A HISTORICAL APPROACH TO
REVIEWING THE ASAP/ASAP
LOCK: PETZL’S CALL TO
INNOVATE
By Terrah Jong, Pacific Ropes
For better or worse, Rope Access gear is a funny, often geeky thing to talk about, and it’s
riddled with endless rabbit holes of detail. There is always a life history and story behind each
piece and new gear is shamelessly marketed as the next innovative must-have to replace what
you currently use … ‘cause it’s well, better, right? However, is every gear innovation necessary
to invest in technologically, economically, and as another new piece of gear in your kit? And,
how do we properly answer this question as we grow in our Rope Access careers and invest in
more levels of certification and expertise along the way? A good starting point to answer this
question is to consider a particular piece of gear -- in this case the ASAP Lock -- embed it in the
specifics of your work and compare it to its predecessor. Knowing the specifics of the techdesign gap it’s created to fill is important to know not only as a consumer but a Rope Access
tech that prioritizes safety on site while knowing the high price of replacing gear.
When practicing this approach with Petzl’s ASAP Lock, it’s nearly impossible not to be
confronted with its intriguing history and the not often discussed relationship between Petzl
and IRATA in the 2000’s, which galvanized this gear piece into the marketplace. So, although I
know several quick tech reviews already exist on the ASAP and ASAP Lock, I’d like to briefly take
the time to share their story here, so that the next time you pick either one up, you know
exactly where they came from and why the ASAP Lock in particular is an incredible piece of gear
for your kit in 2015.
The decline of the Shunt: 1999-2012
If you have been a tech for some time you will undoubtedly remember the decade Rope
Access underwent a period of debate and product development related to the suitability of
popular back-up devices (1999-2012), which ultimately led to the total decline of the Shunt in
our industry. Whatever you remember or know of this time, the use of back-up devices for
Rope Access became a very hot-button and interesting topic in the fall protection industry
during that time. In those early years, particularly in Europe, the Rope Access industry sat at the
mercy of manufacturers like Petzl and the governing body of IRATA, not only as lead experts in
charge of delineating our culture of safety, but as authorities that shaped our industry through
the dynamics of their own relationship; not always as partners in innovation, but as two
separate bodies that pushed each other to change during tough periods of growth. In 1999, the
Shunt was thrust into the center of controversy over safety, appropriate back up gear and the
specific needs of Rope Access technicians in industrial working environments. The Shunt
became a decade long conversation that led to gear testing and deep industry analysis that
forever changed the norm of back-up devices considered acceptable in Rope Access.
When looking at the timeliness of Petzl’s ASAP and ASAP Lock then, it’s interesting to
recall that Rope Access gear was originally leisure-at-height equipment designed and
manufactured primarily for caving and climbing, NOT Rope Access. The Shunt provided a
redundant back-up system, which performed better than any other available back-up device at
the time because it could provide additional security for double rope pull down abseils with
Figure-of-8 descender devices and it had no teeth to damage the rope in a dynamic fall.
However, as rescue incidents in Rope Access emerged, Petzl began to take a strong stance in
their messaging towards the use of the Shunt in Rope Access. Between 1999 and 2012 they
issued six separate statements, which problematized Rope Access techs requirement to have
“special training” (IRATA method) to use the Shunt as a back-up device as it fell outside the
scope of Petzl’s general use instructions. Later, Petzl also affirmed that the device also did not
meet certain product standards.
The Shunt became problematic for use in Rope Access according to Petzl as it did not
perform up to their safety standard if both ropes were put into the device and there was a
failure in the working line. Ultimately, the Shunt would not activate on the back-up line. The
human reaction when experiencing a fall is also to grab the rope, and if the Shunt device was
accidentally grabbed as a reaction during a fall, the device would not auto-lock to slow or hault
the fall, it would simply render the device inoperative and lead to a free fall (in legal terms this
is considered to be a ‘reasonably foreseeable misuse’ and a major safety risk). Following Petzl’s
stance on the Shunt came years of discussion and debate about the suitability of the Shunt
device within the context of Rope Access. Arguably, this moment in our history deciphered
Rope Access techs as a particular at-height professional community that was rigorously trained
and tested and that had vastly different gear needs than climbers and cavers. Specifically, it was
determined that given a Rope Access techs training in emergency and rescue situations as
directed by IRATA (particularly the need to capacitate 2 bodies in a rescue situation), the Shunt
was simply not consistently reliable enough to use as a back-up device on Rope Access sites.
Petzl in particular was not willing to take the onus of responsibility for the failures of the
device, especially in emergency 2 person rescue situations on Rope Access sites. By 2005, Petzl
was diligent in its cautionary messaging to IRATA and the Rope Access community, and on its
own accord released the Petzl the original version of the ASAP as an alternative mobile fall
arrestor that was developed to responsively operate in 2 person emergency rescue situations.
In 2009, on 2 separate occasions, Petzl once again stated that there were other devices than
the Shunt considered more suitable to Rope Access work, yet IRATA still would not amend its
overall safety messaging and policy to outlaw the Shunt within our industry. Similarly, Rope
Access techs were not interested in changing their kit or giving up the affordability of the Shunt
(you could have 4 shunts to one ASAP), despite Petzl’s safety warnings. I can’t locate the exact
reason for IRATA’s unwillingness to respond to Petzl’s forewarnings, but, what is clear is that
they weren’t open to legislating this safety claim or undergoing a serious technical evaluation.
Was it because they knew the cost and time this would take to innovate? Was it too
controversial a ban? They just turned a blind eye?
2 years later in 2011, however, IRATA finally organized a series of tests during an IRATA
technical meeting to evaluate the performance of the Petzl Shunt as a back-up device. These
indicative tests:
“…demonstrated a repeated failure of the IRATA Petzl Shunt technique to stop a fall in
case of rupture of the working line during abseiling. Of 17 tests conducted approximately 25%
of the IRATA experts failed to stop their fall with the IRATA back up technique (Petzl shunt
+small string + knot)…”
Petzl’s Memorandum from Petzl to the IRATA’s Technical Coordinator in 2012 rang true
to their decade long message:
“There were clearly many variables – not the least of which was the experts’ readiness
for the tests, and yet the technique still did not stop all falls. In regard of both of these
observations, Petzl cannot continue to support IRATA’s use of the Petzl Shunt as a principle
back-up device used in this manner.”
A year later in 2012 (always shocking this was just over 2 years ago), IRATA issued their
statement:
“The Shunt should not be used as a back-up device if it is to be continuously towed in
descent however it could be used as a back-up device when operated separately from the
descender …”
Ultimately, IRATA made no absolute stance on out-rightly prohibiting the use of the
Shunt in Rope Access, even despite Petzl’s vehement position as manufacturers of the Shunt to
discontinue its use in Rope Access. In August of 2014, Petzl went a step further and issued yet
another statement, making all their former statements obsolete, which stated in detail, “As a
measure of precaution, Petzl recommends to NOT use the Petzl Shunt while towed by a cord, as
a back-up device in rope access.” Essentially, IRATA left the decision to the discretion of
training facilities, provincial and municipal health and safety boards to absolutely condemn the
use of the Shunt. In BC for instance (and we are a training facility that is dictated by this safety
body), fall arrest systems are required to have a minimum breaking strength of 22 kN (5000
pounds), and the Shunt does not meet this minimum requirement. So, as a training facility and
in full support of Petzl, we do not operate or advocate the use of a Shunt as a back-up device.
And so, this is where I sit thoughtfully with the Petzl ASAP and ASAP Lock.
Gear Review Conclusion
Petzl made an incredible leadership decision in technology, design and safety when they
released their safety statement regarding the Shunt to IRATA almost 14 years ago and
subsequently created the first ASAP in 2005 to be purchased as an immediate alternative for
rope techs. The updated ASAP (2013) is still used among several techs and training facilities
(along with Kongs, etc.) as an excellent back-up device most often recommended for techs for
general fall protection. However, in Petzl’s continual pursuit of providing our Rope Access
community with the absolute BEST in gear technology, they went one step further for our techs
who are working in incredibly difficult to reach spaces in 2013 when they released the ASAP
Lock (and released an updated version of the ASAP). Both ASAP’S react to a sudden fall, slip or
uncontrolled decent by arresting the device lock on the rope. Both ASAP’s move freely in both
directions when used at very moderate speeds, but with a sudden downward movement, the
ASAP accelerates the locking wheel’s rotation and you come to a complete stop. Similarly, if you
grab either ASAP device as a reaction to a sudden fall, both will remain operational through
their individual locking features (which we all know was the main reason for the ASAP being
made in the first place) (see here for the locking concept:
http://www.petzl.com/en/Professional/Mobile-fall-arrest-device/ASAPLOCK?l=CA#.VfH57hFVhBd).
Here is where the ASAP Lock shines for all techs, however. It has two amazing new
features. First off, the Lock. It has an immediate lock device once on the rope, which means it
reduces fall distances by immobilizing the device on the rope, and without the need to tie a
safety knot. Most importantly (and this is where the device is truly an upgrade to the updated
ASAP), in high winds, the lock functions to stop ANY rope slip movement sideways and upwards
which can occur due to high winds and increased rope movement, which in the event of a fall
adds length to your fall distance. The ASAP Lock allows for a true ASAP (As Small As Possible)
fall. You can’t beat that as a major improvement.
Secondly, and the most obvious change, is the way the device is connected. You chose a
20 or 40 lanyard to semi-permanently attach to the fixed arm and you are granted the ability to
take it on and off the rope without taking it off the harness- making it drop proof and without
the need to connect a safety string. Thirdly, the wheel itself is stiffer than it used to be. When
you consider media like these (http://ehstoday.com/ppe/fall-protection/ehs_imp_37626,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvuFQgnOCdU) that assess the force of dropped objects
and the impact of fall on our bodies as major mortality hazards on site, I consider this purchase
a ‘no brainer’. All in all, there is simply no product like it in the market: it auto trails up and
down, more than adequately handles a rescue load, it crossloads with ease, and it ensures a
tensioned line.
NOTED DRAWBACKS
It’s bulkier and it is costly. In the event that you invest in this device as a company or
training academy, you’re replacing a new ASAP/ASAP LOCK each time a fall occurs and it blows
its shock pack. Cha-ching, cha-ching $$
CLOSING NOTES
When thinking about whether a piece of new gear is a great innovation necessary for you to
purchase, don’t hesitate to direct questions to your gear professionals, and as you can see here,
STAY ENGAGED AND DO YOUR RESEARCH! Follow Petzl, IRATA, SPRAT and other manufacturing
notices that are always debating safety and innovation. Measure the risk factors of older gear
against what is new on the market. You, with the guidance from your trainers and gear experts,
can make an incredibly informed decision on whether the cost of the innovation is worth it for
your jobs site and in your kit. As you can see from the story of the ASAP/ASAP Lock, however,
sometimes this decision is completely yours, based on your connectivity to our community
safety notices, until larger safety regulating bodies make the final call, sometimes years later.
Arguably, our trainer and gear providers here in Vancouver and at Pacific Ropes see the ASAP
Lock a great addition to any tech’s kit.
It’s important to note that when looking at new gear innovations, like the many devices
which came after the Shunt, that it isn’t an absolute truth that the original gear piece was a bad
device (many argue the opposite in the context of the Shunt in leisure use). What is important
to consider, however, is it’s suitability to the specific environment(s) we are working in. Is it
the right piece of gear for the job and your absolute safety on rope? That’s how gear
innovations and purchases should be assessed as a framework for analysis: Device vs.
Environmental Suitability to produce the Safest Possible Outcome.
As a training academy, and on behalf of our current trainer and gear provider
(Carleton Rescue) at Pacific Ropes, we cannot emphasize enough that when purchasing new
gear for your kit, you ABSOLUTELY must learn and train on rope with the device prior to using
it on site. This can also be a great opportunity to gain another level of IRATA and SPRAT
certification. Staying on top of our game keeps us the safest on rope and on our teams.
FROM ALL OF US AT PACIFIC ROPES,
SEE YOU ON THE ROPES!
Special thanks to the Manager of Carleton Rescue, Ryan Lewis, and Matt Waskiewicz (IRATA L3,
SPRAT L3) for their insight on the history of the ASAP/ASAP LOCK and their recommendations for
ASAP Lock use in Rope Access, 2015.
Please refer to Industrial Rope Access Back-Up Devices, A Review
http://www.irata.org/pdf%20downloads/Industrial%20Rope%20Access%20Backup%20Devices%20-%20A%20Review.pdf for a detailed account of Rope Access back-up devices.