Thus far, there needs to be more analysis performed. The belayer posted these comments, but they are not a scientific investigation:

"1) I was belaying when this individual fell and I assisted with every step of the rescue
2) The socket of the cam did separate from the stem which suggests a brazing issue. I held this cam in my hands and inspected as did many other climbers at the scene
3) I have spoken directly with the climber who was involved and he is doing fine and should recover fully.
4) I took several pictures of the cam and I will post them when I get permission from the individual who owned the cam.
5) The accident took place at Paradise Fork on the Prow on August 19, 2006
6) The cam appeared to be brand new "

The implication from the various comments was that this cam was not under recall.

CCH is also implementing a ISO9000 QAP mgt system:

"7) What is CCH doing to prevent this type of defect from happening again?" [with respect to the failure of the cams that were under recall -- the assumption I had when reading this was that the cams subject to failure were manufactured by outsourcing]

"CCH is currently working on implementing an ISO 9000 quality management system. To prevent this specific issue we are pull testing every brazed cable to the specified strength rating. You can verify that the new CCH Alien cams manufactured after January 2006 have completed cable pull testing by locating an "L", "U" or "N" punch on the head of the cam. We have also implemented new jig testing to verify that Alien cams meet specified tolerances. For those interested in the technical details of this recall, we will be publishing our analysis over the next few weeks on our website http://aliencamsbycch.com/recall ."


What does ISO mean (I believe this is from a Rock & Ice article, I can't remember the particulars, in which I am intending to use here for educational purposes only):

ISO – International Organization for Standardization is a non-governmental group that work with manufacturers to standardize production. The ISO 9000 is the quality control that applies to the climbing community. This is a method of company management review, not individual product strength rating. The ISO does not establish manufacturing standards, but it does dictate a way a manufacturer manages its production, and demands detailed documentation from raw material to finished product.

Thanks Mark.

I really like Aliens and am concerned. Is this why REI has been selling them off at just under $40 ? Isn't this the second time in recent years there has been a concern with CCH? I would really like to hear/read more on this. I have some and they all seem bomber. Is there any difference if it doesn't have "ALIEN" stitched in the stem sheath?

No, the older ones didn't have the alien stitching... no difference in device.

If I were in the market for Aliens, I would be sure to get the newest ones with "Tensile Tested" stamped on the swage:



According to info on the CCH website, all Aliens manufactured since the recall are tensile tested:

Since the recall, all main cable silver brazed connections are tinsel [sic] tested:

.33"-1/2"  tested to 1800 pounds
¾" -1”     tested to 2000 pounds
1.25”-2.5" tested to 2500 pounds

Alien changed the range of orange, purple, and clear aliens recently.

I was shocked to find that my friend's aliens didn't have the same range as 2001 orange, purple, and clear. I'm not talking about the incorrectly drilled orange issue.

Range might not be the right word. Mine get smaller than the new stuff but aren't quite as big. I think this change makes the new gold size more useful.

Oddly, I was thinking the opposite from Ron. I have old aliens that have held up wonderfully for years. I have many friends who have used aliens for years. Only recently have there been reports of any problems, where for 10 plus years there weren't... my conclusion is that the old ones are reliable, it is the newer ones that I am starting to question based upon internet created fear.

So if any of you want to get rid of your old aliens...

John,

Where do you draw the line between "pre-recall Aliens that are reliable" and "pre-recall Aliens that are suspect"? The latest orange Alien that failed had a reported manufacturing date in 2004, and did not have the "dimple of death" that marked the Aliens that were recalled. When did CCH start producing defective Aliens? 2004? 2003? 2002? Are other pre-recall Aliens besides the orange suspect? Place your bets...

By the way, I climb on a whole set of pre-recall Aliens, although none has the dreaded "dimple of death". Like you, I've had most of my Aliens a long time. They've been used extensively and have held up well.

I wouldn't want to trust a pre-recall orange Alien, however, after the latest failure report.

I agree with you Ron, it is a crap shoot, OR SO IT APPEARS, with aliens made over the last few years. Without testing, you wait until it holds a big fall... yikes!

My aliens are from 95 or 96 if I remember correctly. The reason I feel so much confidence in them is because they have proven themselves to me in real life situations. Right now I would feel better buying older (mid nineties) aliens than aliens made the last couple of years. But maybe that is just crazy talk. I'm not sure if mine is a rational perspective.

I just moved back to the midwest after living in Flag. Does anyone know the name of the climber that was injured or his status now?

Edited-
I called CCH today, they are going to pull test my entire set.

Just had a few questions, if anyone knows.

What is meant by a "pull test"?

Is there any relation to the time period or severity an impact is placed on a cam; or better yet, how is a pull test performed?

Jeremy S., the belayer posted a comment stating the climber is expected to recover (I don't know if it was on rc.com or pulled over from supertopo).

I'm currently testing a set of Black Diamond C3's and hope to have the review up on the site in a couple of weeks... I'm not suggesting that people dump their aliens and buy them, but its another option especially if you can wait for the fall sales! I like them.

Mark,

CCH says they "tensile test the main cable silver-brazed connection."

They put the cam into a testing machine and apply a force to test the strength of the connection of the cable to the head of the cam. The force they use (1800 to 2500 pounds) depends on the size of the cam. I believe that the force applied is gradually increased up to these limits. Cams that pass the test get the "Tensile Tested" stamp on the swage.

I would guess that CCH also tests some units to failure to learn the breaking strength of the braze, and uses these figures to set the forces used for their non-destructive testing.

Here is a reference on tensile testing

If CCH's "tensile testing" is as good as their quality control, brazing, customer service, or public relations, I sure wouldn't put one ounce of faith (let alone body weight) in a stamp on the swage. And CCH would be the last place I'd send them to have them pull tested.

Well my treatment to date has been quite good. I sent back a full set of 10 aliens and they promised to pull test them and send them back the next day.

I don't know the history or the problems with customer service but testing and returning in one day seems decent to me. I also think that it would be highly unlikely to improperly test a set and return them as usable. They would not only be civily liable in the event of an intentional fraud but also criminally.

All I know is I love the way Aliens place and hope to have a safe set back before going to Vedauwoo in 3 weeks.

Thanks, Ron, good info about what I was wondering.

Josh has a point about independent testing. Typically all materials I place on a construction project are reviewed by an independent agency; whether or not I hire the agency; it's still performed by an independent firm.

If CCH is having another firm, in good standing in the industry of materials testing, perform these tests, then I would accept those results. I have reservations about sending my pro to CCH if all they do is in-house tests.

The trouble for me to go out and hire an testing firm, is that they would need to establish the ultimate strength; would this mean that I'd lose my pro?

What I would like to see is more analysis performed on the cam that failed. What force was it actually subjected to? When/how was this piece made? How did it fail? Is the witness report of the belayer reliable? As CCH is not yet ISO integrated; can the questions about the manufacture of the failed cam be answered?

Probably the same concerns everyone else has that relies on Aliens. Can this situation happen to me if I perform typical protected lead climbing and then take a clean fall, or can it happen to my second falling on a vector placement? Man, I hate to do what John G. is saying and play into fears from the Internet, I just want to see reliable test results.

The aliens that are for sale at REI have no stamp on the swage. Is this really a concern? Is the swage the weakest point of the cam? When was the recall? All the aliens I have are stamped early '05 or newer. I would like to know exactly what CCH has to say.

You are confusing two different things.

The stamp "tensile tested" is on the swage. That doesn't mean that only the swage has been pull tested. It means the whole unit (swage and head) has been tested.

I would also bet that the cam is complete before they test it, based on the order of operations used to assemble the cams. So it's "likely" that the entire unit is pull tested.

Prior to the whole steelhead fiasco, aliens were considered magical. On 3 occasions I've had an alien stop a fall it shouldn't have. Rumors of aliens catching 100 foot aid falls aren't circulating anymore, now we have rumors about CCH going out of business and their cams failing. (edit, I just remembered another fall..so 4 occasions)

I feel like it's 1984 and I'm in the market for a Delorian.

Thank you guys for all the insight. I happen to have one blue alien with the dimple and all of them are stamped 0105 to 0705. The Blue one is marked 0305 as are two more in my set. They were all purchased very recently at an REI. I had been assured by an associate that REI had returned all in the recall dates. I will try returning them tomorrow and check their inventory for dates and more dimples. Thanks again.

Greg, there has not been a thorough & complete analysis performed of the incident & cam described. This news post is all derived from the rc.com & supertopo discussions which had the belayer's comments. But, yes, the implication is that the cam was not under recall and failed; why it failed should be a matter for further analysis.

In reading the summary provided from NW Laboratories (5/5/06); they indicate the CCH in-house production sample had proper fusion as compared to the out-sourced sample (the dimpled cams) which did not.

If you have time here is a link to Rope systems analysis and inparticular about the forces involved.

http://www.amrg.org/Rope_system_analysis_Attaway.pdf

My experience: I sent my full set of 10 Aliens to CCH Friday. Today is Tuesday, I received a call from them stating that they are all pull tested with a statement to that effect enclosed and are being returned to me ASAP.

I'm not an old school super climber, just your average slightly more than a noob but I'd say lets hold off on the torches. Everyone messes up, some just have better PR departments than others.

Everyone who is a trad climber should read the analysis that John posted about the physics and forces of climbing falls. I have been climbing for years, and taken a number of good sized whippers (one in particular onto a Orange Alien!). However I was shocked to actually look at the forces we generate with falls that are in my opinion pretty small, and then to compare those forces to the rated strength of the camming devices we reley so heavily on. I think that obviously manufacturing issues are very important (ie brazing on recalled aliens), but I will certainly be placing gear more often in the future, especially when I am placing the smaller cams. I find that I have great faith in well placed cams and often consider them (at least while gripped on lead) to be as capable of holding falls as a bolt, but this is clearly not the case. I won't stop climbing, but will definitely be placing more gear.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The Orange CCH Alien cam that was reportedly involved in the Paradise Forks incident, has turned out to be dated 10-05, rather than the highly publicized date of early 2004. This information has been verified the by the Coconino County Sheriffs Depart both verbally and in photographic form, with Dave Waggoner of CCH, during CCH’s own internal investigation. It is however still unknown if this unit was clearly dimpled.

The window of the recall was 11-04 to 12-05, thus any Alien cams date coded during this period should be tested, dimpled or not.

CCH will tensile test customers’ Aliens, of any manufacture date at no charge, to ensure that they will withstand a fall. Testing is done to 2/3 the rated tensile strength. After testing, all cams are currently being identified with a “Tensile Tested” stamp on the main swage above the loop. We will test and return cams to our customers within 1 week of receiving them.

Please attach your complete contact information to each unit being returned for testing, to facilitate a speedy turn-around.


Dave Waggoner

Colorado Custom Hardware Inc.
115 East Lyon Street
Laramie, WY 82072 USA
(307) 721-9385



Please note this was originally posted by tgreene at http://supertopo.com and http://rockclimbing.com . This is an update to the original recall. Emphasis is mine.

climb safe.

-=glenn=-

One last update from me- Dave not only tensile tested all the Aliens but even though I sent them out just last friday he had them all back to me today, Wednesday.

Just a note that if you want service like Jared received, you'll probably have to stay on top of CCH. I called them this Friday (a week after shipping my cams to them) and they weren't even sure they'd received them, nevermind tested and returned them. I'll keep the forum updated on my progress.