Unbelievable !!!! Or rather....perfectly believable.. I still can't figure out why the TAC feels they are the ultimate authority on what systems are suitable for tree work ??? Feel free to choose what systems are allowable during your damn comps, but keep your clearly biased mitts out of the regulatory process for individual countries.....or better yet, why not go develop an ISA Certified SRT Climber credential so you can find a way to make some money off of the whole process.....
Stifling the flow of information gathered from climbers actually working on the systems in question is somehow SAFER than waiting for the word of a committee that admits that they do not do ANY ACTUAL TESTING of the questionable systems ????????? And this makes SENSE ???????
Isn't it strange how most people in the general public worry about too much government involvement in their daily lives? Well guess what, this is happening to our daily lives.
How is it that the "powers that be" can come in and try to tell me what I can or can't do or what is safe or not safe in their eyes? I use it every day, I train people in the safe and efficient use of it, and I whole heartedly believe it is the future of our industry despite what "they" say.
Now is the time for non sanctioned events and open masters to make their way to the US. Maybe a boycott of "their" events or how about we have events that are just as big or bigger than the ones already in existence. How about chairmen or women willing to put their necks out for the rest of us? The people who are already doing this for the ongoing progression of our sport and industry know who they are and are already putting their necks and plenty more on the line for all of us. Thank you to the few willing to do this for many. As for the rest of them, only time will tell.
Sooner or later the mighty hand that oppresses us all will find its equal. When that day comes, we shall all rise our fists in unison, wrenches in hand!
I'm starting the investigation to bring a Charlotte-esque comp to Texas next year.
There are 'outs' in the Z133 that allow for doing things that are outside the suggestions in the Z. When an employer can show that following the Z puts a climber at risk. A half-decent lawyer could use this to make a case that DdRT is less safe than SRT.
That's foolish though. When I first started my discovery of SRT I would agree, not a good choice for everyday working. Now...different story!
Hey Drew, Sorry - I mean DBT; Rich H. - and a few others I've not met yet.
Who doesn't love a good conspiracy?
I personally believe that JFK was shot by aliens - who then hid out in a volcanic crater in the South Pacific - and anyone that goes to these craters is in on the whole deal.
The BPG is released at the AGM.
The AGM is in October.
October is after August (even in the southern hemisphere).
There is no conspiracy here - feel free to check back over previous years - October has been after August for quite a while now.
The Education and Training Sub-Committee in its recommendation on SRT said that:
"It is expected that the recommendations for safe use of SRT will be expanded over the course of the year and a more comprehensive section will presented for inclusion
in the 2014 document."
We decided that since the BPG is a pdf - with very little lead-in time required for the final version to be released in October, that the five months between the 18th of May (when we decided this) and the AGM should be used to expand on that whole safe use issue now - and in time for release at AGM 2013, rather than waiting until AGM 2014. There will likely be further expansion from AGM 2013 to AGM 2014, as is consistent with an evolving document.
Therefore submissions on SRT continue to be welcomed. Submissions on all other aspects of the BPG remain closed.
A working group is being set up to report back at the end of August. If you're interested, and you obviously are, then get on it and contribute.
There is no political component at play here. I realise that by denying that - I probably am inviting a conclusion that by denying it, it really exists. Kind of like anyone who denies that whole volcano thing is probably in on it.
I also think that our humble BPG and the ISA/ITCC move in different worlds. To my mind (and I know little other than what I've picked up on the buzz) the ITCC has to worry about its insurers. The ITCC also has (I assume for the same reason) to be quite prescriptive in its rules. Therefore it can only move at the speed its insurers are happy with. The word 'glacial' springs to mind. I'm sure the words 'piss-up' and 'brewery' will spring to the minds of those less charitable than me.
We don't have that concern because suit for personal injury is statute barred in NZ. With the freedom that comes from having ACC our BPG can by comparison move quite quickly as a living and non-prescriptive statement of BP.
What I personally would love to see is us down here building up a cannon of experience of SRT use in TCCs (like Guy's AR at the prestigious Taranaki Open) - so that we can provide empirical feed back on the efficacy and safe use of such in competition. That's a technical question - and I'm not a technician, but maybe enlarging the BPGs treatment of SRT from the very humble less than two pages we have at present and in time for AGM 2013 will speed up that opportunity rather than slowing it down.
Fair enough...but, what seems to be happening is that SRT is being held up to some unknown and unstated performance standard. Since DdRT has been accepted and 'normal' for the century plus of arborculture why not use the same criteria for both...or...come up with some new 'climbing' criteria and fill in the blanks?
I know that you're speaking from the NZ perspective. but..if the insurers are being critical and asking for caution why can't we, the workers, have access to what the insurers are saying. That should be as transparent as mountain water.
I think you've hit the nail on the head from a logic point of view.
Double rope = normal - but no one has questioned why;
Single rope = other - but no one has questioned why;
It's not as if the last 100 years have been incident free.
I'm just guessing about the whole insurance thing, and because of our prospective I know next to nothing about PI insurance. The thing I don't understand - and would love to have explained to me, is since the ITCC competitors sign waivers - what's the insurance cover for?
I assume Charlotte must have had some sort of cover, and your proposed gig in Texas must need cover - so maybe the trick is to find an insurer that understands the risk they are indemnifying against. If Charlotte can do that then you can do that - then they can do that, and it's game on for SRT.
Have we all just been flying under the radar all these years that Ddrt has been the tree-work norm?
Sure, WE know either leg of Ddrt is equally vulnerable, but perhaps the built in lethargy of this system has us in a legal shadow we may prefer to remain in.
Let me be clear, no one who works on rope industrially does so without a backup fall-line, except us.
I've done some work on a hydro-electric dam, had to get some SPRAT (now IRATA) training to do so. Backup fall-lines the norm even twenty years ago, and on a ten month project it did not slow things down, but it would kill us in tree work. (Or would it?)
I think that the more we emulate rope access techniques, scratch that, the more we demand acceptance of rope access techniques used in other industries, the closer we come to being regulated by the rules that govern those industries.
I'm not a buzzkill kind of guy, just have an eye to the future.
I know for a fact that our insurer was called by an ISA rep and fed some pretty interesting information concerning an SRT Work Positioning based product........pretty interesting information with ZERO proof and ZERO evidence to back up the claims.....