# Ringling Bros. Accident



## ruinexplorer

SEE IT: Ringling Bros. Circus performers crash to ground during aerial act - NY Daily News

Scary Video: Acrobats Injured When Ringling Bros. Circus Act Falls - NBC News


----------



## porkchop

Really ugly accident. Good to hear that everyone is at least conscious and in a non-life threatening condition. Could have been much worse.


----------



## ruinexplorer

Agreed. I hope that the accident was not career ending for any of the performers.


----------



## LavaASU

ruinexplorer said:


> Agreed. I hope that the accident was not career ending for any of the performers.



Wow. Yeah that scary. Hope they all end up being okay. Thats got to be tough for that show.


----------



## JD

Seen some bad accidents in my years, and we all know of worse, but that was particularly hard to watch. I am amazed they all lived, and my prayers are with them.


----------



## Footer

That video is pretty much the worst case of "what I never want to see happen". Hope they all recover fully. Its the blue tour for those who care. One of my friends is on that show and he is rather broken up about it, they are a rather tight family.


----------



## What Rigger?

I'm not watching any of these videos. 
Why would you? 
There's never been anything to be learned. We all know gravity is a constant. 
It's yellow journalism at best- sensationalism used to generate web hits and thus advertising dollars for the news companies who don't fact check and have no knowledge of rigging or aerial work whatsoever. 

Just my admittedly bitter 2 cents.


----------



## danTt

I'm curious how liability plays out in such situations. Something clearly was not done right at some point along the line--whether it was in the design phase, implementation phases, or maintence phase is unknown, but I'm still curious to know how responsibility for such things ends up delegated.

In many touring situations, the road crew is a second set of eyes on the locals work, supervising as it happens. In my experience this is a little less removed in rigging. You don't see the road rigger harness up and check all of the points from above, and you don't see the road rigger watching to make sure every point goes up properly either. 99% of the time it's fine, the local riggers are great. But if something happens (and I'm not trying to say this is the blame of providence local at all.. this is more hypothetical) is it the road guys fault for not checking everything? Does a local rigger on a touring show have liability if something goes wrong? Does a road rigger have liability?


----------



## Footer

danTt said:


> I'm curious how liability plays out in such situations. Something clearly was not done right at some point along the line--whether it was in the design phase, implementation phases, or maintence phase is unknown, but I'm still curious to know how responsibility for such things ends up delegated.
> 
> In many touring situations, the road crew is a second set of eyes on the locals work, supervising as it happens. In my experience this is a little less removed in rigging. You don't see the road rigger harness up and check all of the points from above, and you don't see the road rigger watching to make sure every point goes up properly either. 99% of the time it's fine, the local riggers are great. But if something happens (and I'm not trying to say this is the blame of providence local at all.. this is more hypothetical) is it the road guys fault for not checking everything? Does a local rigger on a touring show have liability if something goes wrong? Does a road rigger have liability?



Ringling does not work in any typical way that most arena shows work. From what I have been told, the only local labor that is used is the up riggers who attach the points to the building and does the tie in. Everyone else is with the circus. They do have a rather large production team that travels with the show, but every performer also helps with the load in. Each act gets assigned to a different department to help with load in. My buddy on the show had some monks on one of his electrics crews. 

There is a rather large tradition in the circus community of maintaining and rigging your own gear (i.e. your always going to do your best work if you know your mom is going to be hanging from it). Only the people who are on the show know who was responsible for what failed on this show.


----------



## techieman33

Footer said:


> Ringling does not work in any typical way that most arena shows work. From what I have been told, the only local labor that is used is the up riggers who attach the points to the building and does the tie in. Everyone else is with the circus. They do have a rather large production team that travels with the show, but every performer also helps with the load in. Each act gets assigned to a different department to help with load in. My buddy on the show had some monks on one of his electrics crews.
> 
> There is a rather large tradition in the circus community of maintaining and rigging your own gear (i.e. your always going to do your best work if you know your mom is going to be hanging from it). Only the people who are on the show know who was responsible for what failed on this show.



A friend of mine that spent a year and a half with them said the same thing. The only place they used local hands was madison square garden, because the local 1 won't let it happen any other way.


----------



## gafftaper

The more I think about it the more amazed I am that rigging accidents aren't common with Ringling. How many nights a year are they doing in how many different cities? The wear and tear of the load in and load out on the rigging gear must be brutal. The amount of work inspecting and repairing to keep everything in top condition must be a HUGE effort.


----------



## techieman33

gafftaper said:


> The more I think about it the more amazed I am that rigging accidents aren't common with Ringling. How many nights a year are they doing in how many different cities? The wear and tear of the load in and load out on the rigging gear must be brutal. The amount of work inspecting and repairing to keep everything in top condition must be a HUGE effort.



Load in and load out aren't that bad, remember they only load in at most once a week, and sometimes sit in a city for 2 weeks. The 2 or 3 shows a day would have to be hard on some gear though. I know most of the lighting gear got shipped off to the shop when it needed work unless it was an easy fix or something that was critical to the show.


----------



## Footer

gafftaper said:


> The more I think about it the more amazed I am that rigging accidents aren't common with Ringling. How many nights a year are they doing in how many different cities? The wear and tear of the load in and load out on the rigging gear must be brutal. The amount of work inspecting and repairing to keep everything in top condition must be a HUGE effort.



With JUST Ringling? Personally, I was surprised when the Cirque accident happened it had not happened sooner. I know what that makes me sound like... and I am kind of upset with myself for saying it. But, its true. We are an INCREDIBLY safe industry. The reason there is no real OSHA oversight of us is because we don't kill enough people. The only reason we get hit when we do is because there is usually a camera pointed at the stage and people are watching unlike the hundreds of industrial accidents that happen every day. 

You have to remember that across this country there are numerous touring and installed shows doing this exact same thing every night. The number of Broadway shows, touring arena spectaculars (Batman, Marvel Live, etc), touring Circuses (Cirque, Ringling, Big Apple) installed theme park shows, and concerts we produce every day is staggering. All of these shows are freakishly complicated. They all move quick, install quick, and do it without incident every day. It takes a lot of man power to get P!nk to fly every night in a different city... but they do it. 
These guys don't run fast and loose with safety. That is one of the reasons the performers are involved in the load in of the show. They know what they are doing. They work a lot, but most of the people who do this grew up doing it. My buddy who is on the show spent time with Big Apple, left there, then found his way back to the circus.


----------



## porkchop

danTt said:


> I'm curious how liability plays out in such situations. Something clearly was not done right at some point along the line--whether it was in the design phase, implementation phases, or maintence phase is unknown, but I'm still curious to know how responsibility for such things ends up delegated.
> 
> In many touring situations, the road crew is a second set of eyes on the locals work, supervising as it happens. In my experience this is a little less removed in rigging. You don't see the road rigger harness up and check all of the points from above, and you don't see the road rigger watching to make sure every point goes up properly either. 99% of the time it's fine, the local riggers are great. But if something happens (and I'm not trying to say this is the blame of providence local at all.. this is more hypothetical) is it the road guys fault for not checking everything? Does a local rigger on a touring show have liability if something goes wrong? Does a road rigger have liability?



If recent history (and Harry Donovan's book) have taught us anything its that accidents like this more often than not happen because of a catastrophic series of events. Even when the investigation does choose to point the finger (ex. the Indiana State Fair stage collapse) there are still lots of questions left unanswered the make the difference between at fault parties and those not help liable a very grey one at best.


----------



## MNicolai

porkchop said:


> If recent history (and Harry Donovan's book) have taught us anything its that accidents like this more often than not happen because of a catastrophic series of events. Even when the investigation does choose to point the finger (ex. the Indiana State Fair stage collapse) there are still lots of questions left unanswered the make the difference between at fault parties and those not help liable a very grey one at best.



I like to assume at all times, "Nobody's going to look out for my own safety but me." The times when someone actually is, their interest is less about my personal safety and more about covering their own butt.

It's a cynical perspective and not always true (people are nicer and do actually look out for others, but you can't know they'll always have your back), but -- at least to the extent that's it's practical -- if you act at all times like the only thing keeping you from getting dead is you, you tend to be a lot more cautious and keep your eyes peeled for potential hazards. Those hazards could be as much a threat to you as someone else, so in keeping yourself safe, you're largely working to keep others safe too.

To that end, if you get dead, it doesn't much matter who's fault it was or why there was grey area in determining where the fault lies, or what anyone is going to do to prevent it from happening again. Doesn't matter to you at least, being dead and all.


----------



## StradivariusBone

Failed clamp blamed in circus disaster

The latest spat of articles seem to point towards the failure of a "clamp". I'm not super knowledgeable in arena rigging, but that seems pretty vague. I'm very glad and amazed that no one was killed.


----------



## JD

This looks like the one time a "safety" cable could have actually made things worse. These girls were hanging by their hair, and therefore supported by their necks. It the frame had done a free-fall and then was halted suddenly at a lower elevation, the trauma to the spine and neck may have been fatal. 

I disagree with the earlier post that there is no point in watching the video. I am a firm believer in history and learning our mistakes in hopes that they can be avoided in the future. Unfortunately, in almost every endeavor there are critical parts who's failure will cause tragedy. This may have been one of these cases. Still, as with the space shuttle, you want to learn why that part failed in hopes of changing the design and avoiding history repeating itself.


----------



## Dalachap

I personally know the head rigger of this show. He made a post that I feel that would be important to share regarding the accident. 


"So far, I have remained silent on what happened yesterday here in Providence, RI at the 11:00 AM show of Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus presents "Legends". As the head rigger on this show, I have a lot on my mind as well as dealing with OSHA, Providence Police Department and the Providence Fire Department. As this is an ongoing investigation, I can not say a whole lot about this incident. I can say that a steel carabiner that had a stamped rating of 45Kn failed, causing the whole steel structure that supported the eight performers to crash to the ground. I am not going to speculate or share my opinion as to why the carabiner failed. So, for all of those people in the entertainment industry who have questions about this incident, please keep the speculation to a minimum. Thank you."



I'm going to wait to hear what the investigation says regarding the incident.


----------



## DuckJordan

If we ever find out, many times its shoveled under the carpet. The issue I have with these accidents is about half the audience (roughly 1000 people) think they know how this works and are appalled at the way we do things. The problem is they don't know squat about what we do and unfortunately since they are the majority somehow manage to push media into a frenzy of how horrible our work practices are. Yeah our 12 hour days can be rough but guess what... that nurse who is either saving your life or preventing you from getting a disease who's decisions could mean the difference between life and death works 12 hour days as well. Yet, you don't see the media in a frenzy everytime someone dies in a hospital.


----------



## StradivariusBone

As an admirer of arena rigging and those who work in that field I was wondering where a carabiner would be used in a point? I wasn't aware of a rigging purpose of this device since it is so prevalent in rock/mountain climbing applications, I didn't even realize anyone made that particular hardware rated to that amount. 

I'm not trying to get into speculation of this particular rigging scenario, I'm just curious on how it would fit into the equation, chain to spanset, stinger to chain, etc.? I thought they were primarily used with rope. I should also include I have no plans to do any sort of rigging involving this hardware, this aspect of our business is just fascinating to me. That being said, I respect the gravity of the situation and the wishes relayed through the aforementioned post. If my question is out of line, please let me know.


----------



## soundman

StradivariusBone said:


> As an admirer of arena rigging and those who work in that field I was wondering where a carabiner would be used in a point? I wasn't aware of a rigging purpose of this device since it is so prevalent in rock/mountain climbing applications, I didn't even realize anyone made that particular hardware rated to that amount.



Carabiners are often used in aerial acts because they offer some advantages over shackles for connecting the lifting line to the rig. The speed one can make the connection being one, another is being able to do it one handed. Rock Exotica is one of the leading one stop shops for aerial rigging. Rock Exotica Climbing Gear - Pirate Carabiners


----------



## DuckJordan

Likely it was used to directly link the actual ring (the piece the performers are attached to) to whatever they use to rig it up. Be it a motor, or a rope or dead hang.


----------



## JohnD

Here is a recently updated news story which is more informative than most:
Snapped clip suspected in circus hair-hanging stunt gone wrong; 2 critically hurt | Star Tribune
One thing I am curious about is who is really qualified to investigate something like this. Check out the last paragraph of the story linked to in this post.


----------



## cmckeeman

Just to that no one else has to do the research 45 Kn is about 10000 lbs (rounding down) giving an assumed WLL of 1000lbs for the rig which it exceeded by 500 lbs, I do want to know the manufacturer since i have some 45Kn steel biners in my rig that I would use to build my own anchors.
I am wondering though if it might have been gate or side loaded which would cause a failure like this, maybe we might start to see a limit to where carabiners will be used, with how small they are they could easily flip and they really aren't designed to be loaded like shackles are.


----------



## JD

StradivariusBone said:


> As an admirer of arena rigging and those who work in that field I was wondering where a carabiner would be used in a point? I wasn't aware of a rigging purpose of this device since it is so prevalent in rock/mountain climbing applications, I didn't even realize anyone made that particular hardware rated to that amount.



Kind of had the same thought. Although rated at 10,000 pounds, I would suspect it is designed for use with rope. I would not expect to see it used in rigging, although one would suspect things are different in the circus industry. I have to wonder about stress distribution when interfacing with a metal object as compared to a rope. One would think that if the curvature of the mating part was different, there may be focus points with unexpectedly high numbers. I guess time will tell as the investigation moves on.


----------



## josh88

Our news tonight say that the investigators determined that the carabiner snapped at the spine, opposite of the gate and that they are now replacing all of them. The rig with performers weighed 1,500 pounds and their diagram (taken with a grain of salt and lack of detail a news report has) showed the carabiner as the single attachment between the hanging rig and what looked like rope leading up to other attachments.


Via tapatalk


----------



## techieman33

JD said:


> Kind of had the same thought. Although rated at 10,000 pounds, I would suspect it is designed for use with rope. I would not expect to see it used in rigging, although one would suspect things are different in the circus industry. I have to wonder about stress distribution when interfacing with a metal object as compared to a rope. One would think that if the curvature of the mating part was different, there may be focus points with unexpectedly high numbers. I guess time will tell as the investigation moves on.



I've seen several different groups use carabiners for ariel acts. A lot of groups will use the same point for multiple acts that require different apparatus being flown. So during a changeover they lower the point uncllip the piece from the last act and clip on the piece for the next one.


----------



## LavaASU

This is sick. The carabiner has a 10,000# breaking strength not WLL. It NEVER should have been holding 8 people especially in a single point of failure situation. That carabiner is designed for a 1-2 person load. Many/most steel carabiners are designed for the fire service/rescue use... the 5000# range stuff is for one person, the 10,000# stuff is for 1-2 people.

If the spine snapped either it was damaged, had a manufacturing defect, or was overloaded. If it were side loaded, the gate would fail not the spine (though I would like to know where the second break is... ). The spine failing would not be due to what was connected as long as it was oriented correctly.


----------



## MNicolai

LavaASU said:


> This is sick. The carabiner has a 10,000# breaking strength not WLL. It NEVER should have been holding 8 people especially in a single point of failure situation. That carabiner is designed for a 1-2 person load. Many/most steel carabiners are designed for the fire service/rescue use... the 5000# range stuff is for one person, the 10,000# stuff is for 1-2 people.
> 
> If the spine snapped either it was damaged, had a manufacturing defect, or was overloaded. If it were side loaded, the gate would fail not the spine (though I would like to know where the second break is... ). The spine failing would not be due to what was connected as long as it was oriented correctly.



This will no doubt be a talking point. If not during the investigation, during litigation.

Also under scrutiny will be which applications the manufacturer approves that hardware to be used for.


----------



## gafftaper

MNicolai said:


> I like to assume at all times, "Nobody's going to look out for my own safety but me." The times when someone actually is, their interest is less about my personal safety and more about covering their own butt.
> 
> It's a cynical perspective and not always true (people are nicer and do actually look out for others, but you can't know they'll always have your back), but -- at least to the extent that's it's practical -- if you act at all times like the only thing keeping you from getting dead is you, you tend to be a lot more cautious and keep your eyes peeled for potential hazards. Those hazards could be as much a threat to you as someone else, so in keeping yourself safe, you're largely working to keep others safe too.


They people from the Event Safety Alliance agree with much of your reasoning but they flip your saying around and say "Everyone is responsible for safety". If everyone is concerned about their own safety and the safety of others, and takes an active role in seeking a safer theater, we are all a lot safer. We have to all work towards making our work environments places that people think about their own safety and the safety of their coworkers and audience, BEFORE they think "the show must go on". 


StradivariusBone said:


> Failed clamp blamed in circus disaster The latest spat of articles seem to point towards the failure of a "clamp". I'm not super knowledgeable in arena rigging, but that seems pretty vague.


A great example of how no one in the media understands what they are reporting on in these sorts of accidents.


----------



## StradivariusBone

gafftaper said:


> A great example of how no one in the media understands what they are reporting on in these sorts of accidents.



The news conference with the Fire Dept and other officials yesterday was an interesting listen. It did not sound like they had an entertainment professional speaking (granted I didn't hear the whole bit), but the fire guy was speaking from his experience in rigging with respect to the fire rescue business, which uses similar equipment in very different ways and for very different reasons.


----------



## JChenault

Just curious, and I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding terms.

The Spine of the carabiner would be the long side opposite the piece that swings open?
The Gate would be the piece that is hinged that opens and closes?

Thanks in advance for the clarification.


----------



## TheaterEd

JChenault said:


> Just curious, and I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding terms.
> 
> The Spine of the carabiner would be the long side opposite the piece that swings open?
> The Gate would be the piece that is hinged that opens and closes?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the clarification.


Correct. http://www.simplycircus.com/pdf/carabiners/anatomy2.png


----------



## porkchop

cmckeeman said:


> Just to that no one else has to do the research 45 Kn is about 10000 lbs (rounding down) giving an assumed WLL of 1000lbs for the rig which it exceeded by 500 lbs, I do want to know the manufacturer since i have some 45Kn steel biners in my rig that I would use to build my own anchors.
> I am wondering though if it might have been gate or side loaded which would cause a failure like this, maybe we might start to see a limit to where carabiners will be used, with how small they are they could easily flip and they really aren't designed to be loaded like shackles are.



Keep in mind that although 10:1 safety for performer flying is a rule of thumb used by many entertainment companies last time I was trained on the matter 5:1 was what was required by law.


----------



## TheaterEd

Something else to take into account is that if the gate is open, it's strength is cut in half. It is not uncommon for a auto-locking carabiner to stick. We'll have to wait for the report to find out.

I can't find my favorite one, but if your bored...


----------



## gafftaper

> In 2004, a Ringling aerial acrobat using scarves was killed after the material gave way and she fell 30 feet to a concrete floor. That accident was not investigated by OSHA because the risk was part of the act, the agency said at the time.



That's an interesting quote from this article. Where does OSHA draw the line on risk being a part of the job? Perhaps it's that there is not the same expectation of safety. A rigger working at great heights has an expectation that his safety gear will keep him safe where the aerial acrobat knows she can't count on her scarves to rescue her. Interesting.


----------



## LavaASU

gafftaper said:


> That's an interesting quote from this article. Where does OSHA draw the line on risk being a part of the job? Perhaps it's that there is not the same expectation of safety. A rigger working at great heights has an expectation that his safety gear will keep him safe where the aerial acrobat knows she can't count on her scarves to rescue her. Interesting.



Agreed, that sounded strange. I could see an acrobat falling while doing a silks routine perhaps being considered part of the risk, but the scarves/ silks should not have ripped!


----------



## JD

LavaASU said:


> Agreed, that sounded strange. I could see an acrobat falling while doing a silks routine perhaps being considered part of the risk, but the scarves/ silks should not have ripped!


I would suspect that since there is no rating with regards to the materials used and no expectation that these materials provide any safety whatsoever, OSHA would not have a role or defer it to artistic risk. Had some form of attachment device failed I would suspect OSHA would have been involved in a heartbeat. A poor analogy would be a tightrope walker falling due to loosing their balance as compared to having a failure of the equipment supporting the wire.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Several posts have referred to the 45kN as a WLL which usually means working load limit but I believe that its actually - I think by an ANSI standard - the MBS or minimum breaking strength. WLL generally is based on some design factor applied to the MBS. I use 8:1 for most rigging and still feel its a little over the top. Some or many others now use 10:1, and I think that's common for performer flying - which is not an area I have expertise in. 

And stepping outside my expertise again, I believe for fall protection for one person is suppose to be designed for 5000 - minimum breaking strength - so this will all be very interesting. The after effects of the last Rhode Island incident was broad and far reaching. It will be interesting to see what regulatory impact this incident has.


----------



## rmsy

One of the injured performers did an interview on Good Morning America today: Injured Acrobat Will Return to Circus, Questions Hair Act After Accident - ABC News


Sincerely,
Ramsey


----------



## LavaASU

ruinexplorer said:


> Agreed. I hope that the accident was not career ending for any of the performers.


Two of the acrobats have serious spinal injuries and had emergency surgery but at least have feeling in their legs. One is out of the hospital. Most (possibly all) of them have spinal fractures.


----------



## gafftaper

For those who didn't have the time to watch the interview two posts back with the acrobat, she said that all of her friends are expected to make a full recovery. Amazing!


----------



## LavaASU

gafftaper said:


> For those who didn't have the time to watch the interview two posts back with the acrobat, she said that all of her friends are expected to make a full recovery. Amazing!



Oh wow. I'd watched the press conference with the doctors who's said they didn't know if the two would be able to walk. Hopefully she is correct!


----------



## gafftaper

There's definitely conflicting information out there, but hopefully the girl fresh out of the hospital has the latest information.


----------



## Amiers

GMA definitely worked the videos a bit better and cleaned them up. After they fell you can see shards of something fly just as they are about to hit the ground. I would love to see the carabiner. As we do aerial acts every show and it will be interesting to see if somehow it got twisted or if some how it rotated while rising and made it up to the spine which to me makes no sense at all. I just wish there was a more clear picture of the top of the rigging as all you really see is the hook and from the videos it looked like it broke above that point. Speculation though. Glad the girls are all alive.


----------



## josh88

The last article I read said it was in three pieces which means it broke in two places. Other than the spine I don't know where the other break happened.


Via tapatalk


----------



## MNicolai

josh88 said:


> The last article I read said it was in three pieces which means it broke in two places. Other than the spine I don't know where the other break happened.



Breaking into more than 2 pieces isn't unheard of, as the gate may break apart from both the lower and upper parts of the carabiner.


----------



## LavaASU

"Why the carabiner that was in use failed in the way that it did without any obvious deformation, I don't have an answer for you as of right now. Awaiting test results from various agencies to be released.

As to the issue of a backup: Be aware, these women are literally hanging by their hair. Any backup that could have been in place would have resulted in a drop in height, which could have either broken all of their necks simultaneously or ripped their scalps off, in which case they still would have fallen to the floor. Not saying that a backup is not a great idea, but it is not always achievable in certain applications"

For anyone interested, heres two more comments from the show's head rigger. The second one is pretty much what I figured as far as the lack of an independent backup. What I don't understand and see a major issue with is that the system did not have substantially higher safety margins or a multiple point suspension. Sounds like a poor choice somewhere in the design/engineering combined with a piece of hardware failing way below it's rated load.

That said, I don't have anything except for the upmost sympathy for the performers and show crew and especially the riggers. I cannot imagine what they are going through. I hope they are all okay and that they are provided any help they need or want getting through this situation.


----------



## JD

Looking at the top of the picture in post [HASHTAG]#45[/HASHTAG], I cannot tell if the top most element is the carabiner, but if it is, it appears to have settled way off center which would put 100% of the load on one leg of it.


----------



## derekleffew

josh88 said:


> The last article I read said it was in three pieces which means it broke in two places. Other than the spine I don't know where the other break happened.




From Ringling Bros. circus replacing equipment after aerialists' plunge - Metro - The Boston Globe


----------



## Amiers

JD said:


> Looking at the top of the picture in post [HASHTAG]#45[/HASHTAG], I cannot tell if the top most element is the carabiner, but if it is, it appears to have settled way off center which would put 100% of the load on one leg of it.


Yeah I thought that too but it is so hard to tell with no pictures of the top of the rigging.


----------



## gafftapegreenia

derekleffew said:


> From Ringling Bros. circus replacing equipment after aerialists' plunge - Metro - The Boston Globe


Iiiiiiinteresting.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

JD said:


> Looking at the top of the picture in post [HASHTAG]#45[/HASHTAG], I cannot tell if the top most element is the carabiner, but if it is, it appears to have settled way off center which would put 100% of the load on one leg of it.



I understand but I think that the stamped rating is based on the spine alone and that the gate is not relied on for tension forces and that it's exactly right. Look at the illustration in [HASHTAG]#50[/HASHTAG]. A lot of these have wire gates I am learning, consider an advantage because they don'rt bounce open (very unscientific description). Not an expert but I checked s number of links to see what the stamped rating was - basically MSB - and saw some testing videos.


----------



## cmckeeman

BillConnerASTC said:


> I understand but I think that the stamped rating is based on the spine alone and that the gate is not relied on for tension forces and that it's exactly right. Look at the illustration in [HASHTAG]#50[/HASHTAG]. A lot of these have wire gates I am learning, consider an advantage because they don'rt bounce open (very unscientific description). Not an expert but I checked s number of links to see what the stamped rating was - basically MSB - and saw some testing videos.



It all depends on the shape of the Carabiner, if it is a modified D like the image above then it is designed to push everything to the spine so your understanding would be correct, if it is an oval then the shape pushes everything too the middle and it splits the force between the spine and the gate/nose.


----------



## JD

Still creeps me out to not see a shackle being used. I know, in that industry ropes and carabiners are common. The thought of using one on metal equipment just makes the hair on my back stand. Especially to hold 8 people and a 300+lb frame. Metal equipment just has more of a point-contact stress focus. This may not be a factor in this failure if the break points are not at the point of contact. I would be uncomfortable using it. Maybe it's just me.


----------



## cmckeeman

JD said:


> Still creeps me out to not see a shackle being used. I know, in that industry ropes and carabiners are common. The thought of using one on metal equipment just makes the hair on my back stand. Especially to hold 8 people and a 300+lb frame. Metal equipment just has more of a point-contact stress focus. This may not be a factor in this failure if the break points are not at the point of contact. I would be uncomfortable using it. Maybe it's just me.



I agree somewhat, the metal on metal doesn't bother me much (if it was aluminum on steel then it would) but the only reason i could see using a carabiner is if there is very little time to connect the structure to the system, with how much stronger a shackle is time is the only reason to not use one, but i'm not too convinced even then.


----------



## techieman33

cmckeeman said:


> I agree somewhat, the metal on metal doesn't bother me much (if it was aluminum on steel then it would) but the only reason i could see using a carabiner is if there is very little time to connect the structure to the system, with how much stronger a shackle is time is the only reason to not use one, but i'm not too convinced even then.



I think a shackle would have to be moused for me to be comfortable with it in that situation. With all the movement a point like that can see I would be afraid of it unscrewing itself.


----------



## bobgaggle

Slightly changing the subject, and maybe this has been discussed in another thread, but what is yalls take on how it was handled in the immediate aftermath? Lights stayed low, music kept playing while crew/performers aided the victims. I've never been in this position but I feel like the lights should be brought up...


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

I thought they did kill the follow spots in around 4 seconds and the general "house" lighting in an arena might not be quick re-strike and would simply take a while - 5 minutes - to come to full. I couldn't tell if the (usually quartz) lights to provide 1 ft candle for egress while the discharge units re-strike came on or not.


----------



## sk8rsdad

I think the stage manager followed their pre-planned emergency procedures. My guess, and it's just a guess, is their procedure involves providing adequate light to provide initial response but not so much as to panic the audience.


----------



## MNicolai

The videos make it look like it's really dark down there, but I suspect it was adequately bright for the people who went running in to help. Not long after that, I'll bet somebody brought up the room lights, however those would likely be of the variety that take a couple minutes before they reach full intensity.

In the photos of the aftermath, I was impressed to see that they lowered some of their video surfaces to ground-level to obscure at least some audience members' views of the incident, giving more privacy to the victims as they were triaged by first responders.


----------



## Dalachap

bobgaggle said:


> Slightly changing the subject, and maybe this has been discussed in another thread, but what is yalls take on how it was handled in the immediate aftermath? Lights stayed low, music kept playing while crew/performers aided the victims. I've never been in this position but I feel like the lights should be brought up...



I can give a really good answer for this! 

A little context. In my previous life, I worked for Ringling Brothers on the electrics crew on this unit. During the run of the show, I was the LD for the house followspot operators. There is too much that happens in this show for there to be one LD front of house, so two people do it. Once person runs the console, and the other directs the local followspot operators. 

Also, before I continue, I want to emphasize that I am no longer employed by the circus. That being the case, things may be different from what the procedure was when I was employed by them. 

During the run of the show, there are a number of crew people who run around with radios. These people include but don't limit to all technicians (electrics, audio, and video crew), stage manager, production manager, floor boss, assistant stage manager, and others. Also, there are crew members that are on a Clear Com system, and that is a more exclusive list of people that are included on that. During the run of the show, the production manager acts as the director for the show on the road. In the line of communication during the show, the production manager is responsible for making any major decisions that directly affect the overall look of the show. In the event of anything happening that deviates from the show before the show starts, such as an extended act or acts being cut from the show, that is reported by the production manager during show notes approximately 8 minutes before the show starts. The production manager may also change something as the show goes on, and reports that over radio. The flow of communication, generally speaking, is done very well during the show. 

If there is an accident or a catastrophe that occurs during the run of the show, it is most desired to try to continue the show as normal. I have been involved in a handful of minor incidents during the run of the show where someone was whisked away offstage in the middle of the act and continued the show without interruption. At that point, that person is assessed backstage by the production manager or stage manager to see if they need any medical attention beyond first aid or anything like that. The show must go on if at all possible.

As far as this accident is concerned, I think I have a good idea as to how it may of played out in the immediate aftermath. This is only my opinion, and may not reflect what actually happened.


911 was immediately called right after this happened
The production manager had audio cut the ringmaster's mic, had the light console operator keep only essential lighting show lighting up, had video fly in the video screens to floor level, and had the followspots dowsed.
The production manager assess what to do next. My best guess is that they told the ringmaster (via in-ear headset) to make the announcement for an intermission, and had the house lights be brought up. 
Intermission. Further assessments are made. Communication is maintained by radio contact and Clear Com to other personnel.
The decision was made to end the show, and sent out the clowns and the ringmaster to say goodbye to the public.

This was an absolutely catastrophic event. It happened right at the center of the arena and was the focal point of the show at that time. In my opinion, I think that they handled this aftermath very well. There was no way that they could of kept going with the show, as much as I'm sure that they would of liked to.


----------



## rmsy

A post on the Stagecraft and Entertainment Rigging Forum Facebook group:

Paul Weir said:


> I wanted to address the recent Barnum Rigging accident...
> 
> I can say a few things..
> 
> 1. They were mimicking something that we do.--basically a mobile with bodies--some of what you have seen at all souls has had as many as 20 individuals hanging.
> 
> 2. This is known as "single point loading"
> 
> 3. The gear being used to hang that armature and the bodies was far underrated..and at a single point should have had a 20,000lb. shackle--not a single 45KN rated caribiner--which is what failed. Basically hanging an elephant with a paperclip.
> 
> 4. Our single point systems are designed at 10 to 1 or greater. and as redundant as possible. coming into a swivel is always a crux--because it can't be backed up effectively..but it can be--as we do--be top rated gear that is engineered for 10 to 20 x times the "working load limit" it comes down to paying top dollar for the next level of gear which will ensure success---ie. outside of an earthquake or a catastrophic force taking something infrastructure down.
> 
> 5. There are basically 2 type of riggers in the industry--those that rock climb---and those that do not..
> The later (unless they are known to be safe and have been known to "Rig Big" [ex. Bill Sapis, Simon Franklyn etc.] and know the mostly simple math behind designing points)
> is to be watched very carefully as they do not have real world experience loading systems that are duty enough to absorb shock loading and other kinetic forces that seems small to our eye--but in the case of that rig--all it took was for all the performers to use their core muscles and raise their legs up--and that extra 400-600 lbs of kinetic forces gave that single steel caribiner it's last ride..
> 
> 6. several things to consider when rigging bodies:
> a. rating on climbing pieces is maximum load for "1" fall
> b. working load is not calculated on climbing gear..but you can count on 1/3 the rating usually-when in doubt--back it up-redundancy is your best friend
> c. designing the rig from the start using sound math and extra care to ensure you are creating the gear package components properly--a chain is as strong as its weakest link. Gear failure IS NOT AN OPTION and it shouldn't be when you have performers risking life and limb on hand and core strength alone-(as many apparatus cannot have safety gear ie. silks, corde lisse--things that spin basically)
> d. The circus world in particular--the single point is everywhere due to the use of swivels. Basic Petzl and other branded climbing/arborist swivels are incredible pieces--for one or 2 people at most with moderate to no shocking loading. They need to be be kept clean, inspected and retired if any stick or any play has occurred or the ears of them are too knurled from use. The next level of swivel starts at $400 and goes up and up. My big rig swivels are $1200 and live in a padded case.
> e. Steel is Real--use it where ever you can--(the piece that broke in the Barnum Accident was steel-although it was outclassed by the weight to load ratio)
> f. Material usage and wear are a science..steel breaks down aluminum-rope cuts everything-as well as itself-gear has a life for use with bodies and then it goes to the guy wire pile for the merchandise tents. Retire human rigging gear frequently and often-we all love the feel of fresh pieces
> g. team work and another trusted and respected eyeballs on the systems each night of a show


----------



## Les

Interesting write-up. Though I do take issue with the "Basically hanging an elephant with a paperclip" analogy.


----------



## MNicolai

Les said:


> Interesting write-up. Though I do take issue with the "Basically hanging an elephant with a paperclip" analogy.



Unless we learn that there was a manufacturing defect, that analogy you don't like may very well end up being the cause of 9 people going to the hospital. Granted, it's a very robust paperclip in this case, but I'll bet the manufacturer never intended someone would hang a 350lbs apparatus and several acrobats from a single one of their carabiners.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

JD said:


> Still creeps me out to not see a shackle being used. I know, in that industry ropes and carabiners are common. The thought of using one on metal equipment just makes the hair on my back stand. Especially to hold 8 people and a 300+lb frame. Metal equipment just has more of a point-contact stress focus. This may not be a factor in this failure if the break points are not at the point of contact. I would be uncomfortable using it. Maybe it's just me.



No rebuttal or justification, but it seems that the carabiner is tested and designed for being banged around against rocks and such, and not sure a shackle is tested for such repeated impacts. Not loads, at least so much, as dropping, like on rocks when climbing or on the ground when loading in and out. While without all of the facts the selection of a 45kN seems undersized, not sure a carabiner isn't the correct piece. I did find at least one with a 72kN rating - which seems closer to what would normally make sense - around 16,000 pounds for a reported 1500 pound load.

I'm guessing the legal system just about assures we'll never know the facts of this case.


----------



## derekleffew

BillConnerASTC said:


> No rebuttal or justification, but it seems that the carabiner is tested and designed for being banged around against rocks and such, and not sure a shackle is tested for such repeated impacts. ...




FatherMurphy said:


> When I took the Jay Glerum/Harry Donovan rigging seminar some years back, Jay related asking one of the manufacturers of forged shackles about dropping them on concrete from waist high - the response was that they got dropped further than that onto equally hard surfaces during manufacture. ...


----------



## Jay Ashworth

Doesn't CB have somebody in that jurisdiction who can be detailed to attend the trial once it happens? Hell if I could afford the flight I'd go do it.

Sent from my SPH-L720


----------



## ruinexplorer

Generally speaking, the OSHA investigations are not public. When the company has the chance to challenge any of the fines, I believe the employees of said company are allowed to attend. Otherwise, we only get the publicly released report. Obviously, there is a possibility of a civil trial, but that may happen in a different city. I doubt there will be a criminal trial.


----------



## LavaASU

Jay Ashworth said:


> Doesn't CB have somebody in that jurisdiction who can be detailed to attend the trial once it happens? Hell if I could afford the flight I'd go do it.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720



Feld is based in Palmetto, FL... so trial (if there is one) could happen there.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

Oh. Then I'll take it. 

Sent from my SPH-L720


----------



## cmckeeman

BillConnerASTC said:


> While without all of the facts the selection of a 45kN seems undersized, not sure a carabiner isn't the correct piece. I did find at least one with a 72kN rating - which seems closer to what would normally make sense - around 16,000 pounds for a reported 1500 pound load.



72Kn :shock: were did you find that, the highest i have seen is omega pacific and 50 Kn not that i personally need that strong a biner but still...


----------



## What Rigger?

JD said:


> This looks like the one time a "safety" cable could have actually made things worse. These girls were hanging by their hair, and therefore supported by their necks. It the frame had done a free-fall and then was halted suddenly at a lower elevation, the trauma to the spine and neck may have been fatal.
> 
> I disagree with the earlier post that there is no point in watching the video. I am a firm believer in history and learning our mistakes in hopes that they can be avoided in the future. Unfortunately, in almost every endeavor there are critical parts who's failure will cause tragedy. This may have been one of these cases. Still, as with the space shuttle, you want to learn why that part failed in hopes of changing the design and avoiding history repeating itself.


 
Hey JD, you make a valid point in the value of video in analysis. I was rather unclear in my statement. My feeling was that usually when this sort of thing happens, lots of people (general public, news agencies, etc...) go running for the video because of the inherent sensationalism of watching people get (bleeped) up. Information is always of value, no matter where it may come from, in a situation like this so that it may hopefully not happen again. Am I making more sense now?


----------



## LavaASU

cmckeeman said:


> 72Kn :shock: were did you find that, the highest i have seen is omega pacific and 50 Kn not that i personally need that strong a biner but still...



Fusion used to have some 60kN ones... not sure if they still make them.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

cmckeeman said:


> 72Kn :shock: were did you find that, the highest i have seen is omega pacific and 50 Kn not that i personally need that strong a biner but still...


Just Google 72 kn carabiner
Omega Pacific Carabiners for Tree Climbing & Rigging


----------



## cmckeeman

So it looks like Fusion made the carabiner that broke. and i have been seeing some testing on them that they are breaking below their rated capacity. I might have all mine tested and would recommend it to anyone else who has their biners in any critical components.


----------



## LavaASU

cmckeeman said:


> So it looks like Fusion made the carabiner that broke. and i have been seeing some testing on them that they are breaking below their rated capacity. I might have all mine tested and would recommend it to anyone else who has their biners in any critical components.



Thats concerning. I use quite a few of their carabiners. None of mine are 45kN and none that I'm seeing on the current price list are 45kN, so not sure what model that could be. I will be requesting copies of their test data (they've offered it before, but I've never really worried about it).


----------



## Jay Ashworth

cmckeeman said:


> So it looks like Fusion made the carabiner that broke. and i have been seeing some testing on them that they are breaking below their rated capacity.



Their rated *breaking strength*, which should be substantially higher than their "rated capacity", right?


----------



## LavaASU

Jay Ashworth said:


> Their rated *breaking strength*, which should be substantially higher than their "rated capacity", right?



****Carabiners are rated by breaking strength NOT WLL/rated capacity**** 

I feel like this needs to be in bold at the top of every rigging page. A typical climbing carabiner has a rating of 25kN which is about 5000lbs (it's actually slightly more). The WLL/rated capacity of it would be the 5000lbs divided by the appropriate safety factor of the application. So if using it for rigging that you want a 10:1 safety factor for, that carabiner has a 500lb working load.

We know that the carabiner failed below its rated 10,000lbs. However what we DO NOT know, and won't until lab testing results are available, is whether it failed due to a manufacturing defect, abuse, ect. If that carabiner had been dropped from the high steel 10 times, then broke at 3000lbs, thats a whole different story than if it had been treated appropriately and failed substantially below it's rated breaking strength. Also, I believe carabiners are rated by mean breaking strength, not minimum breaking strength. Obviously since they are intended for life safety, they *ALL* need to be pretty close to rated breaking strength. I would say if correctly treated carabiners are breaking more than 5-10% below the MBS, theres a problem.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

I thought I read that the ANSI standard was to indicate minimum breaking strength, but check. Were using it in a rigging install, I'd use a design factor of 8:1 at least.  I did read that in some testing that dropping them even from high up did not seem to affect their strength, which makes sense since they seem to regularily get smashed into rocks for climbing.


----------



## LavaASU

BillConnerASTC said:


> I thought I read that the ANSI standard was to indicate minimum breaking strength, but check. Were using it in a rigging install, I'd use a design factor of 8:1 at least. I did read that in some testing that dropping them even from high up did not seem to affect their strength, which makes sense since they seem to regularily get smashed into rocks for climbing.



You may be right. I thought it was mean, but may be minimum. Regardless, they should be right around that value or higher.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

Thank you for the clarification, Lava, this is clearly why I am NOT a rigging guide. That said, my solution would be to say if you're buying things from somebody who does not indicate what the measurement is a measurement of, clearly, on each use, then buy from someone else.

Sent from my SPH-L720


----------



## cmckeeman

Jay Ashworth said:


> Thank you for the clarification, Lava, this is clearly why I am NOT a rigging guide. That said, my solution would be to say if you're buying things from somebody who does not indicate what the measurement is a measurement of, clearly, on each use, then buy from someone else.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720



I have never seen a carabiner that has a rated working load limit, only ever MBS. Shackles on the other hand are always WLL, but you have to know the safety factor they used for it.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

Which makes my point precisely:

Anyone who cites a rating of any type for any component should always include *exactly what that measurement measures* right with the number on all uses.

There oughtta be a law...


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

By saying it complies with the ANSI standard, which I believe prescribes the the marking, does indeed provide a competent person *exactly what that measurement measures*. If you don't like it, the fact there is an ANSI process that allows for public input and requires the requirements to be reached by consensus of affect parties.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

Well, Bill, my snap reaction is that this very thread -- this, and a couple others about rigging and flying we've had this month -- puts the lie to "that's good enough".


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Jay Ashworth said:


> Well, Bill, my snap reaction is that this very thread -- this, and a couple others about rigging and flying we've had this month -- puts the lie to "that's good enough".



I don't know what you would suggest if an ANSI standard - one developed by all interested parties - isn't good enough for you. Perhaps a 2300 page document that congress turns out?

A bit of history: I was befuddled and confused by the building and fire codes for stages when I began as a theatre consultant 30 years ago, because they were based on a notion of theatre in the early 1900s and thinks had changed. I asked, was invited to participate in the process, and 27 years later am the senior member of NFPA's Assembly Occupancy Committee and have seen the code modernized quite a bit. (Granted - it still feels like 1960's in some regards - but I think much better.) So get involved - it's not that hard - and demonstrate that your proposal is necessary for safety.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

I would suggest that if manufacturers are going to use pounds (pounds-force, actually, I think) or kN, or what have you, as multiple different types of measurement, some with builtin safety factors, and some without, that they ought to say "breaking strength" or "working load" or whatever parameter label is pertinent, right next to the number, exactly as I suggested. 

That doesn't seem especially complicated -- unless you are purposefully obfuscating the number so as to make more money whilst pushing liability off to others -- and is *much* more effective communication than *merely* putting that into a standard, no matter how small the document or how easy it is to find. And my concern is *solely* the communication, not how that number came to be whatever number it is.

The number of professionals *in-specialty* who have disagreed on, or misunderstood, ratings - just in the conversations here in the last 30 days - is my evidence that that's necessary; I have specifically in mind the Trim Chains megathread.


----------



## LavaASU

Jay Ashworth said:


> I would suggest that if manufacturers are going to use pounds (pounds-force, actually, I think) or kN, or what have you, as multiple different types of measurement, some with builtin safety factors, and some without, that they ought to say "breaking strength" or "working load" or whatever parameter label is pertinent, right next to the number, exactly as I suggested.
> 
> That doesn't seem especially complicated -- unless you are purposefully obfuscating the number so as to make more money whilst pushing liability off to others -- and is *much* more effective communication than *merely* putting that into a standard, no matter how small the document or how easy it is to find. And my concern is *solely* the communication, not how that number came to be whatever number it is.
> 
> The number of professionals *in-specialty* who have disagreed on, or misunderstood, ratings - just in the conversations here in the last 30 days - is my evidence that that's necessary; I have specifically in mind the Trim Chains megathread.



I would agree with that. Perhaps all equipemnt needs to be marked with a rating and either it being MBS (and decide whether thats mean or minumum) or WLL AND the safety factor used. Honestly I'd prefer all equipment to list MBS, as most WLL safety factors (eg spansets) are not sufficient for overhead rigging.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

I am not surprised by how many didn't know that climber's carabiniers are marked in minimum breaking strength, partly since I didn't know, but am a little surprised not many looked it up. It took me at most 20 minutes to find out what the rating meant, howvir was used, and some graduate project that tested them - before and after impacts.

As far as changing the rating marking on a device made primarily for climbers, not entertainment rigging, probably in the 1000s of climbers for every rigging use, I think if I were a climber I'd be pissed, because it would add cost and some confusion to what I'd always seen and used.

But work to change the standard. Personally, I think educating riggers is a better way to go and I agree I wish they'd just mark minimum breaking strength on everything, so the person using it could apply their own design factor based on the application.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

You've still misunderstood me, Bill.

I'm not talking about changing which measurement those manufacturers quote. I'm simply advocating that they *label the measurement everywhere they use it*. They're welcome to rate that 45kN as MBS. Just *say*

"45kN MBS" or, where there's space, "45kN Min Bkg Strength".

That's all I'm suggesting; I'll have to go back and reread my earlier comments to see how I'm giving a different impression.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Jay Ashworth said:


> You've still misunderstood me, Bill.
> 
> I'm not talking about changing which measurement those manufacturers quote. I'm simply advocating that they *label the measurement everywhere they use it*. They're welcome to rate that 45kN as MBS. Just *say*
> 
> "45kN MBS" or, where there's space, "45kN Min Bkg Strength".
> 
> That's all I'm suggesting; I'll have to go back and reread my earlier comments to see how I'm giving a different impression.



I understand what you want, but I also understand why it's not economically practical for the manufacturers to change all their dies or whatever they use to stamp the rating in, especially if not everyone has to do it since it will add to cost, and further it could confuse the prime climbing customers who are use to a rating as it is and would be confused by the change. I believe it is simply not worth it to the manufacturers to incur additional costs for the benefit of a very small minority of users, especially if voluntary and not required for all thier competitors as well.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Someone else addresses the subject: http://www.stage-directions.com/29-all/news/theatre-buzz/6131-defining-terms.html


----------



## Jay Ashworth

He seems to be suggesting that the climbing shackles are marked "MBS". And that seems to be contrary to what I've been reading here.

Sent from my SPH-L720


----------



## LavaASU

Jay Ashworth said:


> He seems to be suggesting that the climbing shackles are marked "MBS". And that seems to be contrary to what I've been reading here.
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720



Climbing shackles don't exist to my knowledge. Theres climbing carabiners (usually marked MBS) and shackles (most common use is crane/ship rigging) which are marked WLL.


----------



## MNicolai

News stories floating around that the women involved have retained a lawyer, and while litigation is not currently pending, a thorough investigation on the women's behalf is underway. It's still uncertain that all of the women will walk again, and physical therapy is ongoing for most of them.


----------



## Jay Ashworth

Sorry, Lava; I crossed the streams.

My point was it had sounded like each object was marked with the relevant number and unit label, but with /no/ parameter label; did I misunderstand?

Sent from my SPH-L720


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Jay Ashworth said:


> Sorry, Lava; I crossed the streams.
> 
> My point was it had sounded like each object was marked with the relevant number and unit label, but with /no/ parameter label; did I misunderstand?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-L720


Jay - I don't know if you misunderstood Mr. Sapsis, but I thought he clearly stated that while much hardware manufactured and used by industry is marked with a working load, hardware manufactured and used for climbing and related recreational/sporting use is marked with minimum breaking strength. Either may or may not indicate which it is, and therefore users should find out before using the device and not succumb to assumptions. 

I wish it were all labeled with MBS because I prefer to apply my design factor and not what a manufacturer thinks is suitable for all applications. I find it much more time consuming to determine what the design factor is for a piece of hardware labeled with a WLL than to determine if it is WLL or MBS.


----------



## StradivariusBone

Is there any regulation regarding the stamped rating or is it just how the separate industries (climbing recreational/entertainment rigging) evolved? To rephrase- Is there a governing body over climbing hardware that says you must stamp MBS and it's in kN? I would wager the manufacturers are building to the needs of their client community, so do climbers typically consider WLL when purchasing hardware? 

I'm guessing at some level it comes into play since you're dealing with pretty dynamic loads. I would also guess that there may be more injuries or fatalities involved with climbing than with entertainment rigging since it's more accessible to the general public and just easier for a greenhorn to get involved with (and possibly over their head if not guided by a professional).


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

StradivariusBone said:


> Is there any regulation regarding the stamped rating or is it just how the separate industries (climbing recreational/entertainment rigging) evolved? To rephrase- Is there a governing body over climbing hardware that says you must stamp MBS and it's in kN? I would wager the manufacturers are building to the needs of their client community, so do climbers typically consider WLL when purchasing hardware?
> 
> I'm guessing at some level it comes into play since you're dealing with pretty dynamic loads. I would also guess that there may be more injuries or fatalities involved with climbing than with entertainment rigging since it's more accessible to the general public and just easier for a greenhorn to get involved with (and possibly over their head if not guided by a professional).



Strad - I believe the ANSI standard for the typical climbing carabiner requires labeling MBS in kN or pounds - but that is not a statutory law, just a standard that meets the ANSI requirements for their designation. It seems the ANSI fall protection standards require same, but I have not bought them - quite steep - nor read more than summaries which may mislead. So I'd say that yes, there is a "standard" that requires labeled devices and MBS, but not a law or governmental entity in this country that enforces that. (read my Protocol article on Codes vs Standards for more on this.)

I'm not sure there is a standard as clear for, say, a turnbuckle or shackle, but usually not too hard to find via Google. Crosby seems to use a design factor of 5 - so if its marked or shown in data to be a 1000 WLL, then its 5000 MBS. That's probably OK for a static condition - like a lot of dead hung - but theatre rigging that lifts - with the combination of dynamic loading, the "overhead" factor, and tradition - generally has a design factor of 8 or 10 - so that 1000 pound WLL turnbuckle is only 500.

Keep in mind that the structural framing of a building is probably designed using a factor of 3 and may be lower in some cases.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

StradivariusBone said:


> As an admirer of arena rigging and those who work in that field I was wondering where a carabiner would be used in a point? I wasn't aware of a rigging purpose of this device since it is so prevalent in rock/mountain climbing applications, I didn't even realize anyone made that particular hardware rated to that amount.
> 
> I'm not trying to get into speculation of this particular rigging scenario, I'm just curious on how it would fit into the equation, chain to spanset, stinger to chain, etc.? I thought they were primarily used with rope. I should also include I have no plans to do any sort of rigging involving this hardware, this aspect of our business is just fascinating to me. That being said, I respect the gravity of the situation and the wishes relayed through the aforementioned post. If my question is out of line, please let me know.


Strad - I believe the ANSI standard for the typical climbing carabiner requires labeling MBS in kN or pounds - but that is not a statutory law, just a standard that meets the ANSI requirements for their designation. It seems the ANSI fall protection standards require same, but I have not bought them - quite steep - nor read more than summaries which may mislead. So I'd say that yes, there is a "standard" that requires labeled devices and MBS, but not a law or governmental entity in this country that enforces that. (read my Protocol article on Codes vs Standards for more on this.)

I'm not sure there is a standard as clear for, say, a turnbuckle or shackle, but usually not too hard to find via Google. Crosby seems to use a design factor of 5 - so if its marked or shown in data to be a 1000 WLL, then its 5000 MBS. That's probably OK for a static condition - like a lot of dead hung - but theatre rigging that lifts - with the combination of dynamic loading, the "overhead" factor, and tradition - generally has a design factor of 8 or 10 - so that 1000 pound WLL turnbuckle is only 500.

Keep in mind that the structural framing of a building is probably designed using a factor of 3 and may be lower in some cases.


----------



## TheaterEd

MNicolai said:


> News stories floating around that the women involved have retained a lawyer, and while litigation is not currently pending, a thorough investigation on the women's behalf is underway. It's still uncertain that all of the women will walk again, and physical therapy is ongoing for most of them.


Link to the News Story
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...-law-office/OHIigFvzEvb9PWYaNQMCzJ/story.html


----------



## Euphroe

People who build aerial rigging are accustomed to dealing with components from different industries. It's the nature of the work and there's nothing wrong with that. They just break everything down to MBS and settle on a unit of measure. 

Crosby uses a 6:1 for shackle WLLs: http://www.thecrosbygroup.com/html/en/pdf/pgs/77.pdf 

A concrete-anchor manufacturer's engineer once suggested (in writing) that I cut/shorten certain type epoxy anchors for an application, and linearally-interpolate a reduced ultimate strength. So if I shortened an eight-inch 10,000lb SWL anchor of that type to 4" to accomodate a 5-1/2" concrete casting, he would consider it a 5,000lb SWL anchor. But the manufacturer's SWL was based on 4:1. So for my purpose, the sawed-in-half anchor was 20,000lbs MBS, and 2,000 WLL. THIS WAS SPECIFIC TO MY MANUFACTURER, MY APPLICATION, AND MY TYPE OF ANCHOR. 

The same system used 17,000lb MBS cordage with a splice developed for the project. It tested at 84% efficient for net 14,620lbs. 

There's no good way for the cordage manufacturer to list a WLL, while Crosby can't stamp MBS and rely on construction workers to know and apply the correct design factor.


----------



## ruinexplorer

In the current issue of Protocol (Summer 2014, ppg. 22-25), Rocky Paulson has an excellent article on the questionable use of caribiners for overhead lifting. For those of you who ever consider rigging of any type, this is a good article. It goes to show that there is more to the story than just determining the strength when designing for multiple uses.


----------



## egilson1

http://wpri.com/2014/11/04/federal-investigation-reveals-improperly-loaded-clip-led-to-circus-fall/


----------



## Jay Ashworth

And also this, from this morning:

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/11/04/feds-propose-7k-fine-in-hair-hanging-circus-stunt/


----------



## porkchop

OSHA posted a press release: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=26943

The citation itself is hear: https://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Feldfinalcitation.pdf

The statement sure makes it sound like one extra shackle (to join the pear rings and bring the carabiner into only major axis loading) would have made a world of difference.


----------



## gafftaper

Once again I'm shocked at how small the OSHA fines are. $7,000 is the maximum allowed by law. Ringling makes that in popcorn sales before a single show even starts.


----------



## gafftapegreenia

gafftaper said:


> Once again I'm shocked at how small the OSHA fines are. $7,000 is the maximum allowed by law. Ringling makes that in popcorn sales before a single show even starts.


The fines are one thing, and I agree they are shockingly small. The other thing is that once you've attracted the attention of OSHA, their watchful gaze is hard to shake. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------



## techieman33

While the fine is small, the real financial impact will come from all of the lawsuits from injured parties. With the OSHA ruling behind them I would think it would make those suits pretty easy wins.


----------



## ruinexplorer

Initial OSHA fines are small, but now they need to stay squeaky clean for a few years. Any minor infraction can now carry hefty fines for the next infraction during the probationary period.


----------



## Les

ruinexplorer said:


> Initial OSHA fines are small, but now they need to stay squeaky clean for a few years.  Any minor infraction can now carry hefty fines for the next infraction during the probationary period.



This. Repeat violations can easily run in to the tens of thousands and even well over the $100k mark in fines (and/or jail time).


----------



## cmckeeman

porkchop said:


> OSHA posted a press release: https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_RELEASES&p_id=26943
> 
> The citation itself is hear: https://www.osha.gov/ooc/citations/Feldfinalcitation.pdf
> 
> The statement sure makes it sound like one extra shackle (to join the pear rings and bring the carabiner into only major axis loading) would have made a world of difference.



While it may seem to solve the problem, it might introduce torsional loading by having three components inline with the carabiner. But I would still rather have seen that than loading it like a shackle


----------



## What Rigger?

cmckeeman said:


> While it may seem to solve the problem, it might introduce torsional loading by having three components inline with the carabiner. But I would still rather have seen that than loading it like a shackle



I see what you did there, with your Rope Access thinking/training. Just off the top of my head as I sit here sans coffee, I wouldn't worry about the torsional loading in this setup. But I could be wrong.


----------



## ruinexplorer

Update: OSHA findings. How I missed this, I not know.

https://www.osha.gov/doc/engineering/2014_r_05.html


----------



## DuckJordan

*


Conclusions

Click to expand...

*

> The cause of the failure of the carabiner was the manner in which it was loaded, subjecting the carabiner to tri-axial loading in violation of industry practice and the instructions of the manufacturer. The carabiners are designed to be loaded in their major axes along the spine.
> Feld Entertainment, Inc./Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey acted in an imprudent manner to rig the entire metal frame supporting eight performers on two pear rings attached to a carabiner. As there was no redundancy in the system, when the carabiner failed due to triaxial loading, the entire frame with the performers attached fell to the ground.
> There is no document available to indicate that the rigging supporting several performers was ever reviewed and checked by a professional engineer for its structural adequacy and performance. This was a serious flaw that led to the incident.
> One of the means of abatement was to place the two pear rings in a shackle instead of a carabiner.



This is the part that I was looking for. I never heard of not using a carabiner in that way. Very interesting. So OSHA has ruled Feld entertainment liable due to improper use of the hardware as well as not backup safety... It will be interesting as to what comes out of this for aerial acts.


----------



## porkchop

DuckJordan said:


> This is the part that I was looking for. I never heard of not using a carabiner in that way. Very interesting. So OSHA has ruled Feld entertainment liable due to improper use of the hardware as well as not backup safety... It will be interesting as to what comes out of this for aerial acts.



As far as changes moving forward it's worth noting #4 where they say that using a shackle would be a means of abatement. To me that sounds like they're suggesting that if you used the shackle then hooked a carabiner between the shackle and the SWR you'd be fine because the load is between only two points in line with the major axis of a carabiner. That's a pretty simple and easy change to make to a system. 
Also getting designs stamped by an engineer (#3) and then inspected to ensure proper assembly is becoming more and more the industry standard (at least here in Vegas) which hopefully will help reduce the frequency of these kinds of accidents in the future.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

To Duck, do you mean you thought triaxial loading on a biner was acceptable? Just not sure of your comment.

To Porkchop - which the spell checker does not permit substituting workshop - I thought the report suggested replacing the biner that failed with two shackles instead. I suppose two biners could be added to make assembly easier/quicker.

I am surprised by lack of PE review. I don't let a rigger dead hang a curtain track without calculations or a drawing sealed by a PE. That to me is the most egregious action by Field, et al.


----------



## porkchop

My reading of the full report is that carabiners as a general device are not designed for triaxial loading and that was what caused the failure. Shackles are designed for triaxial loading (that's exactly what happens when you bridle a point) so if you used a correctly oriented shackle for the necessary triaxial connection point, and then used a carabiner attached to that shackle for quick attachment meaning the load at the carabiner is between two points in line with the major axis then there should not have been an overload condition.

Unfortunately, one of the downsides of being a largely self-regulating industry is that significant portions of the industry can adopt a standard practice, but there are probably other companies that don't even know that the emerging practice is an option yet alone are willing to pay to adopt it. Hopefully PE stamps for life safety applications will continue to rapidly spread in our industry. It makes me feel better every time I get something back with a stamp on it.


----------



## What Rigger?

ruinexplorer said:


> Update: OSHA findings. How I missed this, I not know.
> 
> https://www.osha.gov/doc/engineering/2014_r_05.html


I don't think you missed it. I just saw it last week. The important thing is that it's being seen.


----------



## egilson1

an intersting turn of events

http://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...circus-act-sue-rhode-island-convention-center


----------



## TuckerD

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that OSHA is suggesting that the two pear rings should have been connected to a shackle which could then be attached to the carabiner, thus loading the carabiner along it's major axis. The report didn't appear to condemn the use of carabiners in the system though.

(For anyone who is about to post the 2014 Rocky Paulson article and say that carabiners shouldn't be used at all, I'll go ahead and do that for you. See page 22)

As of a few months ago the eight women have filed a lawsuit in LA Superior Court against four companies who were, in some way, connected to or responsible for the design of this system. Feld was not named in the suit. Seven of the performers are still receiving workers comp for their injuries and, at the one year mark, two of the performers were still unable to walk due to their severe spine injuries. It is unlikely that in the last year they have regained the ability to walk, which, sadly, makes it very unlikely that they ever will.

http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20160502/NEWS/160509943

I'm looking forward to seeing how the lawsuit will settle. It provides a very interesting and real example of who is liable for what and why a company pays for workers comp insurance. For students, the situation provides a, thankfully, rare look into liability and what happens when things go very very wrong in entertainment.

What a terrible course of events.


----------



## rsmentele

It just really surprises me that they would use shackles and pear rings in other areas of the rig, but the ONE Single Point of connection for the apparatus was connected using a carabiner!


----------



## rsmentele

TuckerD said:


> I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that OSHA is suggesting that the two pear rings should have been connected to a shackle which could then be attached to the carabiner, thus loading the carabiner along it's major axis. The report didn't appear to condemn the use of carabiners in the system though.



Although they do state that one solution would be to change the rig to include two pear rings and a shackle:


_One of the means of abatement was to place the two pear rings in a shackle instead of a carabiner._


----------



## ruinexplorer

They probably can't sue their employer (Feld) as they are already accepting workers comp. It does go to show how liability can be passed around. Always be mindful on shows you work.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

Tort law in this country is crazy, and how do they claim the biner was defective, and not just the wrong choice?


----------



## gafftaper

BillConnerASTC said:


> Tort law in this country is crazy, and how do they claim the biner was defective, and not just the wrong choice?



Yeah I don't get it. You've got an OSHA report that pretty clearly says it was the result of bad rigging practices and if they would have just used a shackle this wouldn't have happened, and yet they are suing the manufacturers of the carabineer. Furthermore, what does the convention center have to do with any of this? CRAZY!


----------



## porkchop

rsmentele said:


> It just really surprises me that they would use shackles and pear rings in other areas of the rig, but the ONE Single Point of connection for the apparatus was connected using a carabiner!



Acts need to roll on and off rapidly to keep the show moving. Carabiners are used because they are much faster and easier to make and break in show conditions. This kind of connection point is not unique to Feld.


----------



## ruinexplorer

A video on Facebook shows a recreation of why it failed. Bad rigging choice.


----------



## What Rigger?

Ah! Delbert Hall strikes again. Yeah, uhm, tri-axial loading of a carabiner is a definite no-no all the time, no matter the application.


----------



## gafftaper

porkchop said:


> Acts need to roll on and off rapidly to keep the show moving. Carabiners are used because they are much faster and easier to make and break in show conditions. This kind of connection point is not unique to Feld.


So @porkchop, @What Rigger? , and @egilson1 I have a question for my "Rafter American" friends. Instead of tri-axial loading a single carabineer, could you use two carabineers (coming in at the angles from the bottom) and connect them to a single larger shackle on top? This would put the triaxial load on the shackle while still allowing a relatively quick connection/disconnect time.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

gafftaper said:


> So @porkchop, @What Rigger? , and @egilson1 I have a question for my "Rafter American" friends. Instead of tri-axial loading a single carabineer, could you use two carabineers (coming in at the angles from the bottom) and connect them to a single larger shackle on top? This would put the triaxial load on the shackle while still allowing a relatively quick connection/disconnect time.View attachment 13507


. 

That is what I wondered. Wondered if the swivel ring could have been loaded triaxially.


----------



## gafftaper

BillConnerASTC said:


> . That is what I wondered. Wondered if the swivel ring could have been loaded triaxially.


Just went back and checked the OSHA report (sketch and photo below from OSHA report). The failed Carabiner connected directly to a weight. So to correct my question and Bill's question @What Rigger? , @porkchop , and/or @egilson1, could they have gone from the two pear rings to two carabiners and then triaxially load the weight.


----------



## What Rigger?

I suppose it's a possibility, but it's kind of hard to say here for me as I have (admittedly) skimmed the report. Weight of gear and performers, bridle angles, and various forces as a result of all this stuff aren't something I feel like I would want to just rattle off the top of my head. 

I would want something engineered and built specifically for the act and then have it all looked at and signed off on by someone smarter than myself. Then, there's one more thing: don't vary from the design. It's far too easy (and I've seen people do it) to swap carabiners for shackles in order to save time, etc... Yates/Ropeworks doesn't let you use a carabiner to connect the shoulder straps of your harness to the waist connection. You have to use the maillion that comes with it. Some people around me cried when we went away from that, we all learnd a new way to don our gear and nobody has rolled out of their carabiner as a result. See what I'm saying?

Shackles can be loaded in the manner that Gaff has "illustrated", but you need to be careful as there is a range within the bell that it can be loaded- too wide of a bridle becomes a side loaded shackle, even though it is oriented vertically. Some shackles are marked, some aren't. You have to double check in the catalogue sometimes. 

So, there's what I've seen. But take it as a "broad generalities" kind of answer. Conditions vary in every application, so I'd say my answer here is incomplete at best.


----------



## porkchop

The weight it's hard to say without knowing what kind of testing has been done on the product. My knee jerk reaction would be to only load it along the major axis that's vertical in the picture.

In the spirit of terrible drawings I think this would be an acceptable configuration:


What Rigger posted while I was typing. FWIW using the numbers from the report the bridle angle was somewhere between 110-120 degrees. This is over the 90 degree rule of thumb that many people use, but likely within the 120 degrees that is the limit on most shackles that I've seen.


----------



## GreyWyvern

porkchop said:


> In the spirit of terrible drawings I think this would be an acceptable configuration:View attachment 13511


That's my understanding of what they said would have been acceptable.


----------



## egilson1

gafftaper said:


> Just went back and checked the OSHA report (sketch and photo below from OSHA report). The failed Carabiner connected directly to a weight. So to correct my question and Bill's question @What Rigger? , @porkchop , and/or @egilson1, could they have gone from the two pear rings to two carabiners and then triaxially load the weight.View attachment 13509
> View attachment 13508




Yes, and no.
Your proposed solution would eliminate the issue of tri-axial loading of a carabiner, but does not address the issue of using a product not actually rated for lifting. My interpretation of the OSHA report is that item #4 of the conclusions indicates not using carabiners in the load path. 

Earlier in this thread someone posted the link the the Protocol article Rocky did back in 2014 about why not to use climbing gear for entertainment rigging, and its a very good read. Karl Rulling, the Technical Standards manager for ESTA wrote a sidebar which reviewed an earlier article he wrote in 2003 called "You call that Strong" (I attached it here, but warn you its a very technical read). Karl's sidebar discusses the technical process of determining WLL for rigging hardware and how that differs from climbing hardware. The critical difference is the requirement to proof test industrial lifting equipment before its sold. Each and every item is proof tested. Climbing hardware is not.

It is possible that the failed carabiner from the Feld accident is one of the outliers (0.135% of carabiners produced) that was going to fail below the mean minimum breaking strength. 

This was the basis of the discussion I ldid at LDI last year with Jeff Reder. Are you ok with risking a failure by using a product that 1 or 2 out of 1000 is weaker than the others?

Personally, I'm no willing to make that choice and for which reason I do not use carabiners for rigging. I pick hardware that follows written standards like ASME B30.26, and federal regulations like RR-C-271F. By doing so if/when i have a failure I've got the backing of those standards to help me in court, and not just some design factor that is kinda sorta generally accepted for me to use to calculate my own WLL from the MBS of the carabiner.

my personal solution to this particular challenge would be a shackle to something like a CM Latchlok hook. Locking, load rated, and fast.

Regards,
Ethan


----------



## gafftaper

Thanks @egilson1 @porkchop and @What Rigger? . To those of us who only know enough about rigging to be dangerous, this is a fascinating discussion. It's great having the opportunity to hear from people who do this for a living. 


egilson1 said:


> Your proposed solution would eliminate the issue of tri-axial loading of a carabiner, but does not address the issue of using a product not actually rated for lifting. My interpretation of the OSHA report is that item #4 of the conclusions indicates not using carabiners in the load path.


I recall a conversation I had with Jay Glerum where he told me that quick links should never be used in rigging because they are by design a broken circle with a built in fail point. It seems like you are making a similar objection to carabiners.


----------



## porkchop

egilson1 said:


> Yes, and no.
> Your proposed solution would eliminate the issue of tri-axial loading of a carabiner, but does not address the issue of using a product not actually rated for lifting. My interpretation of the OSHA report is that item #4 of the conclusions indicates not using carabiners in the load path.
> 
> Earlier in this thread someone posted the link the the Protocol article Rocky did back in 2014 about why not to use climbing gear for entertainment rigging, and its a very good read. Karl Rulling, the Technical Standards manager for ESTA wrote a sidebar which reviewed an earlier article he wrote in 2003 called "You call that Strong" (I attached it here, but warn you its a very technical read). Karl's sidebar discusses the technical process of determining WLL for rigging hardware and how that differs from climbing hardware. The critical difference is the requirement to proof test industrial lifting equipment before its sold. Each and every item is proof tested. Climbing hardware is not.
> 
> It is possible that the failed carabiner from the Feld accident is one of the outliers (0.135% of carabiners produced) that was going to fail below the mean minimum breaking strength.
> 
> This was the basis of the discussion I ldid at LDI last year with Jeff Reder. Are you ok with risking a failure by using a product that 1 or 2 out of 1000 is weaker than the others?
> 
> Personally, I'm no willing to make that choice and for which reason I do not use carabiners for rigging. I pick hardware that follows written standards like ASME B30.26, and federal regulations like RR-C-271F. By doing so if/when i have a failure I've got the backing of those standards to help me in court, and not just some design factor that is kinda sorta generally accepted for me to use to calculate my own WLL from the MBS of the carabiner.
> 
> my personal solution to this particular challenge would be a shackle to something like a CM Latchlok hook. Locking, load rated, and fast.
> 
> Regards,
> Ethan



Honest question not trying to be snarky, the latchlok hook is a good solution when you're using a chain hoist but what kind of quick connecting means would you suggest for a winch that uses SWR? Snap shackles don't seem superior to an ANSI Z359 stamped carabiner but shackles are way too slow for some effects (and having a loose pin over the audience, in the dark, 400+ shows a year is asking for trouble). I've seen some sliding latch hooks that I don't actually know the name of, but they are pretty light weight and don't seem like they'd be acceptable for lifting people.


----------



## egilson1

porkchop said:


> Honest question not trying to be snarky, the latchlok hook is a good solution when you're using a chain hoist but what kind of quick connecting means would you suggest for a winch that uses SWR? Snap shackles don't seem superior to an ANSI Z359 stamped carabiner but shackles are way too slow for some effects (and having a loose pin over the audience, in the dark, 400+ shows a year is asking for trouble). I've seen some sliding latch hooks that I don't actually know the name of, but they are pretty light weight and don't seem like they'd be acceptable for lifting people.



They make a version of the latchlok that is for wire rope. Granted, its bright Orange, but I am sure one could figure out the appropriate way to change that.


gafftaper said:


> Thanks @egilson1 @porkchop and @What Rigger? . To those of us who only know enough about rigging to be dangerous, this is a fascinating discussion. It's great having the opportunity to hear from people who do this for a living.
> 
> 
> I recall a conversation I had with Jay Glerum where he told me that quick links should never be used in rigging because they are by design a broken circle with a built in fail point. It seems like you are making a similar objection to carabiners.



My understanding on Jay's thoughts of the use of quick links was at one point in time, finding load rated quick links was almost impossible. Add to that the idea that a quick link has an "up" and "Down" orientation that often is missed, leading to potential opening. We have been having a discussion on the "Statically suspended rigging" task group about the use of non-closed looped hardware. E.G. bent eye-bolts. One person brought up the point that if it's properly rated for the load, why is it not appropriate? if you overload a piece of hardware, regardless of its design, it's going to fail is it not? This of course ignores the idea of capturing the load in an seismic event, which to me is a must have and part of the standard.

I realize the answer i gave may create more questions than it actual answered.

Ethan


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

I thought the problem with quicklinks was that you could not easily see by visual inspection if the were "closed" sufficient to assure their load rating, but in looking at manufacturers and distributors, clearly most state these are not to be used for overhead lifting.


----------



## TuckerD

egilson1 said:


> Yes, and no.
> Your proposed solution would eliminate the issue of tri-axial loading of a carabiner, but does not address the issue of using a product not actually rated for lifting. My interpretation of the OSHA report is that item #4 of the conclusions indicates not using carabiners in the load path.



I don't read it that way because there was another, mono-axial loaded carabiner (42kn) in the system and they didn't seem to criticize it's use. 

How do you all feel about this 72kn carabiner? Could it / would you have used it in this scenario?

-Not a professional, asking questions and learning.


----------



## gafftaper

BillConnerASTC said:


> I thought the problem with quicklinks was that you could not easily see by visual inspection if the were "closed" sufficient to assure their load rating, but in looking at manufacturers and distributors, clearly most state these are not to be used for overhead lifting.



My previous gig was a small black box which had a miniature fly system. There were 12' battens scattered about between the catwalks overhead on an old school sandbag counterweight system. It was great for hanging a banner or flying in a chandelier in a play. The battens were hung with batten clamps then a quick link tied on a rope. They were Chinese made and "rated" at 500lbs. Jay Glerum told me to replace them with Shackles. He told me his objection was that it's broken circle and the only thing keeping it from failing were the threads of the screw section... given that mine were Chinese made that was even more scary. At the time I think there was only one brand of non-Chinese properly rated quick links in the world. So perhaps the Chinese factor was what led to the concern about the threads failing. I didn't ask about swaping for rated quick links as I doubt I knew if they even existed and just putting in shackles was relatively inexpensive and easy to do.


TuckerD said:


> Not a professional, asking questions and learning.


It's rare to have a rigging discussion here on CB that it's safe to really get in deep and discuss. I love it when it happens because we can all learn so much from these guys.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC

gafftaper said:


> My previous gig was a small black box which had a miniature fly system. There were 12' battens scattered about between the catwalks overhead on an old school sandbag counterweight system. It was great for hanging a banner or flying in a chandelier in a play. The battens were hung with batten clamps then a quick link tied on a rope. They were Chinese made and "rated" at 500lbs. Jay Glerum told me to replace them with Shackles. He told me his objection was that it's broken circle and the only thing keeping it from failing were the threads of the screw section... given that mine were Chinese made that was even more scary. At the time I think there was only one brand of non-Chinese properly rated quick links in the world. So perhaps the Chinese factor was what led to the concern about the threads failing. I didn't ask about swaping for rated quick links as I doubt I knew if they even existed and just putting in shackles was relatively inexpensive and easy to do.
> 
> 
> It's rare to have a rigging discussion here on CB that it's safe to really get in deep and discuss. I love it when it happens because we can all learn so much from these guys.


Most rigging is held up by threaded fasteners, so not sure I think all things threaded are bad. In googling these, I did find someone - a climber - who tested a batch and some failed well below their SWL. A batch from another far east country did fine. In the end, not rated for overhead lifting is enough for me.


----------



## egilson1

gafftaper said:


> My previous gig was a small black box which had a miniature fly system. There were 12' battens scattered about between the catwalks overhead on an old school sandbag counterweight system. It was great for hanging a banner or flying in a chandelier in a play. The battens were hung with batten clamps then a quick link tied on a rope. They were Chinese made and "rated" at 500lbs. Jay Glerum told me to replace them with Shackles. He told me his objection was that it's broken circle and the only thing keeping it from failing were the threads of the screw section... given that mine were Chinese made that was even more scary. At the time I think there was only one brand of non-Chinese properly rated quick links in the world. So perhaps the Chinese factor was what led to the concern about the threads failing. I didn't ask about swaping for rated quick links as I doubt I knew if they even existed and just putting in shackles was relatively inexpensive and easy to do.
> 
> 
> It's rare to have a rigging discussion here on CB that it's safe to really get in deep and discuss. I love it when it happens because we can all learn so much from these guys.




Harry Donovan use to do this thing when you asked him a question where he would listen to you, then tilt his head up look at the ceiling, think and then proceed to try and give you an answer. Half the time, it wasn't actually an answer. I learned that what he was doing when he was looking up was debating the liability that could potentially fall on him if he answered the question. I find myself doing this more and more as I age. When I started Entertainment Rigging Sessions after Rocky urged me to do so, I specifically made a mental note to work as hard as possible to give people usable advice and answers. Sometimes that means a bit of effort and research, and of course time. I can tell you my response yesterday was 2 days of thought, and a hour of typing before I posted all of what, 3 paragraphs? But it's important to help educate our community.

Ethan


----------



## egilson1

TuckerD said:


> I don't read it that way because there was another, mono-axial loaded carabiner (42kn) in the system and they didn't seem to criticize it's use.
> 
> How do you all feel about this 72kn carabiner? Could it / would you have used it in this scenario?
> 
> -Not a professional, asking questions and learning.



I would as a general practice not use equipment that has only a breaking strength and no working load limit without a written and accepted standard of what an appropriate design factor should be for that piece of hardware and it's use.

On this particular carbiner, I do like the fact that they proof test it. And if I could get some more data on that proof testing from the manufacture it could be something I would consider using.

Ethan


----------



## porkchop

egilson1 said:


> My understanding on Jay's thoughts of the use of quick links was at one point in time, finding load rated quick links was almost impossible. Add to that the idea that a quick link has an "up" and "Down" orientation that often is missed, leading to potential opening. We have been having a discussion on the "Statically suspended rigging" task group about the use of non-closed looped hardware. E.G. bent eye-bolts. One person brought up the point that if it's properly rated for the load, why is it not appropriate? if you overload a piece of hardware, regardless of its design, it's going to fail is it not? This of course ignores the idea of capturing the load in an seismic event, which to me is a must have and part of the standard.
> 
> I realize the answer i gave may create more questions than it actual answered.
> 
> Ethan



The other issue with quick links, assuming you can find one that is actually rated, is that rating only applies if the nut is fully seated and if it backs off at all then it's load bearing capacity is reduced by some indeterminate amount. It's easy to mouse a shackle, an ANSI 359z carabiner has a spring pushing the gate into it's locked position, but it's relatively more difficult to keep a quick link fully closed.


----------



## What Rigger?

Currently going through all the growing pains of educating a lot of the crew on my gig, or reminding them if you will, about when/where/what/how to lift gear vs how to lift (or have climb )people. It's a heck of a thing. Ethan brings up many valid points a lot of people totally miss regarding choice of gear and what is warranted for what.


----------



## derekleffew

What Rigger? said:


> Currently going through all the growing pains of educating a lot of the crew on my gig,


Simple, really.


----------

