JeffGu
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Osceola, Nebraska
That's silly. I need THREE of everything I own. You say that like it was a bad thing!
UK. Two ropes at all times(USA next?)
- Thread starter TC
- Start date
That's silly. I need THREE of everything I own. You say that like it was a bad thing!
JeffGu
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Osceola, Nebraska
This is exactly my concern. Unless the rules are highly tuned to tree work, perhaps phased in as an overall plan to develop better, safer systems, it's doomed to be little more than a major nuisance that most climbers will ignore.
Whether a removal or a prune, I set multiple lines from the ground, with a plan to be able to move from one system to another without dragging systems all over the place in a disorganized way. Shorter ropes more conducive to not having 120 feet of tail lying on the ground, TIP placement that allows better access to where the work needs to be done. This doesn't mean trying to keep these systems all attached to me... I just need to be able to get to those lines when I need them. That, in turn, allows better access to more of the tree, because it's much more of a three dimensional space you're working in... not as two dimensional as one rope, one lanyard.
Currently, I'm still on one system until I need, or arrive at, the second line. A third line might be on the other side of the tree, when I drop one line and move to it. This is NOT what this rule would entail, and that might be it's downfall. I believe that most climbers would love multiple systems if they just played with it... without any demand to be tied into them all the time. So, ideally, you would allow single-line movement while you navigate to other systems placed where they will allow the most time on dual systems while the work is being done. More of the work will get done on two lines, because it opens up amazing work positioning options and better safety.
It doesn't help much to just negate their reasoning, without offering a better alternative. My only suggestion right now, is perhaps this: After climbing your ascent line to the TIP and verifying a good, solid anchor (or fix/move it at this point) then a single line is OK to get around to where you need to work, and tying into a second system while working. Since access and positioning options are both greater and safety is greater, most of the work will be done in accordance with what they are after! Much less time spent on a single line, and at least we can use our own judgement as to the risk involved with that line. I have climbed to my TIP many times and reworked it a little... moved it a bit or even quite a bit... configured it to wrap the trunk and be supported vertically by the limb it was originally on (I do this a LOT) or whatever.
This just strikes me as a better option. It's an opinion, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but I'm trying to point out that we all could probably be instrumental in developing a better set of rules than simply adopting other rope access principles for working in the monstrosity that is tree work.
Chaplain242
Branched out member
Y
Agreed, but many climbers are already doing second lines when required, or when convenient.
The imposition of mandating two lines at all times is the fact that it implies the use of prosecution for failing to comply - how did prohibition work out? People just do what they want behind closed doors...
Aircraft incident reporting is a better model - prosecution is not applied due to the public interest of declaring issues/incidents/accidents as they come up, so that accidents can be prevented. This is by pilot or by technician. Incidents are collated and warnings issued with a liklihood of failure, or risk of occurrence. Much like Treebuzz set out to do - allow conversations to take place to improve proficiency, expand skills, discuss issues, mitigate risk etc..
To mandate twin ropes at all times is travelling in the opposite direction - shutting down the selection and use of climbing techniques appropriate to the situation at hand, according to the best practice. Yes some can accommodate the practice - but for many the cost of improvisation will cause issues, whether it is: affordability of equipment, profit/loss on the job, congestion safety issues, number of jobs completed in a day, etc the economic consequences could be substantial.
Also possible added safety implications - I wonder what a drop/catch scenario would do with twisted systems with the two bridge carabiners cross loaded?
Lets not forget the emissions scandal - complying with California regulations caused cars to become slightly more fuel efficient, but increased cost of cars, lost performance, higher maintenance cost so higher running cost, etc so much so the Germans found it easier to sidestep the test regime - yes they got caught years later. But the playing field was not even, as the reason they got caught was because of an article inspired because of criticism that USA and Asian cars could not match the performance of the German cars whilst "complying" with regulations....
Agreed, but many climbers are already doing second lines when required, or when convenient.
The imposition of mandating two lines at all times is the fact that it implies the use of prosecution for failing to comply - how did prohibition work out? People just do what they want behind closed doors...
Aircraft incident reporting is a better model - prosecution is not applied due to the public interest of declaring issues/incidents/accidents as they come up, so that accidents can be prevented. This is by pilot or by technician. Incidents are collated and warnings issued with a liklihood of failure, or risk of occurrence. Much like Treebuzz set out to do - allow conversations to take place to improve proficiency, expand skills, discuss issues, mitigate risk etc..
To mandate twin ropes at all times is travelling in the opposite direction - shutting down the selection and use of climbing techniques appropriate to the situation at hand, according to the best practice. Yes some can accommodate the practice - but for many the cost of improvisation will cause issues, whether it is: affordability of equipment, profit/loss on the job, congestion safety issues, number of jobs completed in a day, etc the economic consequences could be substantial.
Also possible added safety implications - I wonder what a drop/catch scenario would do with twisted systems with the two bridge carabiners cross loaded?
Lets not forget the emissions scandal - complying with California regulations caused cars to become slightly more fuel efficient, but increased cost of cars, lost performance, higher maintenance cost so higher running cost, etc so much so the Germans found it easier to sidestep the test regime - yes they got caught years later. But the playing field was not even, as the reason they got caught was because of an article inspired because of criticism that USA and Asian cars could not match the performance of the German cars whilst "complying" with regulations....
Chaplain242
Branched out member
Been using the multiple strategically set lines for a while as not in my twenties, and age and injury taking its toll. Its also safer, as what would be expected of me by a supervisor on a single line to get to a remote TIP I can just use a second system to access so much easier, and less strain, and less risk of minor injury. Whole deal of innovation is to make jobs: easier, more efficient, safer, etc so use the equipment available to your advantage...
I already carry a rated sling to girth myself to the tree as a safety to the lanyard when disconnecting my climbing system. Alternately use a second system if that tree mandates it.
I also wrap the trunk when resetting the canopy anchor/TIP on unsound trees or snappy varieties. This is just taking an extra minute or two to secure some backup to the TIP in case of failure, or reduce bounce on a basal... adapting as required.
As I have mentioned previously - why mandate twin systems, when one can teach it at courses? Even broadcast a bulletin that instructs its use, and sells its use as an option with its advantages, and disadvantages plainly stated like any other method we use...
Chaplain242
Branched out member
Great introductory video. Still a limited case that doesn't come close to cover all the scenarios that improve the climbing experience using mandatory twin systems , or make climbing with mandatory twin systems a PITA...
ghostice
Been here a while
I see a couple of other issues - for example do you recommend having totally duplicate systems - same ropes, same prussik cords or two RR's on two of the same ropes so you don't run the risk of coming down at slightly different rates? If so, you're into generally buying your chosen rope system X 2. Anybody messed around with different gear used concurrently? (in this video Richard had two different rope colours).
Another issue for me really is the time it takes sometimes to set a second rope system in some trees - forget about just firing something up into a couple of wide open deciduous tree unions - I'm talking about say conifer messes where you can run the risk of setting the world record number of attempts to set a line and looking like a prat to your customers anyway (been there, done that). This is based on some of our high powered scientific trials on even setting a second line into another conifer tree in the normal course of business (mature thick canopies with a tangled mess of crowns up high everywhere). Who was it a long time ago that said if their foreman pulled up and didn't see cuttin' goin' on after the lads were on site for 30 min there'd be more than questions?
So to me this has to progress way past it's a really cool idea and into some widely documented and demonstrated standard practices. Please don't try and sell me on something without considering and working thru all the variables the folks in the industry will encounter - tree work varies all over the world and the genus/ species you're working on/ tree condition, etc. influences what work style is practical tremendously. Industrial worksites are engineered and consistent, so we can SPRAT'ly on there. Trees are anything but.
Another issue for me really is the time it takes sometimes to set a second rope system in some trees - forget about just firing something up into a couple of wide open deciduous tree unions - I'm talking about say conifer messes where you can run the risk of setting the world record number of attempts to set a line and looking like a prat to your customers anyway (been there, done that). This is based on some of our high powered scientific trials on even setting a second line into another conifer tree in the normal course of business (mature thick canopies with a tangled mess of crowns up high everywhere). Who was it a long time ago that said if their foreman pulled up and didn't see cuttin' goin' on after the lads were on site for 30 min there'd be more than questions?
So to me this has to progress way past it's a really cool idea and into some widely documented and demonstrated standard practices. Please don't try and sell me on something without considering and working thru all the variables the folks in the industry will encounter - tree work varies all over the world and the genus/ species you're working on/ tree condition, etc. influences what work style is practical tremendously. Industrial worksites are engineered and consistent, so we can SPRAT'ly on there. Trees are anything but.
How about questioning their reasoning? Do they have statistics? Of the numbers of accidents they are claiming this would prevent, how many would have been prevented by just following the current, arborist industry, BMPs?
theatertech87
Branched out member
- Location
- Rochester
I've climbed with multiple different systems combinations, and add long as you're semi proficient with each of them on their own, it's not an issue at all. Even things as different as the akimbo, hitch hiker and zigzag/chicane your brain and hands just intuitively make it work smoothly. Even on long descents with speading anchors, you can easily feather one vs the other and float between them.
Pro tip to make it brain dead easy to descend... load into one system, slack off the other; completely collapse the hitch and hold it there while you descend on the other primary system
ghostice
Been here a while
So the arb problem we're trying to fix with 2X TIPS is many cases of branch failures resulting in deaths?
Or if it's cutting thru your climbing line, then the solution would be more lanyards?
Or . . . .
I really think the HSE staff has let down their ministry in terms of public, readily available DETAILED accident anaylsis and discussion with their Arb Association on how to solve the problems actually seen. Saying there's been some doofusses climbing trees that got bonked so everybody else has to change what they do is a little like saying no parking anytime anywhere 'cuz a little old retiree got their knickers in a snit on one street in front of their house. Therefore all suffer (we're not gonna be happy until we hinder everybody all the time).
In process industry we often had complex safety problems to work on and these were solved by industry/ industry association/ regulatory working groups that came out with practical engineering solutions. HSE's approach seems to fall far short of this benchmark this time. Imperial decree?
Another point is that if arb is so heinous and dangerous, what about commercial mountain guiding and caving industries? Or are they just off the radar because of smaller numbers? Two ropes everybody!
Or if it's cutting thru your climbing line, then the solution would be more lanyards?
Or . . . .
I really think the HSE staff has let down their ministry in terms of public, readily available DETAILED accident anaylsis and discussion with their Arb Association on how to solve the problems actually seen. Saying there's been some doofusses climbing trees that got bonked so everybody else has to change what they do is a little like saying no parking anytime anywhere 'cuz a little old retiree got their knickers in a snit on one street in front of their house. Therefore all suffer (we're not gonna be happy until we hinder everybody all the time).
In process industry we often had complex safety problems to work on and these were solved by industry/ industry association/ regulatory working groups that came out with practical engineering solutions. HSE's approach seems to fall far short of this benchmark this time. Imperial decree?
Another point is that if arb is so heinous and dangerous, what about commercial mountain guiding and caving industries? Or are they just off the radar because of smaller numbers? Two ropes everybody!
ghostice
Been here a while
It IS an issue for me because I always back up the decsender with a munter below on my leg loop to strip wet crap off my rope - habit from ice climbing. And to say that your decender won't fail now because we have two, well can't two slip on two icy snowy ropes just like one - it's the hitch or the ATC or the F8 that is all rhimed up. Hence the use of the twisty thing to get the glop off the rope! Just sayin' - havin' that right hand on the rope way below the descender, whatever it is, gives this cowboy great comfort comin' earthwards. Now I'm just working two different devices. (this ice thing isn't probably an issue in southern US but it sure can be up here in the Great White North - also arb ropes aren't dry coated like alpine lines are)
Last edited:
theatertech87
Branched out member
- Location
- Rochester
Thats a fair point. I climb in the north east us and rotate ropes in the winter to allow them to dry and avoid most freezing issues.
It does bring up my next question though, with devices like the i.d. where running the device without a brake hand below it is against manufacturers instructions making it impossible to run 2 simultaneously
ghostice
Been here a while
And then there's the practical issue of not just one but two gummed up hitches or descenders - that has happened to me with just one hitch and finally about mid way down I just gave up and came down on the munter.
But backing up your descender I think is always good practice - for example see the Teufelberger CE lanyard video I think it was where the climber descends using a ring backup (near the end of one of these videos). At least it is in the alpine.
But backing up your descender I think is always good practice - for example see the Teufelberger CE lanyard video I think it was where the climber descends using a ring backup (near the end of one of these videos). At least it is in the alpine.
Last edited:
JeffGu
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Osceola, Nebraska
The closest I get to an Alpine environment is when I change the little pine tree air freshener in my truck, while drinking coffee and bitching about the snow. Luckily, I have a strong work ethic... I never do a job today, that I can easilly put off until it warms up and the snow melts.
TC
Participating member
What about the dangers of a self rescue scenario with twin lines?
In the event of an accident where the climber cuts himself in the tree and needs to descend out of the tree as quickly as possible for emergency first aid BUT the trailing ends of his twin lines become entangled below him, this will stop his descent, he is now at extreme risk of bleeding out.
He's now at a much higher risk of bleeding out than he would've been climbing on a single line with a lanyard (for when he's using the saw). Just now as it stands the climber could simply unclip his lanyard and descend freely to the ground on his single line system unrestricted or stopped by entangled twin lines below him.
If the climber bleeds out and dies, was it as a result of the Health and Safety Executive's policy of arborists being enforced to use a twin line system?
The Arboricultural Association who are currently promoting this method of treeclimbing at the behest of the HSE? liability?
For this reason, based on the level of risk it could be reasonably argued you shouldn't use a twin line system and no climber on your site should be allowed to use a twin line system.
Is this the silver bullet for 'twin lines at all times' or will they just come back to you saying, 'manage your ropes better so they aren't tangled' but from a groundies point of view, wouldn't it mean he was constantly in the drop zone constantly trying to feed your slack into separate bags? or what if they came back with 'just unclip from one of the lines and descend on a single line'? kind of defeats the idea of 'safer to climb on a twin line system' no?
.
In the event of an accident where the climber cuts himself in the tree and needs to descend out of the tree as quickly as possible for emergency first aid BUT the trailing ends of his twin lines become entangled below him, this will stop his descent, he is now at extreme risk of bleeding out.
He's now at a much higher risk of bleeding out than he would've been climbing on a single line with a lanyard (for when he's using the saw). Just now as it stands the climber could simply unclip his lanyard and descend freely to the ground on his single line system unrestricted or stopped by entangled twin lines below him.
If the climber bleeds out and dies, was it as a result of the Health and Safety Executive's policy of arborists being enforced to use a twin line system?
The Arboricultural Association who are currently promoting this method of treeclimbing at the behest of the HSE? liability?
For this reason, based on the level of risk it could be reasonably argued you shouldn't use a twin line system and no climber on your site should be allowed to use a twin line system.
Is this the silver bullet for 'twin lines at all times' or will they just come back to you saying, 'manage your ropes better so they aren't tangled' but from a groundies point of view, wouldn't it mean he was constantly in the drop zone constantly trying to feed your slack into separate bags? or what if they came back with 'just unclip from one of the lines and descend on a single line'? kind of defeats the idea of 'safer to climb on a twin line system' no?
.
Chaplain242
Branched out member
This is one of the major points - it is a valid system, and it is useful in some trees.
But there are many scenarios where it is not a good idea.
If you aren’t working for yourself there’s going to be a lot of pressure and a lot of rushing as the boss/supervisor on the ground isn’t going to want to pay more to get the job done. In marginal areas does every worker take a pay cut to assist the transition? After all it’s a safer job now... whilst-using twice the gear...
Is every tree going to be quicker and easier? Or is it going to tire out the climber and cause incidents - not the first day, but the end of months when every tree takes an extra 2 hrs plus to do? Is fatigue management going to be an issue?
I am not so sure the win-some/lose-some scenario is going to be so evenly split... and as much as I like innovation - forcing the entire community to innovate at the same time as some sort of experiment with a win-some/lose-some attitude to the industry doesn’t sound like it’s in the best interests off all members of the community...
- Location
- Hulmeville
Remember when single line climbing was suggested years ago for tree work and everyone lost their minds about how it would never happen and how it was dangerous or how it was so impractical for work? Then a bunch of climbers quietly went about making it a thing and safe and now something that is a norm..... yea, funny how things start as absurd and end as a norm. That doesn’t mean everyone may like it or do it though. Just a thought.
Chaplain242
Branched out member
Agreed, even five/six years ago there were climbers around here free climbing many trees before tying in, to avoid time penalty for isolating a crotch. Now almost no one does it unless a climber does it to throw some excitement into a job he now finds boring.... some bosses must tear their hair out...
Now we have SRT and the need for that has decreased quite a bit as techniques and equipment has developed to make ascent quite quick now and few could justify free climbing for any reason...
But if the job is 10% safer (guesstimate for arguments sake) with twin ropes, why not make it 13% safer with three ropes? At what point is the job sufficiently safe?
- Location
- Hulmeville
Best answer anyone to my knowledge or experience can give you to that last question would be “if you feel three, four, five lines, a helicopter, a crane, or going to bed waking up and starting over is safer.... then that’s what it is”. Some things should be sufficiently attempted prior to having strong feels one direction or another about them. Even in Rope Access they give room for times that two ropes are not “safe”. Although you have to prove it’s not first. No different then not using a lanyard and we all know someone that will tell you a lanyard is just a waste of time in a job that has pressures to get things done fast due to money. I get the pressure of work, and I get the feeling of being barked at to go faster. I also get what it’s like to take a 40 ft whipper and spend the night in a hospital. I get what it’s like to tell someone there loved one is dead or badly hurt. Change is always difficult in many levels. Giving change a shot though is of the utmost importance, even if in the end it’s not adopted.
ghostice
Been here a while
Actually there are huge number of tools like QRA - quantitative risk assessment - that can be used to quantify fatality risk/ probability, etc. Insurance industry actuaries are experts at this as well. Normally this is done as part of cost benefit before imposing new regulations, at least in most of the world where I've worked. These are well defined methods used for years and years. There's a very old book called "Of Acceptable Risk" if you're interested.
Last edited:
Chaplain242
Branched out member
My point is if the techniques stand on their own - there’s no need to legislate a mandatory requirement. Use the hotshot climbers promo videos, and even competitive events to sell the technique. If they are that good the insurance industry will drive it with premium reductions...
There’s always profiteering behind legislation change in knee jerk fashion. Whether intended or not. I would like to see a an open adoption with everyone’s hand revealed and everyone getting an input before mandating change - and from what I saw UK had some talented climbers campaigning against it... that’s pause enough for me....
There’s always profiteering behind legislation change in knee jerk fashion. Whether intended or not. I would like to see a an open adoption with everyone’s hand revealed and everyone getting an input before mandating change - and from what I saw UK had some talented climbers campaigning against it... that’s pause enough for me....
