New Rule 40.2 Quick Release Harness???

Hello

Does anyone know what equipment will meet the new rule 40.2?

Apparantly, we have until Jan 1 2006 to use a quick release device on trap harnesses. (I assume my standard harness with a hook will be illegal a year from now)

XMAS is comming
Thanks
Mark

Wouter

Wouter - Mark is referring to the ISAF rule.

I hope that if they continue with the rule that they choose to reword it because I think that it can be interpreted it to mean that our current hook and ring equipment still qualifies...or at least, it's too generic to really indicate what DOES qualify.

This rule comes due to several near tragedies and one fatality where sailors are trapped under a capsized boat. Ref: http://www.sail-world.com/index.cfm?Nid=5931
What ISAF wants is a system where you can release the bar/hook from the harness easy if you are trapped. I think Neil Pryde has a quick release system (that wears over time, and suddenly drops you into the drink, my experience from windsurfers). Ref: http://www.neilpryde.com/en/2005/equip/equip_product.php?ID=10
(did not find any quick release on your store Mary, but you did have the Bethwaite system that also should have been allowed)

I'm with Jake. I don't think the wording of the new rule is clear enough.

I know this isn't perfect either but perhaps something a little more to the point like...only trapeze systems will be allowed on which the attachment point can be disengaged from the harness if it was attached to a submerged object while being worn by the user.

I can understand why they might be squeamish to define the rule any further due to liability and that further definition might also imply that they will need to have a list of approved hardware. However, if they don't make it a little more defined, they will not achieve anything other than giving the issue a little more publicity. Perhaps the publicity is all they hope to achieve - it has got us talking about it in two threads and I'm now thinking about what I'm going to replace my harness with regardless of the rule change.

The rule could no doubt be better written. However I do think it will be enforced, especially during protest hearings..

What remains is to see if it will produce safe release systems.

Enforced?

How can such a vague rule be enforced? There is nothing for a protest hearing to go by here.

Check out the Key Hole Trapeze System at murrays.com (sorry Mary). It is a true hookless design. Put your orders in early...there will be a run on hookless systems if the rule is enforced.

This is a good question and the wording is vague. I'm thinking the "at all times while in use" wording suggests that it be easy to release while loaded and the trap wire is under tension. If this is the standard I'm not sure if either the hook type or the Bethwaite type would qualify. Also, any design that is very easy to release could result in inadvertant release....can you say "depth charge"...

We have the keyhole systems in our store, too.

My understanding is that some dinghy (and keelboat classes for droop hiking) had the crew wired into the boat for fast tacks (you could change sides on an endless trap wire). Obviously a hook and ring would be a big improvement on that type of system. The new rule doesn't say "allows the sailor to self-disconnect from his harness while underwater for objects that have snagged his trapeeze harness by accident". Unless you are tied in to the trap wire, this is not enforceable.

"endless trap wire"

That was my guess on what they wanted to prevent here. I think there might have been some discussion based on recent catamaran issues, but maybe the rule really was related to these wired-in systems... that we don't use anyway.

As far as getting your orders in... they are talking 2006 right? Sounds like we can talk about it for another year!

I actually know of a system that would work and not wear down.

I thought of it some 3 years ago when the first discussion were had about this.

I does release the bar completely and easily. No moving parts. I planned to persue it and make a buck out of it but it I kept putting it off.

What shall I do ? Make it public domain or try to make a buck out of it.

This in doubt.

Wouter

Sounds like ISAF needs to come with an interpretation of this rule..

I still think it will be enforced (in whatever interpretation is given) as the RRS needs to be respected. If they make a new rule without enforcing it, what is the point of the new rule, and what then about the other rules.. Are they also optional? No, it will be enforced, but we need an interpretation of the rule.

However, getting trapped by your trapeeze hook underwater is just one of the possible scenarios. But as we have had one (several?) fatality, I can understand why they try to do something about this. Perhaps helmets and exoskeletons are next?

There are several quick release trapeeze hooks on the market , so most harnesses can probably be re-fitted (if this is what ISAF wants from the rule).

Ref: http://www.rwo-marine.com/newproducts.htm

(Mary, I checked, and could not find a similar product in the catsailor.com store, besides the Bethwaite one. I guess he will be livid if his system is not approved..)

I have seen that "hookless" design, the one with the ball and sleeve. Just guessing that if that ball was under load, it would be just as hard to de-tension as the hook.

Anybody have any real time use of that ball system?

ISAF might as well add a quick release for the bungy cord (shock cord that retains trapeze wires), too?
I've had to untangle myself from the strechy cord a couple times under water over 30 years.

I've used the ball and key-hole harnes from murrays, as for hooking and unhooking from the trap lines i see no real advantage or disadvantage from the hook and ring system. However the keyhole doesn't catch on anythign else on the boat, and there is less chance to hurt the boat with the hook while climbing back onto it.

I used the ball type this year in six Regattas. It worked just fine. You just have to get used to hooking up. At first, you look to make sure it is in. Coming out underload is the same as the hook type. With no hook, you never catch the shroud, or anything else. I hope they go ahead and make this mandatory.

Caleb Tarleton H-17

"40.2 A trapeze or hiking harness shall have a device capable of quickly releasing the competitor from the boat at all times while in use. "

Although the rule is well-worded, it may be too open to interpretation and will be difficult to prove which harnesses or systems do or don`t qualify. What determines "quickly ?" Some competitors may be able to hold their breath longer than others .
The rule is well written since it only requires that the competitor be released from the boat, which is the desired goal.
Under this rule, any harness with a pocket qualifies, as long as you have a pair of wire-cutters in the pocket.

I believe they have worded it as such so that you can develop a harness that has the hook, but has a quick-release buckle which enables the sailor to disengage his body from the harness should the harness become tangled,or disengage the hook from the harness, as this would satisfy the requirement of the rule.

I don`t think the ball & keyhole system is any better than the hook in this regard, assuming the sailor is trapped under the boat and the trapeze wire is under load, both require the same effort to undo. The keyhole system`s only advantage is that you are unlikely to get it snagged on a sidestay or something else underwater, which is possible with the hook.



I think it`s a good rule, and probably highly necessary. However, as someone else posted, the only way of making it enforceable is to have a list of approved harnesses, otherwise you leave it up to the discretion of the Race Officer or protest committee to decide, can you imagine the implications of that ? If a competitor drowns due to his harness becoming trapped after it has been approved for use in the competition, his family could take legal action against the Race Officer, sadly we live in an age where you can sue someone else for allowing you to do something that you should be aware of the dangers of, and where people demand to be able to do a potentially dangerous pastime without accepting the responsibility of that risk.

No, here ISAF has to take the lead : If they make the rule, THEY have to enforce it, the only way I can see is to send harnesses for tests, and then have a list of approved models. This will make all our old harnesses obsolete, but it`s the only way to do it properly. This is how all paragliding equipment is treated, it must be certified by DHV tests to be suitable for use. I`ts not a failproof system, and equipment still can fail or not work as designed under certain circumstances, but at least it will help minimize the risks and establish a minimum requirement for equipment. It may not be sold as paragliding equipment if it doesn`t comply with the requirements of the tests.

The rule, however, as currently worded, only applies to sailors while they are racing, as it uses the word "competitor" implying that anyone out sailing for the fun of it can still go ahead and drown, so perhaps that needs to be revised.

Cheers
Steve

I am not discounting the dangers of the hook.
But, there are other issues that come into play,
such as all the spaghetti one can get in trouble with,
(the shock cord, sheets, etc) when looped around the
legs and torso real tight. Getting unhooked is the easy part.

Hi,
I've used the "Ball & Socket" system for about 20 years now. It's nothing new. (see photo attached) I like it much better than the hook as there is no metal to hit you in the teeth or eyeball when not using it and you don't punch a hole in your boat climbing back on after a capsize. As it applies to this discussion, it is probably no easier or harder to release than the hooks. However, it seems to me either is adequate for complying with rule 40.2

Steve
Hobie FX-1, Sail# 211

Hi Steve,

As you note, both hook and ball systems have been around for years... So... I assume that these system are not sufficient for ISAF. Otherwise, Why would they have put forth the rule.

Perhaps, they are only addressing the continuous systems that have you permantly attached to the boat (as noted above) However, if that were the case, you would think they would have been explicit in their rule making.

So, my current take is that nobody really knows what's legal in 06 and I wonder how sailors will be informed of what's legal or not!

As a race organizer like yoursef and looking forward .. I would refuse to write a Sailing Instruction that undercut this rule... God forbid an accident related to harnesses occur on your watch.

Indeed... I wonder if the SI, "... protests related ro rule 40.2 will not be heard " would be an acceptable way out of the fog. I have seen SI's which state that protests concerning the US coast guard requirment for a throwable will not be heard. I wonder if that has ever caused trouble?

I know its a real PIA to carry a throwable for the Coast Guard for our distance races!

Thanks for yours and anyone elses thoughts

How about explosive bolts, like on the space capsules????

Nah... poke your eye out!

BUT.... your thinking... your thinking

How about a hook made from tissue paper! Then it would disolve once it got in the water....or might there be something I'm overlooking?

Sharks and alligators.

Great.....

Lets let the world of litagation enter our world of sailing.

I did not know our sport was dangerous, afterall, the A cat manual does not say "sailing can be fatal"

Explosive bolts? Dear god think about about where that hook usually hangs man!

Exposive bolts could be RC controlled too. The race commitee could punch the sail number of OCS boats into the computer and "notify" them of thier status all at the same time! There would be no more bitching about courses or squareness of start line or anything else either.

Really though, the wording IMO is intentionally vague in order to start the process of selecting something. Let's hope it's cheaper than the center buckle of a 5-point harness used in race cares. They are around $300 a pop.

Why has nobody questioned why ISAF has the right to legislate a thing like this in the first place?

Why wouldn't they have the right? Other sports' governing bodies have required minimum standards of equipment for safety grounds for years so I can't see a logical reason for saying that ISAF can't. Might save them from being sued by some over litigious American!

Well, I would think it is the other way around -- that the more rules they have involving safety, the more they open themselves up to lawsuits.

Maybe it is better if they leave it up to the individual sailor to figure out what he thinks is safe on his boat.

I think the job of ISAF and of the various MNA's is to make recommendations and educate people regarding safety, not to legislate.

I agree that there is way too much legislating going on! That goes for all governing bodies.
Rick

Hi Mary

Do you feel the same way about Race Committe's who insist on the rule All must wear Life Jackets while racing"?

How about the Fed's mandating front air bags in cars?

How about the fed's dictating the bumper height of cars?

An experienced sailor died and those attempting to help were powerless to save him because of a limitation in his equipment. It would seem that while this is not common, more people have reported near misses and so the problem is quite real and not insignificant.

The obvious solution is to require the use of better equipment. The fact that few options (perhaps just one) exist on the market right now points to a real problem.
I certainly was aware of the sailor's death and its cause but I was not out there looking for a saftey solution. The new rule will change my behavior and I will upgrade when the equipment is approved and available.

ISAF and the National Sailing authorities have done what they are supposed to do... Take a leadership position and require sailors to upgrade their equipment. Mind you, the legislation pertains ONLY to sailors racing under the rules as specified by ISAF and spelled out in the general sailing instructions.

You are free to ammend the rules and waive this particular rule for any races that you PRO. Will you choose to waive this rule?

Take Care
Mark

Mark,
In my uninformed opinion, I think the new trapeze rule 40.2, "A trapeze or hiking harness shall have a device capable of quickly releasing the competitor from the boat at all times while in use," allows the trapeze harnesses we already are using. It sounds like the purpose is to eliminate "continuous" trapeze systems that attach you to the boat, or maybe people actually tying themselves to the boat for purposes of hiking or trapezing.

Nobody has asked whether this is going to extend to disallowing tethers, as well, since they attach you to the boat. In some cases you WANT to be attached to the boat, and in some cases you don't. How can you legislate this stuff?

The mere fact that there is so much confusion and discussion about the meaning of the rule makes it obvious that lawyers would have a field day with it.

As far as a race committee waiving the rule, that depends upon the interpretation of the rule, which we still do not have. If it includes tethering, and if tethers are attached to trapeze harnesses, I would assume the rule would have to be waived for long-distance catamaran races.

EVERYTHING in life and in the world is potentially dangerous. Even life jackets have resulted in drownings because of people being trapped beneath boats and not being able to swim out.

Race committees can mandate whatever they want. If you don't like it, you can pack up and go home. ISAF and US Sailing have not made a rule requiring all racing sailors to wear life jackets at all times. And neither has the Coast Guard. I would be totally opposed to a rule like that, and apparently I am not alone.

ISAF and US Sailing should educate rather than legislate. Sailors are not stupid. Give us the facts and statistics and anecdotal evidence and let us make up our own minds about what equipment we think is safe or unsafe.

As far as cars, I really don't think anybody is interested in my opinions, considering that I think electrically-controlled windows in cars are responsible for a lot of drownings. Give me a crank any day. Should the government require car manufacturers to go back to manual-crank windows just because people keep driving into canals in Florida?

Seat belts? No problem, because I can't be forced to wear them.

Air bags? Problem, because I don't have a choice. The government can force the manufacturers to put air bags into their vehicles, but I, as the consumer, should not be forced to have an air bag if I don't want it. Air bags save lives, but they also cause deaths. In fact, a member of Rick's family is partially paralyzed for life because of an air bag (seems he was too tall, and the air bag deployed in a minor, 15-mph incident in a parking lot. Hit him under the chin and broke a vertebra.) The manufacturers should give you the option of air bags at no extra cost. If you want a car without them, it should be available. Just like you should be able to get a car with crank windows.

Actually I think most of us only attach a tether (a.k.a. chicken line) to the dogbone - not to the harness itself. David and I did this because we didn't want another attachment from us to the boat. It worked just fine that way.

Jake,
In my understanding, a tether and a chicken line are two different things. A chicken line is something to hold onto to keep you from falling off the boat. A tether keeps you attached to the boat if you do fall off.

aaaaa...I should have seen that...sorry. The way I look at it with regards to either falling off and loosing the boat or tyeing on with a tether, at least you get a second chance if you loose the boat with the EPIRB, smoke, and/or strobe.

This has always been a big dilemma -- to tether or not to tether. The most important thing on a long-distance race is to not become separated from the boat, because usually there is nobody around to help. In bad conditions if you fall off and are separated from the boat, is the remaining person going to be able to come back alone to get you? If the boat capsizes as a result of your falling off, will the other person be able to right the boat alone? What if you both fall off and become separated from the boat? I would rather be keelhauled a few times with the boat cartwheeling, and break a few bones, than be alone in the ocean watching my boat drift off over the horizon. And if you become separated from the boat at night, forget it.

Big-boat sailors have a relatively short tether line on their safety harness, and they can snap their tether onto attachment points on the boat or onto a "jackline" that runs fore and aft so they have mobility but cannot fall off the boat. I haven't heard any rule saying they are not allowed to use tethers because they are "attached" to the boat. I have not heard a rule saying they have to be able to have a quick-release from their tether in case the boat rolls over.

This particular rule is about hiking and trapeze harnesses specifically. They did not say you cannot be attached to the boat -- just that you have to be able to detach your trapeze harness from the boat. So are they saying that you can continue to be attached to the boat as long as it does not involve your trapeze harness? So are we now going to have to wear, in addition to life jacket and trapeze harness, a safety harness (like on the big boats) to which to fasten our tether, so we can "technically" comply to the rule?

I asked the Multihull Council if they discussed this new rule at their meeting in October, but I haven't gotten an answer yet.

Right now I do not think this rule was very well thought out, at least as to how it affects multihulls.

ISAF might as well add another RULE, that each sailor shall be required to carry on her person an effortlessly accessible tool with a serrated blade to cut your mate (or yourself) FREE of every possible line or sheet on the boat (or out from the tramp).

To think some here have actually implied that the fed gov can and should mandate safety standards. I am always amazed that people think the fed gov has the answers to all the problems.

Lets see....they tried to regulate the costs of the flu shots....we all see the results.....they run the railroad (all at a loss...save the ne corridor) When they "had" the airlines...one could never travel coast to coast for the equvilent of $200.00

So now we want the a "gov body" to regulate our safety and practices....again....the regulating body at UAL tried to mandate pilot wages...end result? Go against the market..and suffer the consequences.

Did not Adam Smith make a remark about the "invisable hand" of decisions? Sailors!! Let's handle this ourselves....we are sailors, and therefore, quite capable of making rational thoughts...

just my 2 cents..

I'm usually a reader-only at this forum but I remembered seeing some information on this issue so I thought it could be worth posting.


Evidently they decided on legislation rather than education.

It is worthy of note that the November 2003 wording may have outlawed key and ball systems. In my opinion, this and possible legal issues, are the reason that the final wording of the rule is far less prescriptive on the nature of the "quick release mechanism".

There would have been far less confusion if the final rule had used wording similar to paragraph a of the decision.

Clearly, the intent of the rule, when read with the minutes in mind, is to outlaw current hook and ring systems.

--Quick Release Products--

Sea-Sure Quick Release Trapeze Hook

RWO Quick Release Trapeze Hook

Bethwaite Keyball Trapeze System

I say that they pay for these "upgrades". Every trapeze sailor get's a new harness of their choice from ISAF!

Seriously, how are 'they' going to enforce this issue to the lowest level? Knee-jerk reaction. A better time frame would be Jan 2008. This would allow more companies to re-design their harnesses/buckle systems.

BC

We did discuss this in Portland at the US SAILING meeting, but not with any real seriousness, mostly because Judges agree that the wording is wide open. That combined with an effective date that may become permanently "the day after tomorrow" make it doubtful that it's something we have to worry about soon. I can't imagine someone filing a protest over my harness. And then what does the Judge or protest committee ask you? Quick release - yes sir! Sometimes involuntarily!

Most folks I talked to indicated they see this as a problem for classes that use continuous systems, not for beach cats and board sailors.

Sorry for bringing this one up again :

A chat with a Hobie 16 sailor this weekend tells me that this new rule, in one form or another, is a long way overdue.
Sailing in the Cape Point Challenge, (85km distance race in Cape Town, to the end of Cape Point & back. Can get nasty),his crewmember accidentally hooked his harness hook over the plastic handle that is in the wire trap-hook that the French Hobies are fitted with. Could he get it out ? Nope. Two of them couldn`t get it out, it had taken the full weight of the sailor to "pop" it into place, and was coming out for no-one. The skipper tried to assist in releasing the crew, while both still wiring & sailing in fresh breeze & quite big seas. That`s when he realized that if they capsize things could become a problem. The crew released all the buckles & climbed out of the harness, something he`d have found much more difficult underwater.
Since then they both carry a knife that can be opened with one hand in their harness. Maybe we should also carry a pair of wire-cutters ? Overkill ? Maybe, but you never know.

I`m not sure if this windsurfing harness system would comply. I have one, and it releases one side of the spreader bar, and loosens the leg straps, enabling you to get out of the harness quickly (mainly for a pee ! )

http://www.pro-limit.com/displayitem.php3?item_id=1103

Cheers
Steve

I generally try to cary a stainless knife that clips to my life vest(although its missing right now, grrrrrrr) anyhow, when i was first learning to sail, someone told me that you never know when you will need to cut something fast, made sense to me, so I try to always have it, especially if there aren't gonna be lotsa folks around.

If he'd been using the bethwait system he couldn't have got caught that way. Shame that ISAF seem to be outlawing that too!

Hi John,

where were you at the GYA meet on Sat, hmmm?

Dick Rose was lecturing at the GYA winter meet, and when he fielded questions, I asked him exactly what was the definition of a quick release harness.

Rose replied that there were to be parameters defined by several different entities, and their findings would likely be published by January 2006, and not to worry about it until then...

sea ya
tami

That is...unless you're trapped under water!

Or if you need a new harness in 2005..

Don't you think they will toss this whole rule out for liability reasons? How can ISAF take it upon themselves to legislate that you have to use a certain kind of gear? I think their job is to educate and maybe even recommend, but not to legislate.

Even on the big boats, regarding use of life jackets, ISAF only went as far as requiring life jackets to be worn during the start and the finish of the race. In between, it is up to the captain of the vessel (unless they have changed that rule).

Maybe they just proposed this rule to get classes, and sailors and trapeze harness manufacturers to start thinking about coming up with safer harnesses.

Toss the rule out? I dont think so, if they dumped a safety rule, they would loose a lot of credibility.

Liability? Wouldn't that cut both ways, if more people died while trapped (pun unintended) in their harnesses? I dont know, but wouldn't suing ISAF over this be a quick way to kill off their own business, instead of changing their product?

As long as they dont go so far as to only allow certain brands, I dont see how they could be sued over this? The ITA only allows certain sailcloths, spesific weights and brands, as far as I know nobody has sued them over this yet.

Those among us who race, needs rules to do so in an orderly way, isn't that legislation?

I am neither a lawyer or businessman, so I dont know..

No, it does not "cut both ways." If sailors are responsible for their own safety, as it has always been, why would the International Sailing Federation (ISAF) have any liability? It is only when they actually HAVE a rule that ISAF invites some liability.

Some of us on www.yachtsandyachting.com have asked the ISAF for a clarification of this on their forum (you will need to register to view it) and I would urge you all to add some comments here so we can FORCE the ISAF to make a comment about it

Linky to ISAF Forum

HAH! (but I'm still wearing mine)