1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144 
SAFETY MEASURES • Further to the article "Hidden Weakness" (CM
Page 26
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
23-29 March) on load restraint straps, we wish to make certain comments.
It is questionable whether a single test from each manufacturer is statistically conclusive. Normal practice would require at least three tests to provide a more accurate assessment.
As a company registered to BS 5750 Part 1, and fully committed to quality, we are extremely concerned that even one rogue strap should be slightly understrength. Our strict controls and procedures, and compliance with BS 5759 (1987), are extremely important to us.
The webbing in question was from an approved supplier, covered by a Certificate of Conformity guaranteeing the minimum break strength. Additional tests on complete strap assemblies from the same batch carried out by ourselves and Aeroquip proved entirely satisfactory.
However, as stated in the article, we have taken the precaution of guaranteeing the suspect batch of webbing and straps. We are confident that this was an isolated incident, and one that will not recur. A J Eaden, Joint managing director, SPanset, Knutsford, Cheshire.