The bad news is that this will result in lifts costing more. The good news is that there should be at least some offsetting reductions in maintenance, operating and insurance costs. Also, if the experience of other industries holds true for us, there are long-term benefits in safety and efficiency. That is the broad background.
In Europe, the quality assurance movement is very much in place, and in all probability the unified European lift stand (CET/TC 242) will call for ISO standards or their equivalents in some form or other. (ISO is the International Organization for Standardization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, whose series of quality standards, known as ISO 9000 series, are becoming fundamental for virtually everything from “pins to baby carriages or nuclear reactors,” as expressed by John W. Stokes, a consultant in ISO 9000 matters.
In our industry, Poma in Europe has had its ISO 9000 certification for four years; Swiss cabin builder CWA recently announced their certification, as has French wire rope manufacturer, Trefilunion. (Note: certification does not automatically travel, so Poma’s certification in France goes only with the French manufacturing plant; if they elect to get certification for their Colorado facility it would require separate certification.)
Predictably, there is resistance in North America, with the principal focus being that it all results in a lot of paperwork without enhancing safety. As one lift manufacturer put it, “I sell the same lift in Idaho that I do in Colorado. They are equally safe, but I have to charge more for the Colorado lift because of the paperwork.”
The reason we are introducing the subject now is that new quality assurance provisions are being proposed for the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB) code which appear to break new ground. Doug Allen (Steamboat Ski and Resort) and Tom Clink (Poma of America), who head up the CPTSB quality assurance subcommittee, are anxious to get industry feedback on these proposed rules–not only from Colorado, but from the whole industry.
As they put it, “As a matter of policy, CPTSB listens to comments from the lift operators, manufacturers and from the general public when reviewing proposed rules changes. The lack of comment we have received in reviewing these quality assurance rules is somewhat frustrating. Industry comment is essential; we would like to hear from you. Please address your comments to: Doug Allen, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp., 2305 Mt. Werner Circle, Steamboat Springs, Colo., 80487; or to Tom Clink, Poma of America, 2510 Foresight Circle, Grand Junction, Colo. 81505.”
The watershed for CPTSB was its reaction to the drive bullwheel failure on the Teller lift at Keystone. Initially, a rule was formulated requiring bullwheel retention on all lifts. Later, this was modified so that it applied only to new lifts on the theory that the modifications that were being proposed for retrofitting were not necessarily contributing to enhanced safety. Simultaneously, a special subcommittee was formed to look into the issue of quality assurance in the designing and manufacturing of critical lift components.
Redundancy for all critical parts has never been seen as making sense. We don’t have redundancy on grips, for instance, even though a grip failure may result in a chair falling to the ground. Nor have we considered a grip retention device to protect the passenger from such failure. No, the answer was to see what could be done to reduce the likelihood of grip failure, and failure of other critical parts, so as to approach zero.
The subcommittee also drafted a new rule (Rule 1.5) defining quality programs and this was adopted; a new section dealing with detachable grips is currently being considered by the board.
Since these step-by-step actions are not dissimilar from what happens in the step-by-step ISO 9000 procedures, let us look at the ANSI Rule 1.5 (A) and compare it to the new CPTSB Rule 1.5 (B).
A. 1.5 Quality Program–The manufacturer, supplier and installer shall maintain quality programs to verify that the installed parts conform to design.
B. 1.5 Quality Assurance Programs – Critical components shall be designed, manufactured, installed, and operated in accordance with a quality assurance program. A quality assurance program shall be one that assures that the critical components comply with acceptable standard, specifications, and requirements of the authority having jurisdiction.
The program for the design of the components shall verify and document the use of properly selected load factors allowable stresses based on the conditions of loading and design lift. The program shall also verify and document the use of analysis, calculations, and checking procedures.
The program for the manufacturer of these components shall verify and document that the fabricated and supplied parts conform to the design plans and specifications.
The program for the installation of these components shall verify and document that the installed parts conform to the design plans and specifications.
For the operator, as defined in CRS 25-5-702(3), the program shall verify and document that the in-use periodic testing requirements of the designer and manufacturer are completed by qualified personnel.
Note the repeated requirements of verification and documentation which are basic to ISO 9000 procedures.
Space does not permit us to present the entire section on proposed changes to CPTSB’s rules on Haul Rope Grip, which include details on slippage, strength, loads, testing and attachment. However, the following excerpts will give the reader an idea of the new direction being proposed by the quality assurance subcommittee:
Old rule: “The rope grip shall be of a type that has been approved by a Qualified Engineer.”
Proposed new version: “Each rope grip model shall have an initial design review and statement of performance specifications by the engineer responsible for the design. Subsequent uses of this rope grip model shall be certified by a Qualified Engineer for proper selection and application of the grip model. Grips shall be designed, manufactured, tested and installed using accepted engineering and quality practices.”
With regard to the emphasis on fatigue, here are excerpts from the two versions to illustrate the difference in approach:
Old version: “Special attention shall be paid to fatigue considerations. A grip that has not been proven in service should be subject to fatigue tests.”
Proposed new version: “All grip models shall be certified for public use. The certification shall include the following: (a) A detailed set of specifications which includes, but is not limited to, static and dynamic loads, material, fabrication methods, components, rope size and tolerances, tolerance to variations in rope size in the splice area, and maximum haul rope inclination. Any change to these specifications shall require recertification of the grip prior to public use. And (b) Certification that the rope grip has successfully undergone fatigue testing with cyclic loadings duplicating or exceeding the dynamic stresses encountered during operation for the expect lift of the grip, as specified.”
Finally, on grip testing, there is again the contrast between the old and the proposed new versions.
Old version: “The lift designer or manufacturer shall develop procedures and acceptance criteria for testing grips for the owner and shall comply with 3.3.4.3.”
The proposed new version: “The engineer responsible for the design shall specify fatigue testing procedures for each grip model. Fatigue testing shall include cyclic loading of all grip components duplicating or exceeding the dynamic stresses encountered during operation for the expect service life of the grip. The method of fatigue testing with recordings of applied forces, the duration of each loading and the total number of test loadings shall be documented.
“The aerial lift designer or manufacturer shall develop procedures and acceptance criteria for testing grips for the owner and shall comply with 3.3.4.3. Each grip shall be nondestructively tested before public use and such testing shall be documented.”
These differences illustrate the sort of changes that ISO 9000 could bring. In that discipline, critical parts must not fail. They must be designed correctly; there must be manufactured and/or assembled consistently and correctly; there must be quality assurance for the original materials that go into their manufacture; there must be quality assurance in any installation and in its operation according to predetermined procedures. At every stage, documentation must be maintained, so that, for instance, one can readily document that the steel that was poured for a particular production batch of, say, grips, was of the temper and hardness called for, and documented elsewhere that these criteria for temper were appropriate for the intended use as a lift grip.
Not only is all the documentation a vital part of the ISO 9000 process, but companies which have earned the certification will tell you the most important part of the whole process is the imbuing of the whole—from CEO to lathe operator to filing clerk—with the quality ethic. After the typical three years it takes to earn certification, the company never turns back; it is committed permanently to the philosophy and practice of quality assurance disciplines.
Will this come to the U.S. and to our ski industry? Living as we do in an interdependent global economy, it seems inevitable. It’s a tough and demanding discipline, but read what an article in the August Welding Journal says: “In Europe, many companies indicate that ISO 9000 is the best thing that ever happened to them. They are sounding like graduates of a military academy; they would never go through it (the preparation to meet the standard) again, but they wouldn’t take all the tea in China for what they learned from the experience.”
