an intersting turn of events
http://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...circus-act-sue-rhode-island-convention-center
http://www.boston.com/news/local-ne...circus-act-sue-rhode-island-convention-center
Ringling Bros. Accident
- Thread starterruinexplorer
- Start date
TuckerD
Well-Known Member
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.
(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.
BillConnerFASTC
Well-Known Member
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!
A video on Facebook shows a recreation of why it failed. Bad rigging choice.
What Rigger?
I'm so fly....I Neverland.
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
Well-Known Member
.
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'm so fly....I Neverland.
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
That's my understanding of what they said would have been acceptable.
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
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.
porkchop
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Similar threads
