Search results for query: *

Sorry, Kevin...that was a rather rude comment I made in response to your last post. I'm referring to my post #36 in this thread. Your perspective and mine are clearly very different...but please accept my apology.

I rest my case... :banghead:

And thanks for looking, Dave. I'll try to look into it deeper myself...if I find anything out, will certainly share.

Thank you, Joel. I am forever grateful that I learned SRT from cavers and high angle rescue technicians, rather than from tree climbers...the latter group (which I consider myself firmly within, warts and all :D) have been distressingly blind to the long developmental path, the safety protocols...

Yes, exactly...which is why I asked Dave if he had a breaking strength number on the Kong unit...I couldn't find it on the Kong website, and hoped it might be on some literature he might of received with the ascender.

It's pretty much rock solid, Sean. Has quite a strong spring. I feel no need to add to that. Of course, one of the reasons for redundant attachment points to the access line is that a failure of one is not a failure of the system. I do wish it's breaking strength was higher...we've talked...

Really Stephen, the chest harness only keeps the Croll aligned properly...the screwlink to the harness from the bottom of the Croll is the life support attachment.

Not how I see it for any ascender that attaches at or above the climber's personal COB. To meet the long accepted standard for SRT with mechanical ascenders in vert rope access technology, there needs to be two seperate life support grade attachments to the ascent line. The chest ascender...

This statement (I bolded it, above) puzzles me, Stephen. It sure is in my SRT system. Getting into derail territory :).

One wonders if the failure had occurred in a recreational use, what Kong's response would have been. Just to make sure I understand, Adrian...the issue for Kong was not in how the climber had encorporated the ring into his climbing system, but was soley based on the fact that it happened in a...

One would like to hope that is how it'd go...but I don't think I'd take that wager, A. I'm the first to decry the litiginous nature of people today, at least here in the US...but this might have been an appropriate time for it?

Well said, Dave.

So it was the setting in which he was using the ring, rather than the manner in which he deployed it, if I get your drift?

Ahh...of course I remember well the ring recalls. Thanks. So, was he using in a manner it was not intended to be used in? Other than the competition angle?

Dave, does Kong list a breaking strength for that ascender?

I'm not recalling whatever incident to which you refer, Adrian. Can you enlighten me, please?