust swaged joints , especially on thin cable.

[jonathanhill]

I only buy from Rope Assemblies and I have never had a problem with their products, either with quality or customer service. You may be right about the provenance of safety bonds from certain high street stores. A CE mark will show that they have attained conformity to EU standards and is essential for any rigging tackle.

[Brian]

A CE mark will show that they have attained conformity to EU standards and is essential for any rigging tackle.

 

ROTFLOL

 

Thanks, haven't laughed that much in ages.

 

Be under no illusions, a CE mark means absolutely nothing. It's a self-declaration by the manufacturer in the case of EU made goods, or the importer in the case of goods from elsewhere. Those of us who've dealt with CE marking professionally reckon it stands for 'Chinese Export'! Since it's illegal to sell goods without a CE mark you'll be hard pushed to find anything that doesn't have one.

 

Anyone want to buy a roll of CE stickers?

[Chappie]

However, no British Standard is a legal document and failure to conform to them does not make anything illegal.

Indeed, but I'm not going to try that one in court! <_<

 

With regard to the original post (and whilst we're quoting "regs") as I understand it STAC (and other long link) chain does not comply with BS EN 818-2 and is therefore not suitable for lifting or suspension.

 

Be under no illusions, a CE mark means absolutely nothing.

That may well be the case in many situations, but to quote one of the countries foremost experts on rigging:

 

"The supply of non-CE marked products for use at work in Europe is in theory illegal where there is a "Directive" that relates to the product. Lifting accessories come under the Machinery Directive and therefore must be CE marked. A non-CE marked product should therefore not be provided for use by an employer even though it is available. (Reg 10 of PUWER)"

[Brian]

...but to quote one of the countries foremost experts on rigging: ...

A slight misquote of the actual regulation but the end result is the same. The breach of law first takes place when the non-CE marked item is sold in the EU.

 

An interesting bit of the ACoP for PUWER reads...

 

It is a common feature of these Directives that compliance is claimed by the manufacturer affixing a mark - 'CE Marking' - to the equipment.

(my bold)

 

...which kind of illustrates my point. A CE mark is nothing more than a claim that something meets a standard. It is not proof that the item has even been tested to see that it does. Were it anything more then you'd not be able to buy rolls of CE stickers from your local electronics outlet.

[Chappie]

A CE mark is nothing more than a claim that something meets a standard. It is not proof that the item has even been tested to see that it does.

Quite right. The overall point I was trying to make was that if someone has a piece of rigging that is made of a product (ie chain) that doesn't comply with current lifting regulations and therefore cannot be CE marked due to the lack of said compliance, then I really don't think it should be used, irrespective of the specifics regarding its ability to do the job.

 

I suppose if it was incorrectly CE marked by the manufacturer, even though it didn't comply, then some legal recourse could default onto them. However, users of rigging should be aware of the regulations and in this case, the chain doesn't comply with the regs for a reason and therefore shouldn't be used.

[Seano]

With regard to the original post (and whilst we're quoting "regs") as I understand it STAC (and other long link) chain does not comply with BS EN 818-2 and is therefore not suitable for lifting or suspension.

 

Hm.. why do I get the feeling you're quoting from a well known supplier of clutch chains here?

 

This has been done, a lot, in other threads. But at risk of derailing this one:

EN818 is the standard for short-link chain slings; of course STAC doesn't comply - its a long link chain used for constructing and adjusting bridles (and never used for slinging by anyone remotely competent). It also doesn't comply to the standards for boots, hammers or lightbulbs because it is not a boot, a hammer or a lightbulb.

 

Quite right. The overall point I was trying to make was that if someone has a piece of rigging that is made of a product (ie chain) that doesn't comply with current lifting regulations and therefore cannot be CE marked due to the lack of said compliance, then I really don't think it should be used, irrespective of the specifics regarding its ability to do the job.

 

Your "doesn't comply" above is a bit of a moot point:

The problem with the Machinery Directive is that it was pretty obviously originally drafted without any regard to our (somewhat niche) industry - it's written with industrial lifting, specifically cranes, in mind. The reason the directive says that chain slings used as lifting accessories must be of short-link construction is that industrial chain slings are used to sling things (ie: they're frequently wrapped around stuff in a way that would be very bad for a long-link chain).

 

That "used as lifting accessories" is the giveaway. Go to the definitions right at the start of the Machinery Directive and it defines lifting accessories as those extra bits and bobs used to make the connection between the lifting machine and the load. Perfectly sensible for cranes, not so sensible for us - in the context of truss and motors, the truss is the load, the motor is the 'lifting machine' and the spansets, shackles, whatever used to sling the truss itself are lifting accessories.

 

The Machinery Directive has nothing to say about the slings, steel ropes, shackles and chains used above the motor, because they are not lifting accessories according to its own definition.

Except obviously they are - according to common sense, just as STAC chain is obviously perfectly fine - according to common sense.

No one, least of all the aforementioned foremost rigging expert, has argued that there is anything wrong with STAC per se - like most (all) experienced riggers he thinks it does what it does brilliantly.

 

As has been said already - it is not a legal requirement for a product to comply with any EN standard, but you'd better have a very good reason not to do so.

In the case of STAC, it has been used extensively around the world (including Europe) for many years and has an exemplary safety record. It would clearly meet or exceed the requirements of any reasonable standard for long-link bridle adjusting chain - but no such standard exists.

I'm not a lawyer or the 'foremost expert' in my field, but that looks like a fairly compelling reason to me.

[Chappie]

Hm.. why do I get the feeling you're quoting from a well known supplier of clutch chains here?

I wasn't, if that helps.

 

In the case of STAC, it has been used extensively around the world (including Europe) for many years and has an exemplary safety record.

I never said it didn't. My point boils down to the fact that, as you have stated, there is no dispensation for our industry from the current guidelines. Like you, I'm not an expert either, but the rigging courses that myself and many of my colleagues have been involved in over the years all say the same thing with regard to these chains and I wouldn't ever want to be involved in any sort of test case that may or may not prove or disprove any of the arguments here.

 

Anybody here can do whatever they see fit in their particular situation, but if I have the choice of a steel or a long-link chain, I know which I am not going to choose.

[ianl]

That "used as lifting accessories" is the giveaway. Go to the definitions right at the start of the Machinery Directive and it defines lifting accessories as those extra bits and bobs used to make the connection between the lifting machine and the load. Perfectly sensible for cranes, not so sensible for us - in the context of truss and motors, the truss is the load, the motor is the 'lifting machine' and the spansets, shackles, whatever used to sling the truss itself are lifting accessories.

 

The Machinery Directive has nothing to say about the slings, steel ropes, shackles and chains used above the motor, because they are not lifting accessories according to its own definition.

 

 

so from the above and heading back on topic:

 

a "safety chain" (as in a secondary safety used where a static light is hung from a static lighting bar) is not a lifting accesory and therefore could be made of long link chain, surely the problem wold be proving that the chain had a suitable swl (something that is equaly dificult with wires manafactured before labling of swl on safetey wires became common)

 

interestingly the only failures of secondary safetys I have seen have been either undersized safety wires or due to the hook at the end of the safety bending open. therefore I tend to try to use safeties withscrew gate hooks

 

going back off topic again,

in a recent install I had done the company used long link chain to suspend static loads from beam clamps.

when I queried this they produced paperwork showing that the chain had been supplied by a well know rigging equipment supplier certified as fit for this purpose.

on checking this with a well known rigging company they stated that (due to recent legeslation changes??) it was now ok to use chain for static suspension where no lifting was occuring

[smalljoshua]

In all of this, people seem to be forgetting that there is no requirement to have a secondary suspension on lanterns*.

 

Josh

 

*from a post in a 2006 thread on the same subject I cant find ATM

[ianl]

In all of this, people seem to be forgetting that there is no requirement to have a secondary suspension on lanterns*.

 

Josh

 

*from a post in a 2006 thread on the same subject I cant find ATM

 

hmmmm, there's a document in my office which I'll look out tommorow, fairly sure its a british standard on stage lighting or something like that, it says there is a requirement for secondary safeties on lanterns unless permanently installed

[Seano]

My point boils down to the fact that, as you have stated, there is no dispensation for our industry from the current guidelines.

 

Perhaps you should re-read my post, I didn't say any such thing. Besides, like the Pirate Code, guidelines aren't the same as rules; they're more, well, guidelines.

 

My point is this: the argument that STAC is 'illegal' comes from reading a certain part of the Machinery Directive - yet if you read the whole document in the same pedantic spirit it becomes clear that the Machinery Directive does not necessarily apply to STAC (or indeed to many other lifting accessories) as they are customarily used in the entertainment industry. (ie: Above the 'lifting machine' and not between the lifting machine and the load.)

 

I'm not suggesting that we are in some way exempt from the Machinery Directive, what I'm pointing out that it is the wording of the Directive itself that suggests it doesn't apply to adjusting chains used to construct rigging points.

 

Like you, I'm not an expert either...

Again, that isn't quite what I said.

Besides, expertise in rigging is irrelevant - from a practical rigging point of view STAC is an excellent product. Even those riggers (and teachers of basic rigging courses) who argue that you shouldn't use it don't dispute that. What we're actually talking about here is a niggly point of EU law.

 

but if I have the choice of a steel or a long-link chain, I know which I am not going to choose.

Eh? Under what circumstances would you choose between a steel wire rope and a STAC chain? They serve distinctly different purposes.

 

You are aware that the primary use of STAC is to construct and adjust bridles aren't you? If there is a realistic alternative to STAC, its a short-link chain with a shortening clutch. Clutch chain has its place, and in some circumstances can be extremely useful, but there is a reason (which is even further off-topic) that STAC is the bridle adjustment of choice in the overwhelming majority of cases, especially in touring live music and large events, both in Europe and world-wide.

 

so from the above and heading back on topic:

 

a "safety chain" (as in a secondary safety used where a static light is hung from a static lighting bar) is not a lifting accesory and therefore could be made of long link chain... <some snippage> ...

interestingly the only failures of secondary safetys I have seen have been either undersized safety wires or due to the hook at the end of the safety bending open. ...

 

Oh, do lets go back on topic. ;)

Er.. then again, maybe not just yet...

 

Just because something falls outside of the definition of 'lifting accessory' used in the Machinery Directive doesn't mean it isn't one as far as other regulations are concerned. While STAC chains (and other components of rigging points) arguably fall outside the Machinery Directive's definition of 'lifting accessory' most of the time, they clearly are lifting accessories as far as LOLER is concerned. LOLER has no problem with long-link chain, so thats ok. They need to be adequately strong and stable, marked with SWL, regularly examined etc.. just the same as all the other lifting kit.

 

LOLER also says that, like any other lifting equipment, they need to be used safely.

Now, the Machinery Directive says what it does about long-link chains for a reason: long link chains should never be used for slinging (as they would be, if they were supplied as a set of chain slings for use with a crane).

If you were to use a STAC chain to sling something, for example to wrap around a beam in the roof to make a basket hitch, it doesn't really matter whether the Machinery Directive applies or not because you would clearly be violating LOLER in failing to use the chain 'safely'. (ie: By failing to plan, organise and perform the work as a competent person.)

 

Ok, now to get back on topic... :D

Actually, I just jumped on the STAC thing. But for what its worth, here's my twopennyworth on safety bonds..

 

The problem with using a long-link chain to wrap around things is that its possible for an individual link to be bent sideways over a sharp corner. (ie: one with a radius of curvature that's relatively small compared with the length of the links of the chain.) Clearly there are corners on the yoke of most lanterns that could seriously stress an individual link of an old style safety chain. Sharp corners are also bad news for steel wire ropes, by the way. With rigging points you protect against sharp corners by padding beams and/or steel ropes with burlap, pvc, etc. With a safety bond the only real protection available is to make the steel significantly stronger than it might otherwise need to be.

 

The other problem with safety bonds isn't so much proving what their SWL is - its deciding what their SWL needs to be. That's because there is necessarily always going to be a little bit of slack - which means arresting a fall by applying a force which will inevitably be several times the weight of the falling object.

But working out exactly how many times is complicated - because it depends how far the object has fallen, and also how much 'give' is in the system (stretch in the saftey bond, movement in the bar, deformation of the lantern yoke, etc..) as its fall is arrested.

 

Obviously the safety bonds you've seen fail weren't strong enough. It all comes down to risk assessment, inevitably, but when buying new bonds I'd say its best to let the manufacturer worry about all that by buying one that they say is good enough for a lantern of 'x' weight (eg: clicky) - and bearing in mind that you should minimise the amount of slack as far as practical.

[Chappie]

You are aware that the primary use of STAC is to construct and adjust bridles aren't you? If there is a realistic alternative to STAC, its a short-link chain with a shortening clutch.

Yes I am aware of that and we use clutch chains as well, but the original question was regarding the use of chain as a safety, not for bridle construction. It is for this purpose I stated I would use steel over chain.