Experiential Systems, Inc.

09/23/2026

𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐩𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐒𝐎 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬

For decades, the North American challenge course industry has navigated a fragmented regulatory landscape, relying on a self-regulated, vendor-driven model guided primarily by ACCT, PRCA, and later ASTM standards. But as the industry matures globally, a massive regulatory shift is quietly making its way across the Atlantic: the development of a unified International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for challenge courses.

If you have not heard about this from your current inspector or industry association, it is not an accident. The transition to ISO will fundamentally disrupt how inspection and construction businesses operate in the United States and Canada, and many legacy vendors are simply not prepared or even informed of what is occurring.
Here is what course operators—and their legal counsel—need to know about the upcoming global standards, and how to prepare your facility for the inevitable shift.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐭: 𝐄𝐍 𝟏𝟓𝟓𝟔𝟕 (𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝟏 & 𝟐)
To understand what the future ISO standard will look like, we only need to look at Europe. Currently, European ropes courses are governed by a robust, two-part standard created by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN):

• 𝐄𝐍 𝟏𝟓𝟓𝟔𝟕-𝟏: Sports and recreational facilities — Ropes courses — Part 1: Construction and safety requirements.
• 𝐄𝐍 𝟏𝟓𝟓𝟔𝟕-𝟐: Sports and recreational facilities — Ropes courses — Part 2: Operational requirements.

Through an international treaty known as the Vienna Agreement (signed between CEN and the Geneva-based ISO), the two organizations coordinate efforts to prevent duplicate standards. Because CEN has already established the rigorous EN 15567 framework, the upcoming ISO standards for our industry are being heavily based on this existing European model (they are required to).

Currently, the standardization work is being processed through ISO/TC 83 (Sports and other recreational facilities and equipment). Current industry tracking indicates that the operational and safety management standards will likely be published first, with the structural construction and inspection standards following shortly behind.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐍𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞: 𝐏𝐑𝐂𝐀 𝐯𝐬. 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐓
To understand the impact of the incoming ISO standard, it helps to look at the current state of domestic standards.

When the PRCA standard was published in 2014, it was substantively harmonized with the European EN standard. While some changes have been made to the EN standard since then, the PRCA standard still represents the closest domestic framework to the upcoming ISO standard relevant in North America. In contrast, the ACCT standard has remained substantively unchanged since the publication of their 8th Edution Standards in 2012 which was later used for its first publication as an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard in 2016.

Because the upcoming ISO standard is modeled on the European framework, organizations aligned (or begin to align) closer to EN methodologies will have a much smoother transition than those relying on legacy domestic standards.

𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭𝐬: 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞
While the biggest disruption is estimated to impact inspections (detailed below), North American operators must also prepare for significant shifts in daily operations and construction requirements based on the EN 15567 framework. Two of the most substantive changes include:
𝟏. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐋𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐬 Unlike legacy North American standards that treat most high ropes activities similarly, the European model strictly categorizes belay systems into five classes (Category A through E).
• Category A to C (traditional "lobster claw" static belays) require much higher levels of direct staff supervision and intensive, hands-on practical participant assessments.
• Category D and E (Interlocking Smart Belays and Continuous Belay Systems) require significantly lower levels of instructor supervision. This means an operator's staffing ratios will be directly and legally tied to the exact type of hardware they use on the course.

𝟐. 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 For courses built in the canopy, the European model requires highly formalized, documented tree health surveys conducted by qualified arborists, heavily regulating tree attachment methods, wear, and structural viability over time.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
Beyond structural requirements, the ISO framework will dramatically shift how facilities handle staff training, instructor qualifications, and practitioner certification. Currently, many North American operators rely on generalized "Level 1" or "Level 2" certifications issued by the same vendor who sold them the training. The upcoming standards require a far more rigorous, compartmentalized approach:

• 𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐞-𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐯𝐬. 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲: Under EN 15567-2, staff cannot just hold a generic ropes course credential. Competency and training logs must be documented specifically for distinct roles (Instructor, Rescuer, Manager) and directly tied to the specific safety category (A-E belay systems) installed at the facility.

• 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐬. 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐈𝐒𝐎/𝐈𝐄𝐂 𝟏𝟕𝟎𝟐𝟒): Just as facility inspections will demand independence, international standards for certifying personnel generally fall under ISO/IEC 17024. This framework requires strict separation between the entity providing the training and the entity issuing the certification. This threatens the common North American model where a single vendor profits from conducting a 40-hour training and then independently "passing" and certifying their own students imeediately after the training.

• 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: The standard requires formalized, ongoing practical assessments of rescue readiness and operational competence, moving the industry further away from the "one-and-done" certification mindset into continuous, documented compliance.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐈𝐒𝐎 𝟏𝟕𝟎𝟐𝟎
While operational shifts are important, the most massive change for the North American industry lies in how inspections are conducted.

Under the European/ISO framework, inspection bodies must align with ISO/IEC 17020, the international standard for organizations performing inspections. This standard classifies inspectors by their level of independence, heavily favoring Type A (Fully Independent) bodies. Under a strict ISO model, the company that builds your course cannot legally be the same company that performs its annual safety inspection. The system mandates absolute, structural impartiality.

If you think this level of separation is impossible in North America, you only have to look at adjacent industries that have already made the transition:

• 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 & 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Under the International Building Code (IBC), critical structural elements must undergo "Special Inspections." In major jurisdictions, the companies building the structures cannot sign off on the inspections. Instead, those cities require third-party "Special Inspection Agencies" strictly accredited to ISO/IEC 17020 to ensure total impartiality.
• 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐞 & 𝐋𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐄𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Field Evaluation Bodies (FEBs) that inspect fire doors, electrical installations, and lifting equipment in North America utilize ISO 17020. This ensures the inspector has no financial incentive to fail a piece of equipment simply to sell the client a replacement part.

𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐟'𝐬 𝐀𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐁𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤
The introduction of an ISO standard means the North American market is about to be flooded with a fourth competing standard. The addition of this fourth standard will further create immense market confusion for operators, but more importantly, it creates a massive legal target.

In the North American marketplace, standards are technically voluntary consensus standards. They do not carry the force of law unless they are adopted by regulatory authorities (federal or state agencies) or explicitly incorporated into contract law (such as an insurance policy or client/vendor agreement). However, even when voluntary, standards establish the legal "duty of care" in a courtroom.

When an incident occurs on a challenge course, plaintiff's attorneys will always benchmark against the highest, most rigorous standard available globally.

If an operator relies on a vendor-inspector—where the company inspecting the course is financially tied to repairing or building it—a plaintiff's attorney will weaponize the new ISO standard and its reliance on ISO 17020 and the need for independence against them.

They will argue that the operator and the vendor willfully ignored the global standard of independent inspections in favor of a conflicted, lower-tier domestic standard. In a liability lawsuit, the North American "vendor-inspector" model will be framed as a massive, negligent conflict of interest.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐈 𝐃𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐦𝐚: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐃𝐎 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲
Currently, ACCT and PRCA are ANSI Accredited Standards Developers (ASD’s) and the Association for Challenge Course Technology (ACCT) serves as a non-voting member on a U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) monitoring this ISO development.
What happens when the ISO standard goes live? Under ANSI procedures, an SDO is not just encouraged to harmonize with an ISO standard—they are meant to actively work towards it and support it. The standard practice is for a domestic SDO to act as the "champion" in their country, publishing the National Adoption of the ISO standard (with any minor, regional deviations necessary to align with U.S. law).

If domestic SDOs refuse to harmonize their standards with ISO to protect their standards “market share” they do not stop the ISO standard from taking over. U.S. federal agencies (under OMB Circular A-119), state regulators, insurance companies, challenge course operators and vendors can simply choose to adopt the ISO standard directly requiring it within codes and contracts. Failing to harmonize or adopt the ISO standard simply renders their own domestic standards commercially and legally irrelevant.

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐄𝐒𝐈
If North American regulators or insurance carriers adopt the impending ISO standards, legacy vendors who generate revenue from both building and inspecting their own work will be forced to consider splitting their companies into separate legal entities or to abandon one side of their business almost entirely.

At Experiential Systems, Inc. (ESI), we aren't waiting for the industry to catch up. We have been tracking this global shift for years, which is why ESI became the first and only challenge industry vendor in North America to achieve ISO 9001 Certification.

By proactively aligning our internal quality management, design, and inspection services with international standards today, we ensure that when the regulatory landscape inevitably shifts tomorrow, our clients will not miss a beat.

09/18/2026

Looking forward to teaching in Costa Rica next week! Come join us and support PCAL!

PCAL is the most comprehensive training event for adventure park professionals in Latin America. For six days, you'll experience a unique blend of hands-on learning, technical workshops, networking with colleagues, and training sessions led by international experts. The activities take place at Play...

09/01/2026

𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐯𝐬. 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲

Worker classification remains one of the most common and expensive compliance traps in the challenge course industry. If your organization is issuing a 1099 to weekend facilitators, seasonal guides, or part-time builders just to save on payroll taxes, you are likely operating outside of federal labor laws.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has recently made significant shifts in how they enforce worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). While the strict 2024 rule used a six-factor test, recent 2026 proposals emphasize two "core factors": control over the work and opportunity for profit or loss. Regardless of these regulatory shifts, the fundamental question remains: Is the worker economically dependent on your business, or are they genuinely in business for themselves?.

Here is how the federal classification factors apply across both program operators and challenge course vendors.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐞 "𝐄𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐑𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬" 𝐅𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬
Under the DOL framework, auditors look at the reality of the working relationship rather than what a written contract claims. The key factors include:

𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥: Do you control the the worker’s schedule, assign their tasks, and mandate adherence to your specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)? The more control you have over how and when the work is performed, the more likely the worker is an employee.

𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐬: Can the worker negotiate their pay rate, market their own services to outside clients, and risk losing money on a job? A worker paid a fixed hourly or daily rate does not exercise managerial skill that affects their profit or loss, pointing to employee status.

𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐬. 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫: If your company provides the climbing harnesses, tools, rescue gear, and infrastructure, the worker is heavily dependent on your investments.

𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 (𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐬, 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐥𝐬, 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬)
For the facilities hosting the participants, the lines are relatively clear:

𝐖-𝟐 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬: Facilitators, weekend guides, and course managers. You provide the safety gear, dictate the program schedule, and their work is the core product of your business. Paying weekend or PRN (as-needed) staff via 1099 violates the economic realities test.

𝟏𝟎𝟗𝟗 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬: Third-party builders, professional inspectors, and specialty technical rescue trainers. These are external professionals who come to your facility for a finite project (e.g., a three-day inspection). They bring their own specialized tools, carry their own liability insurance, and operate their own independent businesses.

𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬
This is where the industry often gets it wrong. While an inspector is a 1099 contractor to the summer camp they are inspecting, that does not automatically mean they are a 1099 contractor to the vendor they work for.

𝐖-𝟐 𝐄𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫: If a challenge course design, construction, or inspection company hires a part-time rigger, builder, or inspector to go out into the field on their behalf, that worker is a W-2 employee of the vendor. If they are using the vendor’s power tools, driving the vendor's truck, utilizing the vendor's inspection software, and being dispatched by the vendor’s office, they are economically dependent on that builder company. Misclassifying part-time construction crew members or seasonal inspectors as 1099s is a massive liability for challenge course vendors.

𝟏𝟎𝟗𝟗 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬: A vendor may only use a 1099 classification if they are hiring a genuinely separate, insured business entity (like a specialized geotechnical engineering firm or an independent freelance ACCT inspector with their own LLC, insurance, and tools) to assist on a project.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 (𝐄𝐒𝐈) 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐥𝐩
Simply having a worker sign an "Independent Contractor Agreement" does not legally override the FLSA. Misclassifying employees as contractors exposes your organization—whether you are a zip line operator or a course builder—to severe back-wage penalties, tax liabilities, and legal risk.
If you are transitioning your staff to W-2 status, your operational manuals, training logs, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) need to reflect compliant employment practices. At Experiential Systems, Inc. (ESI), we provide comprehensive operational reviews, professional ACCT-accredited inspections, and specialized staff training to ensure your facility operates at the highest level of safety and industry compliance.

Contact ESI today to schedule your next third-party inspection or to consult with our experts on building a safer, fully compliant operation.

08/31/2026

Out-of-the-Box Professional Development

Elevating Your Expertise: Out-of-the-Box Professional Development for the Challenge Course Industry

08/31/2026

Ever wonder about the standards for hydraulic swage presses used to make swaged terminations for the element cables, belay cables and guy wires on ropes courses. Read this article published by ANSI and learn more about B11.2 The standards for hydraulic and pneumatic presses.

ANSI B11.2-2013 (R2020) establishes safety requirements for hydraulic and pneumatic presses to reduce workplace hazards and improve safety.

08/26/2026

https://experientialsystems.com/f/shifting-seasons-adapting-your-camp-challenge-course-for-adults

Late August is a massive transition period for the challenge course industry. As the summer heat begins to break, facilities across the country are saying goodbye to 12-week summer camp seasons and high-volume youth grou...

08/20/2026

This is a great opportunity for summer camps, don't miss the deadline!

Join us for the final Character at Camp Grant Program webinar before the Wave 2 application deadline.

08/17/2026

𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐚𝐛

As students return for the 2026-2027 academic year, school boards and educational experts are leaning heavily into a massive pedagogical shift. We are moving beyond the idea that outdoor time is just a "break" from learning. Today, educators are prioritizing the Intentional Outdoor Classroom—structured, nature-based environments designed specifically to foster Social-Emotional Learning (SEL), STEM application, and mental resilience.

But an outdoor classroom doesn't just have to be a circle of stumps under a tree.
If you are a school district, university, or summer camp looking to align with this massive educational trend, it is time to look at the traditional challenge course through a brand-new lens.

At Experiential Systems, Inc. (ESI), we don't just build recreational rides. We design state-of-the-art educational infrastructure. Here is how modern challenge courses serve as the ultimate Intentional Outdoor Classroom.

𝟏. 𝐋𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐒𝐄𝐋 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬
The core of Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) involves teaching students how to communicate, manage conflict, and practice empathy. You cannot teach these skills effectively with a worksheet.

Low ropes courses and team-building elements—like the classic Spider’s Web, Whale Watch, or custom ground-level problem-solving structures—force students to collaborate in real-time. These elements invite self-directed problem-solving and negotiation in a low-stakes environment. When a group of eighth-graders has to figure out how to balance a giant wooden platform without letting anyone touch the ground, they are practicing active listening, emotional regulation, and inclusive leadership.

𝟐. 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐑𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠
Anxiety levels in students have been a dominant conversation in education for years. Recent research shows that intentional outdoor challenges can significantly improve emotional regulation and stress recovery.

High ropes courses provide a unique psychological environment. They create a perceived risk (feeling high off the ground) while maintaining absolute objective safety (being attached to an engineered belay system). When a student stands on a platform 30 feet in the air, feels a spike of fear, processes that emotion, and takes the leap anyway, they are building genuine psychological resilience. That somatic experience teaches them that they are capable of pushing through anxiety—a lesson that directly translates back to test-taking and social pressures in the indoor classroom.

𝟑. 𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐌 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
An outdoor challenge course is a living, breathing physics laboratory.

Educators are increasingly looking for ways to make STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) tactile and engaging. Instead of calculating friction and tension on a whiteboard, students can step into a climbing harness and experience it.
Physics: How does a zip line trolley use steel rollers to reduce friction? How do the angles of guy wires distribute weight loads across a utility pole?

𝐄𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠: How do continuous belay systems mechanically prevent a climber from detaching?

𝐁𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: How do the roots of the trees anchoring the zip line interact with the surrounding soil during high winds or saturated soil?

By integrating a challenge course into your science curriculum, you give students the ability to physically interact with the math and engineering concepts they are learning inside.

𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝 𝐘𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐎𝐮𝐭𝐝𝐨𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐄𝐒𝐈
At Experiential Systems, Inc. (ESI), we have been pioneering educational challenge courses for decades. Whether you need a low-to-the-ground team-building circuit for a middle school, or a towering, multi-level high ropes course for a university leadership program, our ISO 9001:2015 certified design and build teams can bring your vision to life.

Stop viewing the outdoors as just a place for recess. Contact ESI today, and let’s build a classroom that your students will never forget.

08/13/2026

𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬, 𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐔𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬

As the aerial adventure and challenge course industry continues to mature, the physical infrastructure supporting our programs must mature alongside it. During our third-party inspections across the country, our teams at Experiential Systems, Inc. (ESI) repeatedly encounter a critical, recurring compliance issue: the improper use of straight ladders and ships ladders for participant access on climbing towers and elevated platforms.

Often, facilities rely on vertical straight ladders spanning 10 to 12 feet between internal tower levels, or they install steep ships ladders lacking proper side handrails.
The legality and safety of these structures come down to one critical distinction: Is the ladder an unbelayed access route, or is it a belayed challenge course element?

If you operate a climbing structure, ropes course, or aerial park, here is the definitive guide to understanding what is allowable, what is non-compliant, and how to properly protect your participants and your organization.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐧 𝐑𝐮𝐥𝐞: 𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐯𝐬. 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬
The most common mistake builders and operators make is applying OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) employee standards to public participants utilizing an unbelayed walking surface.

𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 (𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐈𝐁𝐂/𝐔𝐁𝐂): If a participant is walking up to a platform or transitioning between levels of a climbing tower without being actively clipped into a life-safety fall protection system, that route is considered public access/egress. This falls under the jurisdiction of the International Building Code (IBC) and local building codes. Under these codes, vertical ladders and ships ladders are strictly prohibited as a primary means of public access.

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟 𝐔𝐬𝐞 (𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐎𝐒𝐇𝐀): OSHA allows vertical ladders and ships ladders for authorized personnel (employees, inspectors, maintenance) because staff members are trained, capable, and utilizing proper PPE or ladder safety systems.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 "𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭"
There is a fully compliant way to utilize straight ladders and ships ladders for the general public: The ladder must be treated as a challenge course element rather than a standard access route.

If participants are using a vertical or ships ladder to ascend a tower, they must be actively protected by a personal fall protection system that limits their maximum free fall to no more than 2 feet. If a participant can clip in on the ground and is protected against a fall the entire way up, the ladder is compliant as a belayed activity.
If your facility currently uses straight or ships ladders, there are several highly effective ways to retrofit them with compliant fall protection systems:

𝐒𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐋𝐢𝐟𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 (𝐒𝐑𝐋𝐬) Mounted overhead, an SRL keeps constant tension on the climber and arrests a fall almost instantly.

𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐑𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐬: Participants wear a harness attached to a grab device that glides up a vertical lifeline as they climb but locks instantly in the event of a downward slip.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲 𝐒𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐑𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬: On angled ships ladders or stepped inclines, specialized continuous belay hardware can be installed that allows forward movement but mechanically blocks the participant from rolling backward if they lose their footing.

𝐀 𝐂𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬: To eliminate any confusion when implementing these fall protection systems, there is a strict legal distinction between what a participant can wear and what a staff member must wear. While participants may wear standard recreational climbing harnesses appropriate for the element, staff members are required to follow OSHA codes. If an employee is utilizing a personal fall arrest system to climb a ladder on the job, they must be wearing an OSHA-compliant full-body harness.

𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 (𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬)
We frequently see straight, vertical ladders installed inside the "chimney" or internal framing of a climbing tower.

𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔: Allowable only if they are wearing an appropriate harness and are attached to a 2-foot fall protection system (SRL, cable grab, etc.) before they leave the ground.

𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒇𝒇: Allowable under OSHA, provided employees use appropriate ladder safety systems or personal fall arrest systems (which strictly require an OSHA-compliant full-body harness) depending on the height.
Compliance Action: If your vertical ladder does not have a fall protection system, it must be completely restricted from public use. You must install clear, permanent signage reading "Authorized Personnel Only" or physically secure the ladder behind a locked hatch or gate.

𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐋𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬
A ships ladder is a set of stairs with an unusually steep pitch (typically between 50 and 70 degrees).

𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔: Allowable only if treated as a belayed element with an active fall protection system (like an anti-rollback continuous belay). Without fall protection, the steep incline presents a massive fall risk and violates public building codes.

𝑭𝒐𝒓 𝑺𝒕𝒂𝒇𝒇: Allowable under OSHA for employees, provided they meet strict design criteria. ESI inspectors frequently find ships ladders installed without proper side handrails. To be OSHA-compliant for staff use, a ships ladder must have handrails on both sides, allowing the employee to maintain three points of contact.

𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝑨𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏: Unbelayed ships ladders must be restricted from participant use, clearly signed for staff only, and retrofitted with continuous handrails.

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐬: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬
If the general public is navigating your structure without being actively on a belay system, they must use code-compliant standard stairs.

𝐓𝐨 𝐦𝐞𝐞𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐈𝐁𝐂 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐒𝐓𝐌 𝐅𝟐𝟗𝟓𝟗/𝐅𝟐𝟐𝟗𝟏 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠:
𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑹𝒖𝒏: Stairs must be built to standard architectural pitch (typically a maximum 7-inch riser and minimum 11-inch tread depth, though local Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) codes can vary slightly for outdoor recreation structures).

𝑻𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆-𝑪𝒐𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑻𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒔: Wood gets slick, especially outdoors. All stair treads should be texture-coated or fitted with heavy-duty, slip-resistant grip tape/tread plates to prevent slips during wet weather.

𝑯𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔: Must be provided for stability while walking up the stairs (typically positioned 34 to 38 inches above the tread nosing).

𝑮𝒖𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒍𝒔: Open-sided walking surfaces and platforms elevated more than 30 inches above the ground must have guardrails at least 42 inches high. The infill (balusters or netting) must be spaced so that a 4-inch sphere cannot pass through.

𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬
At Experiential Systems, Inc., our goal as an ISO 9001:2015 Certified company is to engineer risk out of the equation where possible. Assuming that a challenging environment excuses a lack of basic architectural safety is a dangerous mindset. Climbing towers and ropes courses should challenge a participant's physical limits on the belayed elements—not on the walk up to the starting deck.

If your facility is currently utilizing unbelayed ships ladders or vertical ladders for participant access, it is time to plan a retrofit. Contact our professional team today to discuss adding appropriate fall protection systems or designing code-compliant staircases that protect your participants from falls, and protect your organization from liability.

08/11/2026

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐢𝐥𝐬 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞

​To all of our friends, colleagues, and clients across the Midwest and beyond who have been battered by the recent severe storms—we are thinking of you. We know how stressful it is to watch the weather radar when you manage an outdoor facility, and we sincerely hope that your staff, campers, and programs are safe.

​Between cutting up fallen trees and clearing debris at our own sites today, it got us thinking about the unseen engineering that happens during severe weather. We often marvel at the visible power of the wind, but the real threat to a challenge course during a major storm actually lies underground.

​When you combine extreme wind loads with oversaturated soils, the physics of your ropes course change dramatically. For the summer camps, YMCAs, and University programs currently waiting for the ground to dry out, here is an educational breakdown of what happens to your structures during a storm, and what you need to look for before you open back up.

​𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐬
​Whether your course is built in trees or on utility poles, its stability relies entirely on the friction, compaction, and shear strength of the surrounding soil.

​When heavy rains oversaturate the ground, water fills the spaces between soil particles. This acts as a lubricant, severely reducing the soil's structural integrity and bearing pressure. When high winds then hit your course, your structures act like giant levers, transferring massive dynamic forces down into this weakened, muddy foundation.

​Here is how that combination affects different types of challenge course structures:
​𝟏. 𝐔𝐧-𝐆𝐮𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐑𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 (𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐓𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐦𝐬)
​Many modern high ropes courses are built without guy wires, relying instead on wood or steel tension beams running horizontally across the top or middle levels between the poles. Under normal use, these beams are fantastic—they keep the poles from bending inward when a participant falls on a belay cable, causing the structure to act like a strong, rigid box.

​𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐦: Because there are no guy wires transferring wind forces outward to ground anchors, a gust of wind hits that rigid frame and transfers the entire overturning force straight down to the base of the poles. In saturated mud, the ground cannot push back. The poles can act like a giant lever, causing the entire rigid box structure to tilt as a single unit or "wallow" out the dirt at the ground line.

​𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐅𝐨𝐫: Check your poles for plumb (vertical alignment). Look for gaps, cracks, or oval-shaped holes in the soil immediately surrounding the base of the poles, which indicates the poles have been shifting back and forth underground.

​𝟐. 𝐙𝐢𝐩 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐬)
​A zip line creates a much greater lever load than a standard 30-foot ropes course belay cable. If you operate a 500-foot or 1,500-foot zip line, the static tension is already immense.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐦(and After): Wind loads on the cable transfer massive forces to the poles and guy anchors. But the real danger happens after the storm. If you operate a zip line while the soil is still oversaturated, the dynamic load of a rider zipping and braking adds violent stress to guy anchors that are currently sitting in soft mud.

​𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐖𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠: Do not operate large zip lines in oversaturated soils. Wait for the ground to dry and stabilize to prevent your guy anchors from shifting or pulling out entirely.

​𝟑. 𝐂𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐬 (𝐀 𝐆𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐤)
​Unlike a ropes course where wind can pass between the poles and cables, a freestanding climbing tower has a massive, solid surface area.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐦: A climbing wall acts exactly like a giant sail or windsock. It catches an immense amount of wind, generating massive drag and overturning moments that push directly against the footings. In wet soil, this sail effect can easily overpower the lateral resistance of the mud.

​ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐅𝐨𝐫: Inspect the base connections and footings closely. Look for any heaving in the ground on the "windward" side of the wall, or compression/sinking on the "leeward" side.

​𝟒. 𝐋𝐨𝐰 𝐑𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬
​Because these elements are much closer to the ground, they do not generate the same massive overturning moments as a 40-foot pole. However, they are still at risk.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐦: Low ropes courses are typically built with much smaller guy anchors because they do not endure the same everyday loads as high courses. When high winds hit the poles, the combination of force and saturated soil can easily cause these smaller anchors to shift upward.

​ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐅𝐨𝐫: Check your guy wires. If a wire is suddenly loose, the anchor has likely slipped. Check for wobbly poles and ensure the soil is re-tamped once it dries.

​𝟓. 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐁𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬
​Trees are incredibly resilient, but they are highly vulnerable when the ground turns to mud. Not all trees handle these forces equally. Hardwoods (like Oaks and Maples) generally possess deeper, stronger root systems and dense wood, making them highly wind-firm. Conifers (like Southern Yellow Pine or Red Pine) often have shallower root plates depending on the soil depth, making them much more susceptible to blowing over when the ground turns to soup.

​𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐦: Instead of the trunk snapping, the wind rocks the entire tree back and forth, eventually breaking the suction of the wet soil and causing the root plate to fail.

​ 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐅𝐨𝐫: Do not just look up at the canopy; inspect the base of the tree. Look for soil heaving or mounding, which indicates that roots have been torn or shifted underground. Any new leaning or tilting is a major red flag.

​𝐍𝐞𝐱𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩𝐬: 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
​Do not assume your course escaped unharmed just because it looks okay from a distance. Root damage, base wallowing, and anchor slippage may not be immediately visible, but they pose serious ongoing risks for your participants.

​Before you put anyone back on belay, you need to conduct a thorough evaluation once the ground begins to dry. A structural inspection should always be done by a highly qualified inspector in accordance with the relevant industry standards in your jurisdiction.

​At Experiential Systems, Inc. (ESI), our post-storm inspections involve a detailed visual and tactile evaluation of your structures, systems, and components. Because we are an ISO 9001:2015 Certified company, our clients know our inspection processes are rigorously audited for the highest standard of safety and quality in the industry.

​If your facility was in the path of the recent storms and you are concerned about your poles, anchors, or trees, contact ESI today. We are here to help you get your program back up and running safely.