Mountain Project Logo

How important is UIAA certification (for non-ropes)?

Original Post
runout · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 30

I noticed that my Trango Phase carabiners don't have a UIAA stamp so I asked them about it. They said since CE approximates UIAA closely and UIAA certs are expensive to do, they opted to not get UIAA certified.

This Rock and Ice article also talks about CE vs UIAA certs.

rockandice.com/gear-guide-t…

With that said, do you feel comfortable climbing on hardware not certified by the UIAA but certified by CE?

What extra requirements (if any) does UIAA place on carabiners over the CE?

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490

The CE mark shows the product conforms to the requirements of whichever directive (a kind of European law governing the manufacture and sale of the product in Europe). For climbing equipment this is 89/686/EEC Personal Protective Equipment. The standard the product must conform to is generally the European Norm (EN)for that particular item which is the EN number stamped on the gear. These are issued by CENORM (the equivelent of ASTM for you guys).
Certification that the product meets the standard is by a test lab (or (self certification for some items). There are then other requirements to meet to do with QA and then you can put the CE symbol on the product.

The UIAA is not an official standards body, has no approval as such from any government or the world standards agency (ISO), cannot certify climbing equipment and only sell the UIAA safety label for advertising purposes which first requires certification to EN (with sometimes some minor differences) and then paying a yearly fee. As a manufacturer I find the UIAA Safety Label to be a worthless excercise.

As part of the ongoing free-trade discussions between Europe and the USA there is the possibility of the European standards (EN´s) becoming integrated into ISO as full ISO standards and thus by default becoming the USA standards since you don´t have your own.

runout · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 30

Thanks Jim. I feel safer climbing on those biners now. :)

WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

Hi all,
It's not that simple about the difference between a UIAA mark and the CE one. The organizations involved have different aims and purposes as well.

Nowadays in many cases, the standards are the same. That might not remain like that.

As Jim says, the CE mark is mandatory in the EU for mountaineering gear that is PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), or at least for anyone who sells IN the EU. But it is quite Eurocentric: you can only get approval by a European body. Any non-European manufacturer must certify with a company that is based in the EU, so that restricts who they can go to.

The UIAA is a body for climbers by climbers: it represents many of the world climbing federations. CEN is a government body, and a bureaucracy: altho an efficient one. The UIAA can do things that CEN cannot: for instance after the recent death due to a via ferrata EAS, it was the UIAA that co-ordinated the response, the product recalls, and the standard revisions: of both the UIAA and the EN standards. CEN could not do that.

We are also working on an anchor revision to handle environmental degradation, which the CEN will in all likelihood take on board. In fact Jim Titt has supported these efforts, even though he's not a UIAA label holder.

The costs for getting ANY certification, UIAA or CEN, are in the testing costs. A testing lab gets that. And those are ONLY for testing the DESIGN. It is possible to "self certify" in some cases for the CEN label. However I'm not sure how good an idea that is, because then everything is in house. No independent check on your product design. For a small 'one-man band", perhaps it's not a bad idea to get it checked by a 3rd body?

The UIAA charges a nominal fee for displaying the label (being a "label holder"). Is that "advertising? Well, nothing bad about displaying the UIAA logo.

There is no direct control over QC (quality control) for either of them: in theory what happens with the CEN label is that the notified body that issues the CE mark looks over your process and decides if it's up to scratch (but only if it is PPE). So the QC of climbing gear varies widely from manufacturer to manufacturer, from country to country. There's no firm standard on that.

Is it a problem? Well that's hard to say. In the EU there is some legal protection for the end user, and a certain ethos on "how it is to be done". For manufacturers completely based outside the EU it's not as clear. Most manufacturers are EXTREMELY conscientious, and this is never an issue. But there are some manufacturers where QC might not be done as diligently (due to either ignorance, or a desire to reduce costs).

The UIAA could in theory add a QC requirement to its standards, the CEN cannot. As I said, we are very flexible.

As far as Jim saying the UIAA is not an "official standards body....". Hah hah hah. Well, saying that to an AMERICAN is pretty funny. There are 1,000's of standards bodies in the USA. Many of them are very small and very specific. Many of of them are NOT "official" if what Jim means is controlled by the government. The UIAA represents 100's of thousands of climbers via its member federations. It's registered in Switzerland. Accounts are audited. Is that "official"?....:-}

Incidentally, contrary to what some think, including Jim, ISO is not actually the "world" standards body. It does produce some good standards, and it does have a large number of member organizations, but the term "world" is somewhat misleading. Is the "World Baseball League" actually representing the "World"?

Sometimes an existing CEN standard becomes an ISO one as well, so it is then ISO then CEN and then the letters for whatever country it is in force in (DIN for Germany, BS for UK etc). There are a few ISO only standards, and sometimes they are in contradiction with other standards. I don't know if that issue exists for climbing gear, but it does for other technical areas. Can be confusing.

The UIAA SafeCom has an annual meeting where the stakeholders meet and discuss issues. We work on climbing safety issues: the science behind the forces in belaying, corrosion, via ferrata design etc etc. We develop the groundwork in many cases for standards that CEN then adopts.

We are not in competition with CEN, it's more like a partnership. The UIAA as a whole (there are six commissions) can do a lot of good: help co-ordinate matters for climbers, safety, medical, competitions, access to mountains. It's one of those things that the more you put in, the more you can get out.

We are not perfect, and I'm sure someone can nit pick. I'm sure we've made mistakes in the past, and when noticed have been rectified. But we're what you have: we can help climbers, and we HAVE helped climbers. I don't see the value in sniping at the UIAA.

Best regards,

Alan Jarvis
Materials Engineer (Pr.Eng. RSA)
UIAA Safety Commission
MCSA Delegate (South Africa)

20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346

Keep in mind that outside the climbing realm, the CE certification is not an absolute guarantee of safety. It means the product met applicable safety directives, but there have been plenty of people that have been injured or killed using CE-certified products due to manufacturing faults. Some CE certified products have and will continue to have design and manufacturing faults that require recalls, and some people will get injured or killed using them. Thus, CE's word is more like "this product seems safe based on specified criteria, but no guarantees."

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490

Any US lab can apply to test to EN and there are probably thousands that do already, that none do climbing equipment is a failure of the US capitalist system.

CEN is not a government organisation. It is a not-for-profit corporation wholly owned by the national standards institutes of the member countries of the EU which are in turn completely owned by the industries in those countries.

QC is nothing to do with the CE or (UIAA for that matter). QA is a matter for CEN and therefore controlled and audited by the approval authority for all products bearing the CE mark.

CEN is the only organisation approved by the governments of the EU for the issuing of standards for PPE and a member of the worlds main international standards organisation (ISO). The UIAA is not.

Dan Allard · · West Chester, PA · Joined Mar 2011 · Points: 1,070

Also it is worth familiarizing yourself with this article regarding the misuse of the term "CE" to represent "Chinese Export": en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CE_ma…
..sort of scary..

WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

Hah hah hah...very good.
Some good old smoke and mirrors here.

The "CEN" organization, whatever you want to call it, functions exactly as I said. It's a combination of all the former national standard's bodies, but more or less combined as one. And some of the standards bodies are/were private, some were/are not.

Take the BSI (British Standards Institution). It has a Royal Charter. It receives government funding for acting in the public's interests. It has the backing of British Law. Hmm.....Sounds close to being more of a STATE organization than a totally capitalist private organization to me.....

You can go thru the list of the other CEN members: some are more private, some more "state-owned/controlled". It's mix. But then so is the EU.

Who cares: we are splitting hairs. My main point is that there is more-or-less ONE unified body representing standards across the EU (of which the UK is included). And in the USA there is not one, there are MANY.

In addition, there is an EU directive called Council Directive 89/686/EEC.
Which is issued by guess who?
Well I'll give you a hint: it's that nice blue flag with all the stars in it....hmmmmm.
By the European Commission.
It MANDATES by law that people who sell PPE follow the CEN standards.
So I'd say that moves CEN from private into a quasi-para-statal role, wouldn't you??
If you don't play ball, then the local laws take over.

As far as US testing labs for CE marks for climbing, it was my belief from talking to US climbing manufacturers that the only (practical?) way for them to get the CE mark was via a European testing lab that had an office in the USA. They were quite bitter about that. I don't know: I'm not a US manufacturer, nor in the CEN system. I shall ask my friends in the TUV (German) or APAVE (French) to confirm this for me.

It MIGHT be because getting the specialized equipment (rope test tower etc etc) for the amount of work is not cost effective. I would not call THAT "a failure of the US capitalist system". That's bit harsh to our Yankee brothers, my friend Mr. Titt...:-0

As far as QC (or QA) it has EVERYTHING to do with the goal of reducing the risk of injury or death to climbers due to equipment not performing as expected.

That is the UIAA's overall goal.

Equipment standards for new gear is just one step in that direction. In practical terms I personally am not that convinced that QA is "controlled" or "audited" by CEN as effectively as it might be.
Maybe I'm wrong: I'm open to argument.

It depends on how your item is rated: PPE or not. And what TYPE of PPE. And where you manufacture, and who is the notified body that approves you.

There is absolutely NOTHING stopping the UIAA from including requirements for QA/QC in it's standards. If it is seen as way to reduce risk of failure. Perhaps it's a good idea for some producers who are based in certain places. We can discuss that.

We have a choice. CE/CEN do not have that choice: they are not so flexible.

Let's look at "self certification".
Take for instance EN 959 for climbing anchor manufacture. In theory you can self-certify is ISO 9000. But you are supposed to do so according to the standard: to EN 959.
EXACTLY according to it, not modifying the tests as you see fit.
What happens if you deviate from it? Is it still right???
Well it's not.
Like if you test at a different loading rate it is not.
If you test in rock and not concrete it is not. Etc etc etc.

In fact the UIAA is a de-facto MEMBER of CEN: did you know that? We are invited to attend Working Group meetings as STAKEHOLDERS. We cannot VOTE it is true, because we do not represent a COUNTRY'S national standards body. But we DO have input.
However we don't need that, because so many members of the UIAA SafeCom are ALSO members of the CEN Working Groups.
They wear two hats.

We can and DO have input to ISO standards related to mountaineering. I'm not exactly sure what the term "main international standards organization" is. It really depends on what type of activity you are talking about. ISO does not have very complete cover for mountaineering equipment.
Perhaps it will at some point: great.

Look, no offence to our friend Mr. Titt, but I don't find this a very productive discussion to attack or denigrate any of the various organizations who are hard at work trying to improve climber's safety.
A lot of people are actually members of SEVERAL organizations anyways as I said.
Mostly volunteering their time.
Not out to make a profit for it.

Guess who is the Convenor the the CEN Working Group for Mountaineering?
J.F. Charlet.
But WAIT, wasn't he the ex-President of the UIAA Safety Commission?
And still serves as the French Delegate?
And is the Chief Guide at Chamonix?
Hmmmmm.
Yes to all.

I belong to the Mountain Club of South Africa, and represent them on the UIAA Safety Commission.
I also belong to the BMC: I feel every climber in a country should belong and support the national Federation.
I was (still am in fact) a member of the Dutch NKBV: I lived there 5 years.

In the UIAA we want the stakeholders to have their say.
We are pretty open.
Mr. Titt is welcome.
He's often been very helpful with his comments.
Has a lot of industrial experience.
Lots of ideas and opinions.
He could help us help climbers.

For the revision of the UIAA Anchor Standard I have tried to pull in constructive feedback from knowledgeable people.
We've hired a world class corrosion expert for input.
I have got four full time corrosion/stainless steel materials engineers giving feedback (one of whom also serves on the CEN Working Group for stainless steel).

We are trying to do our best. I think rather help us than try to shoot us down.

20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346

One thing that has always bothered me was that the UIAA does not have a quality control requirement, which really brings into question the full usefulness of the certification. I can give two examples.

1. First generation Maxim Pinnacle 9.5mm rope. This rope was UIAA certified and rated for 5 UIAA falls. Sometime after being certified Maxim recalled the rope stating that the rope actually did not always hold 5 UIAA falls. Sometimes it held 4 or less. So the UIAA gives it the stamp of approval saying it's safe, and then the manufacturer comes back and essentially says that the rope in fact does not meet UIAA requirements even though it's certified. I am sure you can see the problem here.

2. Aliens. The Aliens were never UIAA certified, but upon careful review of the certification requirements and design of the Alien, they certainly could have been certified with no major change in design. Yet, everyone knows about the massive quality control issues plagued with the old aliens. Granted it is possible the UIAA would have revoked their certification had they been certified, but it doesent change the fact that that type of design very likely could have been certified even with it's huge engineering flaw.

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
20 kN wrote:One thing that has always bothered me was that the UIAA does not have a quality control requirement, which really brings into question the full usefulness of the certification. I can give two examples. 1. First generation Maxim Pinnacle 9.5mm rope. This rope was UIAA certified and rated for 5 UIAA falls. Sometime after being certified Maxim recalled the rope stating that the rope actually did not always hold 5 UIAA falls. Sometimes it held 4 or less. So the UIAA gives it the stamp of approval saying it's safe, and then the manufacturer comes back and essentially says that the rope in fact does not meet UIAA requirements even though it's certified. I am sure you can see the problem here. 2. Aliens. The Aliens were never UIAA certified, but upon careful review of the certification requirements and design of the Alien, they certainly could have been certified with no major change in design. Yet, everyone knows about the massive quality control issues plagued with the old aliens. Granted it is possible the UIAA would have revoked their certification had they been certified, but it doesent change the fact that that type of design very likely could have been certified even with it's huge engineering flaw.
To apply the CE mark the manufacturer must show they operate a suitable quality management scheme (ISO9001) and this is independently audited by an outside company. None of which stops companies occasionally producing defective products for years which brings into question the value of externally imposed QA schemes.
WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

Yup, I agree with Jim Titt.
There is sme confusion here about what a standard does.

Remember the history of these standards.
The UIAA pre-dates the EU.
We developed standards for mountaineering gear, to try to ensure some sort of minimum acceptable level for the GEAR.
And we worked with the manufactures: we were a team.
The older guys like Beal, Kong etc etc were in on this from the start.

Then the EU was formed.
And the EEC Directive for PPE passed.
We co-operated with it, and passed on our standards to the CEN.
In fact, crazy as it sounds, we lost the copyright to them in doing so.
So we could not refer to the parts that WE originally developed.

So we developed the pictograms etc.
And referred to the EN standards themselves for the details.
So in almost all cases the EN and UIAA standards are linked: very intimate.
Also by the people involved: people wear two hats: UIAA and CEN.

Newcomers and outsiders who were never a part of this process do not realize this.

And note that ALL of the standards, both EN, UIAA and ISO are about the GEAR itself.
And about NEW gear.
The tests and strengths are for LAB tests: designed to ensure these minimum requirements are passed.

As soon as it's sold, it's up to the manufacturer to make sure the end user knows how to decide how to use it.
When to discard it etc.
It's out of our control.
Same with the EN standards.

Incidentally, the strengths quoted in the standards are for the GEAR.
If the end user or the manufacturer does not use it right (for anchors, say they use the wrong resin, or weak rock etc) then these strengths cannot and will not be achieved.

We don't actually address resin: we DO test anchors with resin in concrete, but maybe the end-user uses something else.
So THAT is an issue that we probably DO need to address.
But it's complex: you need to consider rock type and other factors.
Longevity too.

Historically there was never a demand to address QA as part of the UIAA standard.
It, and the EN's (also ISO) are really about the DESIGN.
The QA is a part of the CEN/CE process because for PPE (not anchors which are NOT PPE) they have to show some sort of "acceptable" QA process.
To whoever grants the CE mark.
It's actually NOT a direct part of the EN (or UIAA) standard.
On purpose.

That's all been fine as long as the EU was involved.
If you sell PPE in the EU, you need to comply with the QA process.
And the legal system can hammer you if you don't.

But for a non-EU manufacturer who does not sell directly to the EU, that does not apply.

THAT is MY point.
It's starting to happen more now.
Not just in China, in the USA too.
A brownie star for anyone who can name a manufacturer based in the USA who sells PPE but has no EN or UIAA certification....:-0

The CEN cannot do much about them.
And why should it?
Does not involve the EU.

But the UIAA CAN do something.
If it looks like it needs doing.

That's a point that some people miss or ignore.
We CAN act as we see fit to help to protect climbers.
We are quite flexible.

Alan

20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346
WarthogARJ wrote: A brownie star for anyone who can name a manufacturer based in the USA who sells PPE but has no EN or UIAA certification....:-0
CCH? Only company I can think of. Gear4Rocks maybe? Although they are not from the US.
WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

"Basically any US company that isn't interested or able to sell in Europe won't carry EN or UIAA cert because they don't have to. This doesn't mean they make an inferior product, it just means they're not willing to pay someone else to tell them it's good enough- they already know it."

I see. But then what distinguishes the "good" ones from the "bad" ones?
How do you know?
Trust? Hmmmm.
If you truly ARE "good" then surely you can sell a bit of gear.
And the cost of being certified (by either UIAA or EN) is spread out over the volume: becomes small.

Would you buy a dynamic rope made by someone who didn't bother to get it certified by UIAA or EN? That likely means it was never tested on a drop tower: those things are quite expensive to set up. No way you test it and then don't bother to get certified.

Do you think that there is a correlation between accidents and products that are not certified? I think there is. We hear of some serious issues with companies who are not certified, continuing issues. And when someone who IS certified has an issue, it's very often only a few items, well managed, and with recalls.

Why do you think the UIAA started? Or ANY standard for a safety critical item? Because there ARE some people who make "bad" stuff. The standards are not actually for the "good" manufacturers, they are there for the "bad" ones. To shut them out.

Sure, not all non-certified are bad. But I bet there's a higher percentage of BAD ones in the non-certified than there are in the certified ones. Cannot prove it rigorously, but based on what I've seen it seems the case.

Would you buy car tires or brakes by someone who couldn't be bothered to certify? Fly in a plane where the parts were not all certified? Seriously now. So what's the difference with a safety critical bit of climbing gear?

WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

I've been involved with the UIAA for about 10 years now, on the Safety Commission. I'm not an expert mountaineer, although we have members who are. I'm a reasonable materials engineer, and the issues are sometimes quite interesting.

What I've seen is that the general attitude and "culture" of the people involved is very good. Just by being willing to send your stuff to be tested, coming to meetings, just participating shows a general very positive attitude.

I think climbers are doing a bad thing by buying gear from manufacturers that don't bother to get certified: either by EN or UIAA. It doesn't actually cost that much if you sell a reasonable volume. And it means you ARE part of the group who believes in minimum standards. And accountability. I'd call them the Good Guys. Guys like Michel Beal: a finer gentleman I have never met.

If you don't certify, well maybe you ARE good. Maybe. Or maybe you're not. But you ARE in a crowd where there are some definite "bad boys".

If you make carabiners, or buy them from someone who actually makes them, the cost of doing proper & rigorous QA is quite high. The cost to get certified is peanuts compared to that. Same with most other PPE.

And why is this question on "non-ropes"?? If ANYTHING in your "safety chain" fails you're in trouble: harness, belay device, carabiners, slings AND rope. They are ALL important.

Anchors are not PPE. If you are ISO 9000 you can self certify. That's not very hard or expensive. And nobody actually checks your QA (which I think is a BAD thing).

runout · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 30
WarthogARJ wrote:And why is this question on "non-ropes"??
I specified non-ropes because most consumers look for that on ropes but not for other PPE. Mostly because of the UIAA "falls" that goes with a rope. If that's not there, the rope probably wouldn't sell. It's explained in the rock&ice article.
WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

I see.

Well, the rope is REALLY important.
It's the spring in the system.
But if anything else fails, you fail.
Death, injury, whatever.

In my personal opinion, the only reason that more climbers have not gone to find out if God exists or not is because of the work that some very motivated people did about 20 years ago.

Setting up the whole standards system, figuring out the fall factor idea.
All of that.

So now climbing is actually pretty safe.
ALMOST idiot proof.
Although some guys and gals do manage to meet Darwin at the Pearly Gates.

And now we have the Bad Dudes taking advantage of all that hard work.
And trying to undercut the price of the people who support all this past good work.

I would question the ethics of ANYONE who sells climbing PPE and says they don't want to bother with getting UIAA or EN certification.
Because they are too good for that....hmmm.
I call THAT free loading.
Do you REALLY think that they have your best interests at heart?
If so, I have about 100 acres of prime sea front property in Florida at a really good price: just for you.

I am sure that at least one manufacturer exists that makes such good stuff that the world will beat a path to their door. They don't need to certify their stuff at all.
Sure.
And the other ones?

How does Joe Climber know?
They don't.

How much do they spend on expensive coffee at places like Starbucks?
Fancy sun glasses?
Pre-ripped jeans?
Whatever.

And yet they don't want to spend a few extra bucks on a system that protects everybody?
Hmmm...

Well, maybe I should shut-up.
There are way too many people on this planet.
The gene pool is going down.
Maybe Malthus and Darwin need to come out and play.

runout · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2013 · Points: 30

I'm sorry, but you don't put the UIAA in a very positive light with the whining and fear mongering.

I would also like to see more disclosure about the companies quality control process, and for the certification to include long-term reliability testing. If UIAA wants to improve and stay relevant, they can work on that.

For example, CAMP photons are certified by UIAA but it has long-term reliability issues with the wire gates becoming stuck open and they have variances in the gate length. This means they have issues in the design, the manufacturing process, and supply chain, but they are still certified. My non-UIAA certified biners (like BDs) have been rock solid.

So I see no point for companies to pay UIAA since it doesn't do much and it amounts to free advertising for the UIAA. I'd rather for them to pass the savings on to me and it allow them to compete more effectively. It's not freeloading. It's just good business.

Ray Pinpillage · · West Egg · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 180
WarthogARJ wrote:I think climbers are doing a bad thing by buying gear from manufacturers that don't bother to get certified: either by EN or UIAA. It doesn't actually cost that much if you sell a reasonable volume. And it means you ARE part of the group who believes in minimum standards.
If safety engineering doesn't work out there's a bright future for you selling true-coat. That oxidation is gonna cost a heck of a lot more than $500!
20 kN · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 1,346

The problem with the UIAA, CE and EN is that they only sell half a product. Their main product is a promise. A promise that the product meets applicable safety regulations and therefore is a safe product. However, the UIAA does not actually guarantee the product is safe, they only guarantee it is probably safe, which is not a guarantee at all.

Another way to look at it: imagine if BD said "we only guarantee the small number of samples we batch test are safe, but make no guarantees as to the safety of the product you actually hold in your hands at the store."

Adding a quality control element and some form of reporting process could fix this. That is, if consumers report to the UIAA that a product, such as the defective Metolius PAS listed in another thread, is dangerous or defective, then the UIAA could consider revoking the manufacturer's certification. Without accountability, the certification only takes us 50% of the way there. We need design testing AND accountability to be sure the product is truly safe.

Jim Titt · · Germany · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 490
20 kN wrote:The problem with the UIAA, CE and EN is that they only sell half a product. Their main product is a promise. A promise that the product meets applicable safety regulations and therefore is a safe product. However, the UIAA does not actually guarantee the product is safe, they only guarantee it is probably safe, which is not a guarantee at all. Another way to look at it: imagine if BD said "we only guarantee the small number of samples we batch test are safe, but make no guarantees as to the safety of the product you actually hold in your hands at the store." Adding a quality control element and some form of reporting process could fix this. That is, if consumers report to the UIAA that a product, such as the defective Metolius PAS listed in another thread, is dangerous or defective, then the UIAA could consider revoking the manufacturer's certification. Without accountability, the certification only takes us 50% of the way there. We need design testing AND accountability to be sure the product is truly safe.
The EU have a rapid-response reporting system where they can force the withdrawal of products from sale, order a recall if nescessary, revoke the CE marking and fine manufacturers. It´s called RAPEX.
As the UIAA is not a certifying body they can´t withdraw the certification anyway.
WarthogARJ · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2013 · Points: 45

Sure in theory the EU/CE/CEN (whatever) CAN order a recall.
Can you give me any actual examples in mountaineering gear what that happened?
I would like to know.

But when there was a need for a fast response and action for a serious mountaineering issue recently due to the death after the failure of an EAS on a via ferrata, who did the heavy lifting?

The UIAA did. Our people/system co-ordinated everything, multiple meetings of all stakeholders, tests, public alerts (by manufacturers). Both standards updated (EN plus UIAA). The whole lot. Was not a failure of the CEN to act, was just easier and quicker this way. All happy: except the poor guy who died.

But as I said, when I say "our" people, there is actually not really any "us" and "them". Both sets have good and bad points. The CEN has some really good moderators and administrators. Good at drafting documents, document control etc. We are not trying to compete with them.

And let's not quibble over words: we are not lawyers in court here. I use the term "certified" as in you pass the requirements to say that you have achieved this standard: be it UIAA, EN, NACE, ASME, SAE whatever.

In the EU lawyer-talk no, we are not a "notified body". Actually that's more reserved for the actual testing labs: they actually issue the paper work that says you ARE "certified" etc.

To 20kN: you are quite correct. All ANY of the STANDARDS do is say that the DESIGN, as per the standard requirements passes a certain number of requirements. Is true for both EN or UIAA.

Is EXTREMELY difficult to test for any and all possible issues that could cause an item to fail in service. And the onus is on the manufacturer as well to do that. No standard can do everything.

Well, there are two philosophies. One is where you use a broader brush and say roughly what it needs to achieve. And leaves the specific interpretation up to the supplier to conform. The other is to use a USA armed forces MIL-Spec approach (or aerospace industry too) where you nail EVERYTHING down. And the standard is the size of a telephone book. And a hammer costs you $1,000 because of all the testing you must do.

Because we are NOW so embedded with the EU/EN/CEN, almost everybody gets both sets of standards. So the QA goes hand in hand with the EN. It's not actually part of the EN (not written/specified) in it. It's a requirement to sell PPE in Europe.

That worked fine in the past, where 90%-95% of gear did get EN. But now is maybe not as good.

So just as I said, the UIAA might well combine QA with the standard for manufacturers that don't get EN. That is, don't sell in Europe.

I fully agree with you 20kN, there are three things to prevent failure in service (wrt standards and QA): the item is designed "right", the QA is sufficient so you get a "good" item when you buy it, you know when to stop using it due to wear & tear (that's in effect QA during service).

Well, a 4th is that you use it correctly. Like not using a static rope to lead on etc etc. But that's not a standard or QA issue.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Climbing Gear Discussion
Post a Reply to "How important is UIAA certification (for non-ro…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.