New Rule 40.2 Quick Release Harness???

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.