This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Dear all, standing by for the a world of advice and opinions:
A local activity centre has a man made climbing wall, which has not been load tested at the top rope anchors for a long time, as part of that, it has been "condemned" and deemed not suitable for use for top rope climbing, until such time as the anchors have been assessed.
That said, the tower itself appears sounds, and following inspection, a CWA+AB and SPA (who runs regular abseil sessions) felt that the structural integrity of the structure was soundly sufficient to rig an abseil. This was rigged using the main supports and slings, rather than the anchors.
I would appreciate your ideas, opinions and suggestions, I appreciate, abseiling potentially can be rigged on or from anything, sometimes with only a risk assessment and little in the way of structural understanding as to integrity, but would appreciate any opinions.
A local activity centre has a man made climbing wall, which has not been load tested at the top rope anchors for a long time, as part of that, it has been "condemned" and deemed not suitable for use for top rope climbing, until such time as the anchors have been assessed.
That said, the tower itself appears sounds, and following inspection, a CWA+AB and SPA (who runs regular abseil sessions) felt that the structural integrity of the structure was soundly sufficient to rig an abseil. This was rigged using the main supports and slings, rather than the anchors.
I would appreciate your ideas, opinions and suggestions, I appreciate, abseiling potentially can be rigged on or from anything, sometimes with only a risk assessment and little in the way of structural understanding as to integrity, but would appreciate any opinions.
In reply to Dan1898:
I think it would be very difficult to defend a decision to use a tower which has been deemed unsafe if the worst happened. A cwa and spa holder are not structural surveyers or engineers. I don't think I'd want to stand up in court Ms defend my decision to ignore the fact it has been condemned for what ever reason.
I think it would be very difficult to defend a decision to use a tower which has been deemed unsafe if the worst happened. A cwa and spa holder are not structural surveyers or engineers. I don't think I'd want to stand up in court Ms defend my decision to ignore the fact it has been condemned for what ever reason.
4
1
In reply to Dan1898:
I would think that on paper the the instructor is out of remit...but would no doubt be very confident in the structural anchors. The doesn't make his judgement unsound (As you know pieces of paper are not needed to instruct...and experience and judgement are far more valuable than the course tick). It s just that the scope of SPA (would be natural anchors or structural ground anchors at most) and cwa would be managed anchors e.g. wall management,... and for convenience these quals don't extend in scope to anchors off manmade structures.
Certainly unless managed i would opt for the visible structural anchor over (presumably) sleeve bolts/bolted anchors with no currency. What is the gripe? That he shouldn't be doing this? or that the wall could be brought back into service for top roping by using the structural anchors ?
I would think that on paper the the instructor is out of remit...but would no doubt be very confident in the structural anchors. The doesn't make his judgement unsound (As you know pieces of paper are not needed to instruct...and experience and judgement are far more valuable than the course tick). It s just that the scope of SPA (would be natural anchors or structural ground anchors at most) and cwa would be managed anchors e.g. wall management,... and for convenience these quals don't extend in scope to anchors off manmade structures.
Certainly unless managed i would opt for the visible structural anchor over (presumably) sleeve bolts/bolted anchors with no currency. What is the gripe? That he shouldn't be doing this? or that the wall could be brought back into service for top roping by using the structural anchors ?
In reply to nickkaric:
I agree that if an accident were to occur that may be the case...or that scrutiny would be high but if it is only the anchors have been deemed unfit for top roping (and as such the wall is unfit for toproping) and toprpoing isn't being done it it doesnt make the the tower unsafe...if it was it would be condemned, as the weight of a person abseiling off it is negligible and any failure could occur spontaneously...
I agree that if an accident were to occur that may be the case...or that scrutiny would be high but if it is only the anchors have been deemed unfit for top roping (and as such the wall is unfit for toproping) and toprpoing isn't being done it it doesnt make the the tower unsafe...if it was it would be condemned, as the weight of a person abseiling off it is negligible and any failure could occur spontaneously...
In reply to simondgee:
If the top rope anchors haven't been inspected, that would lead me to question the maintenance and inspection routine on the rest of the tower.
This falls under the LOLER regs which state all equipment used in lifting operations (including people) must be inspected every 6 months which includes anchors and supporting structure and that these inspections be recorded, this is on top of the pre use checks by the user.
Whether an spa and cwa are deemed competent is for them, their employer and a risk assessment to decide but for the cost of an inspection by a professional contractor I'd be getting it done.
If the top rope anchors haven't been inspected, that would lead me to question the maintenance and inspection routine on the rest of the tower.
This falls under the LOLER regs which state all equipment used in lifting operations (including people) must be inspected every 6 months which includes anchors and supporting structure and that these inspections be recorded, this is on top of the pre use checks by the user.
Whether an spa and cwa are deemed competent is for them, their employer and a risk assessment to decide but for the cost of an inspection by a professional contractor I'd be getting it done.
1
In reply to Dan1898:
I may be missing something here, but surely if the structural integrity is deemed suitable for abseiling then they must also be suitable to rig a top-roping anchor?
I may be missing something here, but surely if the structural integrity is deemed suitable for abseiling then they must also be suitable to rig a top-roping anchor?
In reply to deacondeacon:
The OP said the "anchors" for top roping are attached to the structure, but the abseiler secured ropes directly to the structure. (my italics)
It is entirely possible for the anchors to be unsound and the structure sound.
The capability of a CWA/SPA to be able to determining the integrity of the structure is an entirely different question.
As is, could top ropes be rigged off the structure, rather than the anchors.
> I may be missing something here, but surely if the structural integrity is deemed suitable for abseiling then they must also be suitable to rig a top-roping anchor?
The OP said the "anchors" for top roping are attached to the structure, but the abseiler secured ropes directly to the structure. (my italics)
It is entirely possible for the anchors to be unsound and the structure sound.
The capability of a CWA/SPA to be able to determining the integrity of the structure is an entirely different question.
As is, could top ropes be rigged off the structure, rather than the anchors.
In reply to nickkaric:
Are you sure that climbing abseiling come under LOLER?
> If the top rope anchors haven't been inspected, that would lead me to question the maintenance and inspection routine on the rest of the tower.
> This falls under the LOLER regs which state all equipment used in lifting operations (including people) must be inspected every 6 months which includes anchors and supporting structure and that these inspections be recorded, this is on top of the pre use checks by the user.
Are you sure that climbing abseiling come under LOLER?
In reply to timjones:
From a man-made construction, yes.
> Are you sure that climbing abseiling come under LOLER?
From a man-made construction, yes.
1
In reply to timjones:
Not climbing and abseiling per se, but the structures and anchors used, if it is man made. Doesn't apply to rock anchors using protection as int he SPA remit.
There seems to be an issue in the outdoor activity industry where conpanies ignore the Health and Safety legislation or don't think it applies to what they do.
Not climbing and abseiling per se, but the structures and anchors used, if it is man made. Doesn't apply to rock anchors using protection as int he SPA remit.
There seems to be an issue in the outdoor activity industry where conpanies ignore the Health and Safety legislation or don't think it applies to what they do.
In reply to Dan1898:
What's the problem with just having an inspection, is it cost ? I've rigged loads of anchors for abseiling off bridges viaducts etc, i work in the construction industry and if something had been condemned I would be more interested in sorting this problem rather than trying to bypass with a cheap fix.if this is going to be used by paying customers than surely you owe it to them to make sure inspections are carried out they may be expensive but not as much as a corporate manslaughter case will cost you or a large amount of compensation when someone hurts themselves.if it's just for staff etc to mess about on then you can take your chance but when it involves unsuspecting public you have to follow the rule book
What's the problem with just having an inspection, is it cost ? I've rigged loads of anchors for abseiling off bridges viaducts etc, i work in the construction industry and if something had been condemned I would be more interested in sorting this problem rather than trying to bypass with a cheap fix.if this is going to be used by paying customers than surely you owe it to them to make sure inspections are carried out they may be expensive but not as much as a corporate manslaughter case will cost you or a large amount of compensation when someone hurts themselves.if it's just for staff etc to mess about on then you can take your chance but when it involves unsuspecting public you have to follow the rule book
2
In reply to nickkaric:
You are wrong. The outdoor industry addressed this issue about 10 years ago. LOLER does not apply for climbing walls or outdoor climbing. I was part of the discussion although John Cousins of the MLTB led on the outdoor industries behalf.
Just to reiterate, LOLER does not apply to climbing.
You are wrong. The outdoor industry addressed this issue about 10 years ago. LOLER does not apply for climbing walls or outdoor climbing. I was part of the discussion although John Cousins of the MLTB led on the outdoor industries behalf.
Just to reiterate, LOLER does not apply to climbing.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
They do in certain circumstances.
Such as when an instructor or assessor accesses the structure via a different method or route than that used by participants. Often for safety checks etc.
Edit:
Link added
http://www.technicaloutdoorsolutions.co.uk/2012/10/working-at-height-regula...
They do in certain circumstances.
Such as when an instructor or assessor accesses the structure via a different method or route than that used by participants. Often for safety checks etc.
Edit:
Link added
http://www.technicaloutdoorsolutions.co.uk/2012/10/working-at-height-regula...
Post edited at 23:50
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I am more than happy to be proved wrong however currently all the information I can find points towards loler being the recognised standard. it would be difficult to defend a decision not to follow the uk h&s standard.
I think technical outdoor solutions sum it up quite well
'The regulations are very simple and with no amendments for the adventure industry.'
More to the point teally what is people's issue, you are running activities with paying customers and your happy to put them at risk because it might cost a few hundred quid to get your tower inspected.
I am more than happy to be proved wrong however currently all the information I can find points towards loler being the recognised standard. it would be difficult to defend a decision not to follow the uk h&s standard.
I think technical outdoor solutions sum it up quite well
'The regulations are very simple and with no amendments for the adventure industry.'
More to the point teally what is people's issue, you are running activities with paying customers and your happy to put them at risk because it might cost a few hundred quid to get your tower inspected.
In reply to nickkaric:
The OP hasn't stated why he asked the question as far as I can see...there are some big assumptions being made here.
The OP hasn't stated why he asked the question as far as I can see...there are some big assumptions being made here.
In reply to Dan1898:
Do it properly and get someone suitably qualified to check it over.
Spa/cwa/mia is pretty irrelevant when it comes to checking anything structural...
Do it properly and get someone suitably qualified to check it over.
Spa/cwa/mia is pretty irrelevant when it comes to checking anything structural...
Post edited at 18:07
1
In reply to Dan1898:
It sounds as though the structure could do with a thorough inspection? when was the last inspection?
Part of my job is to inspect climbing walls(I inspected a tower with a wall and high ropes course only yesterday!)
If you need more info then pm me and I'll put you in touch with the inspections manager.
It sounds as though the structure could do with a thorough inspection? when was the last inspection?
Part of my job is to inspect climbing walls(I inspected a tower with a wall and high ropes course only yesterday!)
If you need more info then pm me and I'll put you in touch with the inspections manager.
Post edited at 21:56
In reply to deacondeacon:
Are the rules as stringent for abseiling? I'd imagine there's less chance of shock loading the anchor. No falls.
Are the rules as stringent for abseiling? I'd imagine there's less chance of shock loading the anchor. No falls.
In reply to Dan1898:
depends on who has deemed the anchors unsafe, what the company/owner has put in place, when the anchors were last strength tested and previous note on yearly inspection documents.
Personally what your are thinking of doing is probably 100% safe but if something goes wrong it will back fire on your self massively !
For example
why were you on a tower that was deemed unsafe ?
is the set up you used approved by your technique ad visor as best practice ?
were the anchors you uses to set it up on the structure strength tested ?
did the set up effect and procedures in place ?
ect ...
usually though depending on whats in place, most walls only test their anchors once every 5/10 years ,and then their monthly/ 6 weekly inspections will cover the hangers and metal work in place.
with the yearly wall inspection covering the whole tower.
depends on who has deemed the anchors unsafe, what the company/owner has put in place, when the anchors were last strength tested and previous note on yearly inspection documents.
Personally what your are thinking of doing is probably 100% safe but if something goes wrong it will back fire on your self massively !
For example
why were you on a tower that was deemed unsafe ?
is the set up you used approved by your technique ad visor as best practice ?
were the anchors you uses to set it up on the structure strength tested ?
did the set up effect and procedures in place ?
ect ...
usually though depending on whats in place, most walls only test their anchors once every 5/10 years ,and then their monthly/ 6 weekly inspections will cover the hangers and metal work in place.
with the yearly wall inspection covering the whole tower.
In reply to Jordon Fleming:
Evening all, some very interesting points raised here, to clarify, the tower was self built in 2001 for a rather poor, children's activity centre, part of a larger organisation, with the usual financial restrictions of most charities. There is no paying customers per say, but in my view that doesn't make a difference, ultimatly the safety of the user is most important.
Upon build the structure was assessed by a structural engineer, and he approved it's use in accordance with the bsen:12572:1997 guidelines. It was periodically reassessed up until 2010, by the same, and recommendations made, which were adopted.
The centre became run down in the years that followed, and an SPA entered the site, condemned the anchors, and made further, and perhaps, though I don't have access to BSEN 12572 (over £200 to buy on Google) to confirm, unrealistic recommendations. The tower has remained in an "unknown" state since
Really I am trying to ascertain, is its recondition even worth the financial outlay, or is it time to knock down and make arrangements for a reputable company to come and rebuild.
Though an avid climber, management of towers, particularly those like this are totally alien to me, and I am banging my head with regards to direction, and actions to take.
Regards
Dan
Evening all, some very interesting points raised here, to clarify, the tower was self built in 2001 for a rather poor, children's activity centre, part of a larger organisation, with the usual financial restrictions of most charities. There is no paying customers per say, but in my view that doesn't make a difference, ultimatly the safety of the user is most important.
Upon build the structure was assessed by a structural engineer, and he approved it's use in accordance with the bsen:12572:1997 guidelines. It was periodically reassessed up until 2010, by the same, and recommendations made, which were adopted.
The centre became run down in the years that followed, and an SPA entered the site, condemned the anchors, and made further, and perhaps, though I don't have access to BSEN 12572 (over £200 to buy on Google) to confirm, unrealistic recommendations. The tower has remained in an "unknown" state since
Really I am trying to ascertain, is its recondition even worth the financial outlay, or is it time to knock down and make arrangements for a reputable company to come and rebuild.
Though an avid climber, management of towers, particularly those like this are totally alien to me, and I am banging my head with regards to direction, and actions to take.
Regards
Dan
In reply to Dan1898:
I haven't read the full thread but could you have the tower reinspected by a structural engineer then use it as before. Or have it reassessed then use slings/chains round the structure as anchors if the anchor part is not safe by the rest is
Like I said, I haven't read the full thread so if this has been suggested but discounted then apologies
Thanks
David
I haven't read the full thread but could you have the tower reinspected by a structural engineer then use it as before. Or have it reassessed then use slings/chains round the structure as anchors if the anchor part is not safe by the rest is
Like I said, I haven't read the full thread so if this has been suggested but discounted then apologies
Thanks
David
In reply to Dan1898:
* Indoor structures are not exactly in a harsh environment
* It was fine in 2010
* SPA does not indicate any competence at structural assessment
So my gut feeling - and I have no qualifications or expertise on this - is that it's probably OK, and I'd get a structural engineer to assess it again. Unless the SPA was an engineer also. But it's also possible they didn't know what they were doing...
Ultimately there's no way of knowing what its state is without checking, which again points at getting a structural engineer in?
* Indoor structures are not exactly in a harsh environment
* It was fine in 2010
* SPA does not indicate any competence at structural assessment
So my gut feeling - and I have no qualifications or expertise on this - is that it's probably OK, and I'd get a structural engineer to assess it again. Unless the SPA was an engineer also. But it's also possible they didn't know what they were doing...
Ultimately there's no way of knowing what its state is without checking, which again points at getting a structural engineer in?
In reply to Dan1898:
What Graeme said was correct loll er does not affect climbing or abseiling activities. This is covered by having spa, cwa or in house. However things like route setting or checking anchors isn't climbing, it's working at height so at this point HSE are interested. There are plenty of climbing wall inspectors that will be able to inspect the tower. Most manufacturers will offer this service. They will also give advice on any issues and tell you the best way to move forward.
Personally I would get an inspection. You can work out how much a structure can take and how strong the anchors are when newly built. However if the builder made any errors or it has simply deteriorated is harder to tell.
Also the issue being that it was condemned by an SPA and has been since would suggest it doesn't have regular checks or a paper trail. I would get that in place as well considering its located outside and prone to our lovely weather.
What Graeme said was correct loll er does not affect climbing or abseiling activities. This is covered by having spa, cwa or in house. However things like route setting or checking anchors isn't climbing, it's working at height so at this point HSE are interested. There are plenty of climbing wall inspectors that will be able to inspect the tower. Most manufacturers will offer this service. They will also give advice on any issues and tell you the best way to move forward.
Personally I would get an inspection. You can work out how much a structure can take and how strong the anchors are when newly built. However if the builder made any errors or it has simply deteriorated is harder to tell.
Also the issue being that it was condemned by an SPA and has been since would suggest it doesn't have regular checks or a paper trail. I would get that in place as well considering its located outside and prone to our lovely weather.
In reply to Dan1898:
I would add a "me too" to climbwhenready's 20:40 post.
But regarding this:
It's bloody ridiculous that standards are so expensive, they really should be in the public domain. But for what it's worth you can get a read of it for free via your local library. (Assuming you do still have a local library.)
I would add a "me too" to climbwhenready's 20:40 post.
But regarding this:
> I don't have access to BSEN 12572 (over £200 to buy on Google)
It's bloody ridiculous that standards are so expensive, they really should be in the public domain. But for what it's worth you can get a read of it for free via your local library. (Assuming you do still have a local library.)
In reply to deepsoup:
And there's usually a pdf copy available as a torrent somewhere on the inter web for the less scrupulous and or more time pressured.
jk
> It's bloody ridiculous that standards are so expensive, they really should be in the public domain. But for what it's worth you can get a read of it for free via your local library. (Assuming you do still have a local library.)
And there's usually a pdf copy available as a torrent somewhere on the inter web for the less scrupulous and or more time pressured.
jk
In reply to Dan1898:
With working in the outdoor industry you don't necessarily have to have a structural engineer out, they are only called to deem the tower will basically not crumble and is structurally sound. with this said an inspection of the structure to make sure nothing has deteriorated will be expected and an inspection of all metal work and soft wear in place, and replaced if needed.
With working in the outdoor industry you don't necessarily have to have a structural engineer out, they are only called to deem the tower will basically not crumble and is structurally sound. with this said an inspection of the structure to make sure nothing has deteriorated will be expected and an inspection of all metal work and soft wear in place, and replaced if needed.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...