Consent Agreement for the use of non-certified PPE prototype

By completing this agreement with my personal data and by my electronic signature I confirm:

• my knowledge of the entire contents of this declaration,
• my consent with this agreement,
• my knowledge of the entire contents of the online user manual (https://auftriib.com/manuals/ )
• as well as my intention to purchase a pair of Crampow prototypes under these conditions. 

 

I do this in full awareness that the Crampow product is a prototype without any standard testing, type testing or systematic laboratory testing.

I.e. Crampow does not currently meet any standards for personal protective equipment according to EU law or Swiss law.

I therefore assume full liability for any damage that may occur in connection with the use of the prototypes.

Hazards that may arise from these prototypes:

• (product failure) failure of the binding, including the binding plate, resulting in loss of one or both plates

• (product failure) failure of the rivets, with the above-mentioned consequences

• (subjective danger) reduced snow penetration depth makes snowpack appear smaller --> possible underestimation of avalanche danger

• (subjective danger) easier and faster progress reduces time for consideration --> possible underestimation of exposure and/or avalanche danger

• (misuse) slipping after stepping on the plate's slick rear area during traverses or descent

• (misuse) loss due to incorrect attachment (e.g. under-tensioned straps, icy sole edge, incorrectly positioned straps/dyneema cord)

• (misuse) failure due to wear (ommited checking) --> e.g. tear of an abraded dyneema cord

Legal context of the product CRAMPOW

 

• Crampow could be considered PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) under EU law, since the product combines the buoyancy function of snowshoes (not PPE) with some of the protective function of crampons (PPE).

• No product-specific EN standard exists yet.

• In order that this product can nevertheless be publicly commercialized including CE marking, a type examination is required, e.g. by the TÜV.

• At present, however, there are several arguments against commercializing Crampow: 1. the product is aimed at a very select target group of freeriders with alpine experience. 2. the costs of a type examination are disproportionate. 3. the inventor of the product does not want to contribute to a trivialization of extreme skiing by marketing it.

• Rather, the developer wants to make his product exclusively available to those mountaineers who are specifically looking for it and use it on their own responsibility.

Safety measures to be derived from this:

• I always assume a potential total failure of the plates, i.e., I never rely exclusively on the crampon function of Crampow.

• I approach the product slowly, i.e. I initially use it only in moderate terrain where slipping, e.g. due to failure or loss of the product, would not have serious consequences.

• I only enter situations with Crampow from which I can extricate myself without assistance, even if I lose both plates.

• I always carry backup safety equipment such as ice tools with leash or spare crampons.

• I consciously take into account the possible perception distortion caused by Crampow in my risk management.

• I use Crampow exclusively in the ascent, respectively I am aware that Crampow only provides hold when the crampon front prongs are used frontally.