A Time of Change with Standards

For many years UIAA represented all that needed to be known when it came to standards. These days letters such as CE and EN and ISO have appeared. This document sets out in a very superficial way to explain some of the relationships.

Quality Assurance Standards

The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has a set of Quality Assurance Standards. The series is numbered ISO 9000. The highest level is ISO 9001 and the lowest is ISO 9003. This internationally recognised quality assurance program ensures the highest quality possible in manufacturing and service. The process starts with the monitoring of raw materials, and component parts through in-line processes, to sales and customer service departments.

Obtaining ISO Quality Assurance certification requires the preparation of a Quality Manual which describes every procedure used by an organisation. Before the Quality Assurance system is operational an audit is carried out by an Accreditation Body. Once the standard has been obtained the Accreditation Body is required to conduct annual audits to ensure adherence to the quality requirements.

UIAA Standards

The UIAA (International Union of Alpinist Associations) has for many years through its Safety Commission provided both the standards and accreditation for mountaineering equipment. The standards cover ropes, karabiners, ice axes, harnesses, helmets, accessory cords, tape material, tape slings, chocks, adjustable chocks, ascenders, fall arrestors, bolts, ice anchors and pitons.

Trade Members of UIAA pay a fee for the right to use the UIAA label. The label can be used after samples of a product have been tested and certified as meeting the UIAA standards.

The UIAA is NOT a member of any national or international standards body and so while its standards have been accepted by the outdoor recreation community they have no formal recognition by ISO or Standards Australia.

European Standards

The European Union has agreed in principle that all items subject to standard that are sold in the EC will be manufactured to a single standard. The standards are prepared by Technical Committees and are issued initially as provisional standards (prEN) and finally as EN standards (Euronorms).

In many cases the prEN were based on an existing standard from one of the member countries eg BS from Britain, AFNOR from France or DIN from Germany. A special case is the use of UIAA standards as the basis for some prEN. However, many DIN standards were equivalent to UIAA standards so it is difficult to claim direct UIAA involvement in some cases.

Products which have been certified as meeting the requirements of a given EN and that are manufactured by an organisation with an appropriate Quality Assurance certification carry the CE mark.

Personal Protective Equipment

Following a directive from the European Commission all equipment defined as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is now required to be certified to the appropriate EN and to carry the CE mark. Supplying equipment that is used as personal protective equipment in industry without it have a CE mark is a serious offence.

The result of the directive is that all items such as helmets, karabiners and harnesses for which there exists an EN standard, carry a CE mark. Some items also carry CE marks based on a prEN where an EN has not been finalised.

Australian Standards

Standards Australia is the body responsible for both the Quality Assurance standards and also the product standards in Australia. It should be remembered that Standards Australia is an independent body substantially funded by the major manufacturers in Australia.

As a general principle Standards Australia takes the attitude that Australian Standards should be very similar to acceptable overseas standards unless there is a good reason to change them. This is so that there is no artificial barrier to trade and also so that the opportunities in export markets are increased.

Until recently there have been very few Australian standards for products of interest to the outdoor recreation, rope access and vertical rescue consumer. The only truly relevant standard was the rope standard AS 4142.3 Man made fibre ropes for static life rescue lines. That standard described the performance criteria for static ropes with diameter 11mm and greater.

The current harness standard covered by NZS/AS 1891 was based in large part on the European Standard. The Australian Standard for dynamic ropes will be based on the EN once it is finalised.

Which Standard To Use

The UIAA standard has traditionally been the most appropriate one to use for mountaineering and rock climbing equipment. While the standards are high the sampling and testing is not very stringent. The manufacturer chooses the samples and sends a small number (usually less than 10) for testing. If the samples pass the certificate is issued and is valid for the life of the product. Many of the more reputable manufacturers only obtain UIAA certification for marketing reasons.

Any manufacturer that has certification in the ISO 9000 (or equivalent) series will produce equipment of a consistent standard. Such certification on its own does not tell you what level of quality will be produced, only that it will be consistent. The addition of certification to an EN (and hence the presence of a CE mark) gives you the double assurance that the quality is both consistent and high enough to meet the appropriate standard.

Many countries non-European countries also use the ISO 9000 Quality Assurance standards. In these countries there are usually standards bodies (eg Standards Australia), which usually also require certification to a Quality Assurance standard before a manufacturer can be given a licence to use their standards mark. As a result standards marks other than CE (including UIAA) may also be found on products made outside of Europe. A user should check that the standard to which the equipment has been certified is suitable for the intended use.

Major Consequences of the CE Mark

There are several major consequences of the arrival of the CE mark. Perhaps the most critical is that with the European market closed to manufacturers of equipment that does not carry the CE mark, substandard equipment may be forced into other markets. Quality equipment from smaller manufacturers, who cannot afford CE certification may disappear from the market if the rest of the world cannot sustain them. Costs will rise for products carrying the CE mark as the cost of obtaining the certification and the increased costs associated with the additional labelling and packaging will be passed on to the consumer.

The PPE Directive requires that manufacturers provide information about the life of each product. While in the past these have been made in the form of general guidance many European manufacturers are now stating the life in years. Nylon helmets (ie not all helmets) have been given a life (used or unused) of 5 years. At least one rope manufacturer has given rope a life of 2 years (used or unused). Expect similar numbers on karabiners and harnesses!

The Product Life Problem

Given the duty of care of the purchasers of group equipment such fairly arbitrary "use by date" estimates will be problematical. For the helmets there is a good technical reason. The polymer having been injection moulded will harden over time and the shell will become more brittle and less able to absorb energy and resist penetration. However, for ropes the logic is missing. One manufacturer I approached said that they were "just covering their back" by giving a very short life.

Testing does exist to suggest that rope does not degrade significantly if stored correctly. A series of new rope samples of various ages is being tested by Blue Water USA at present to help determine a rational "shelf life".

For the buyer, how do they justify using a piece of equipment beyond the "use by date" set by the manufacturer? Given the legal situation in many countries I am sure that the answer is not simple. For some organisations the cost of replacing equipment before it is worn out, just to comply with the "use by date" set by the standards will be too high. However, the use of "out of date" equipment, which could be seen as being in breach of their duty of care may also be unacceptable. The logical conclusion is to cease participation in activities which require such equipment.

Rated Strength

Rated strength is another area where both standards and manufacturers' philosophical attitudes affect the value given. It is commonly true that the lowest rated item from the best manufacturer may be stronger that the strongest item from a less conservative manufacturer.

Many manufacturers use (and some publish) 3-Sigma ratings. Sigma represents the standard deviation of the distribution of a sample population. It gives an indication of the variability of a result. The mean result of testing is found and a value of the mean less 3-Sigma is determined. The resulting value is the lowest value that 99.9 % of the samples will achieve. By taking a value lower still and using that as the "rated strength" a manufacturer can have confidence that all of their product, when new, will fail at a value above the rated strength.

Some manufacturers still rate their products on the average strength. This means that half the product will break below the rated strength, which will have been higher than that put on the same product by a manufacturer using the 3-Sigma method of determining the rated strength.

prepared by Philip TOOMER 4 Mar 1997, editted 5 Jun 1997.

P.O. Box 230, MILSONS POINT, NSW, 2061, Australia

Ph: (02) 9966 9070 Fax (02) 9966 9071

email: info@rescue-equip.com.au