FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Courant Spliced Kalimba Climbing Ropes Recalled Due to Fall Hazard

Wichard Groupe North America has recalled about 1,050 climbing ropes after reports of splices failing.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 19, 2026, 11:23 p.m. ET
On August 6, 2026, Wichard Groupe North America announced a recall of Courant Spliced Kalimba Climbing Ropes due to a fall hazard, according to a recall notice. The spliced termination ends on the recalled ropes can fail unexpectedly, posing a risk of serious injury or death. The manufacturer, Courant of Angers, France, has received three reports of splices failing. No injuries have been reported. database records show no other enforcement actions associated with this firm. The recall, designated recall number , involves ropes designed for tree climbing and pruning commonly used by arborists. The recall includes part numbers MH730JZC045 (45m length) lollipop color, MH730JZC050 (50m length) lollipop color, MH730JZC060 (60m length) lollipop color, MH730MCC045 (45m length) bubblegum color, MH730MCC050 (50m length) bubblegum color, and MH730MCC060 (60m length) bubblegum color, as well as additional Kalimba ropes spliced under Courant splicing protocols prior to June 15, 2026. Each rope can be identified by the tag attached to the rope ends, which lists the brand name, part number, type (diameter), and length. Consumers should stop using the recalled ropes immediately and contact Wichard Groupe North America for a free replacement rope, including shipping. Consumers will be asked to complete the registration form at https://www.wichardgroupe.us/news/post/recall-spliced-kalimba to receive a pre-paid shipping label and instructions for returning the recalled product. Consumers will be offered one of two free replacement options: one with immediate availability and another with availability beginning in mid-September.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 120 Aug 2026, 03:23current

    First published.

  2. Version 120 Aug 2026, 04:23

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.