SRT or SRWP?

It should be stationary rope technique. Cause it isnt any more 'single' than the singular rope used in DRT. The terms static and dynamic are already 'taken' as references to the type/construction of ropes. We have a 'misnomer confusion' and it should be stemmed sooner than later.
 
I think you can remove some confusion by removing the term "rope," cordage with no job, and inserting " line," as in a rope with a job.

Therefore, we get single line ascent, single line work positioning, doubled line work positioning, doubled line ascent etc. As Nick stated they are all single rope systems, but different in application and performance.

Yes, we do need to define our terms, just as we need to develop protocol for safe use.

Tony
 
I think "work positioning" entails being tied in twice and operating tools. Everything else is ascent or descent even if its lateral movement.
 
in Japan there are no rules, no terms, no conceptions or missed ones and I've found it very refreshing. rather than 'rebelling' or 'working away from' norms (whatever ya wanna call actions) I and my Japanese contemporaries just climb. 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 are mixed up and used whenever needed. climbing systems are beginning to be able to accommodate this. I'm happy. I could care less what its called....so long as climbers act with skill and creativity.
 
Nick sees where this is going.

Since the rope doesnt move but the climber does, this system is much different than traditional/DdRT systems.

When new tools and techniques come along its challenging to have the vocabulary keep up.

For the arbos who came of age during Alex Shigo's introduction of Modern ARborculture you'll know what's going on. Most times I'll say that a cut or gash that I have will 'seal' rather than heal.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think you can remove some confusion by removing the term "rope," cordage with no job, and inserting " line," as in a rope with a job...

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe that anyone will be " enlightened " as to what type of system is being used and how it may differ from others, by redefining a component, the rope, they all share.

There is very little confusion among climbers when using the current terms of SRT or SRWP. A brief explanation of the words behind the acronyms is all that is required for clarity.

Unfortunately, the word "single" as commonly used in SRT brings with it some negative and inaccurate perceptions when also used in SRWP, not by the climbers, but by people in the periphery, such as regulators and a handful of old, gray-beard trainers. The perception is that "single" is somehow inferior and less safe than "double". There is also the history of the SRT ascent/descent only systems and their severe limitations and safety requirements. Without a separation of terms and understanding these things tend to get lumped together.

As users we all know that we have been climbing on one rope regardless of the system, DdRT or SRT. What has changed are the tools involved allowing an anchored/stationary rope to be used in an all-encompassing, 3-directional manner (safe movement in all directions) without a change over.

I think we could leave the often used and well understood SRT as "Single Rope Technique". However, with the new tools and their abilities, it might be more accurate with less potential confusion and negative perceptions to refer and explain SRWP as a "Stationary Rope Work Positioning"?
 
[ QUOTE ]
... Everything else is ascent or descent even if its lateral movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am guessing not everyone agrees or there would be no problems with the acceptance of the new tools. Moving laterally does change things.
 
I think the horse named SRT is already well out of the gate and down the road. ISA already refers to SRT in the newest edition of the Certified Arborists' Study Guide. I'd guess that other industry associations have probably disseminated publications referencing SRT as well.

I think, considering the problems SRT has had gaining acceptance, changing the name now would garner resentment, more than clarity.
 
Good point, C.

The idea is to think of this in a flow-chart pattern.

SRT and DdRT are the top bubbles/layer.

Then, SRWP or ??? comes in at the next level.

Resentment and clarity...good to understand that. Think of all of the friction that comes out when we talk about crown reduction and topping...invasive and non0nvasive cabling...seal and heal...false crotch and friction saver...whewwwww!
 
Might be that Single Rope Technique - Work Positioning is the right answer (SRT-WP).

For example in the SRT/DRT flowchart, with SRT as the "parent" item, SRT-Access and SRT-Work Positioning would be the two child items related to tree climbing.

It doesn't mean you would always say "SRT Access" when referring to traditional SRT technique, or "SRT Work Positioning" when you were talking about Uni, Wrench or HH climbing, it just means that if you needed to communicate the difference between the two you have the terms to do so.

Making it SRT-WP instead of SRWP shows the clear relationship to the widely used and well accepted term SRT.
-AJ
 
All good points guys, and I think that it’s very important that we get these terms defined (maybe not accepted by everyone) now.

What I don’t want to see happen, is for OSHA, or any other industry try to lump us into a rope technician category where we will be required to now use fall arrest harnesses and a secondary back-up lines, as Tom has mentioned at other times happening if we do not ‘define our terms’ (thanks Alex) for SRT.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you can remove some confusion by removing the term "rope," cordage with no job, and inserting " line," as in a rope with a job...

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe that anyone will be " enlightened " as to what type of system is being used and how it may differ from others, by redefining a component, the rope, they all share.

There is very little confusion among climbers when using the current terms of SRT or SRWP. A brief explanation of the words behind the acronyms is all that is required for clarity.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the input Dave. If only I could achieve personal enlightenment, then perhaps I would have some to pass on
grin.gif


I merely suggest we define a line as rope with something to do. Semantics and tradition I know, but I am a writer! Using the word stationary may not be fully accurate, but again, I admit semantics!
wink.gif


I have worked with climbers so slow no matter the system that Statuary Work Positioning was accurate!
grin.gif
grin.gif


I fully agree with your second statement. However, it is fun.

Tony
 
I remember Don Blair saying the line is rope with a job or some sort of thing like that. At the coffee table or over a beer that might be something to discuss.

Line=working
Rope=lying around

Does that fit?

I'm wondering what the basis is for the line/rope delineation. Tony, would you let me know? My guess is that it goes back to wooden sailing ships. Captain Jack Aubrey would know for sure!

To me, its tomato:tomato
grin.gif
smirk.gif


How do you pronounce SRWP? My brain-voice reads/says: Swerp, which is a mispronunciation but it works.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
... Everything else is ascent or descent even if its lateral movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am guessing not everyone agrees or there would be no problems with the acceptance of the new tools. Moving laterally does change things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the biggest thing is that these tools are being used without a backup. There is no other industrial discipline that is allowed to do this. Tree work passed beneath the radar for so long with doubled line and the use of prussics. Other disciplines like rock climbing and caving are recreational and so not under the eye of the regulators. I can't imagine any discipline that does not require lateral movement to some degree. In arb world it is of course more.

My feeling is that people are looking at these new tools and saying, look there is already regulations in place for workers at height working on a single line. The tree guys are working without a backup line, that is not ok.

My problem with the term work positioning is that it is a term already in use for something specific. It means bejng stable and secure, tied in twice and operating tools (working).
 
[ QUOTE ]
I remember Don Blair saying the line is rope with a job or some sort of thing like that. At the coffee table or over a beer that might be something to discuss.

Line=working
Rope=lying around

Does that fit?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yup that's it. And as I have been lead to believe it does hearken back to the days of tall ships, Hence, Bowline knot rather than bow rope knot. (clever turn of words there with associations, if I must say so myself
grin.gif
)

Definitely a bit of a coffee table discussion, but accuracy is important. Especially if you wish to get the idea that the climber is moving not the line.

I disagree with Kevin though. Work positioning is the multi-directional movement. That is what separates these systems from ascent or descent. It is at heart the basis of the discussion as single line Ascent systems have been in use in tree work for some time.

I believe Dave and I disagree that most Work Positioning systems are also effective ascent systems without modification. I respect his judgement on the matter as we have had this discussion before.

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom