southsoundtree
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Olympia, WA
A joke... Legislate the weather and how much fatigue a person feels...
UK. Two ropes at all times(USA next?)
- Thread starter TC
- Start date
Honestly, this is not a weather, fatigue, pushy boss, or bad estimate problem. Other rope disciplines have to deal with all the same issues. This is about lack of procedure, like not being tied in twice when cutting, doing stupid things like unclipping without being secured and not utilizing what is available to them.
What we do is dangerous but if you read the accident reports, you will find far too many that could have been easily avoided.
What we do is dangerous but if you read the accident reports, you will find far too many that could have been easily avoided.
Last edited:
Chaplain242
Branched out member
I know we have these zero accident/incident targets, but what are the real causes, and will two ropes fix them.
A lot of things like driving are legislated, and the statistics even with reductions over the last decade are significant - and that is with regularly graphic news media showing the results of crashes and deaths in cars.
What’s more important here than the percentages killed/injured are the classifications and causes. A lot of the stats to me seem to be attitudinally driven - not technique.
Also do we as an industry come close to collecting and publishing the statistics on causes of accidents like these driving statistics?
Are we actually targeting the cause of the accidents by legislating a different method?
A lot of things like driving are legislated, and the statistics even with reductions over the last decade are significant - and that is with regularly graphic news media showing the results of crashes and deaths in cars.
2023 Driving Statistics: The Ultimate List of Driving Stats
Discover accurate driving statistics on road safety, drunk driving statistics and fatalities, teen and commercial driving, vehicle safety, and more. Car accidents by location, gender, age.
m.driving-tests.org
What’s more important here than the percentages killed/injured are the classifications and causes. A lot of the stats to me seem to be attitudinally driven - not technique.
Also do we as an industry come close to collecting and publishing the statistics on causes of accidents like these driving statistics?
Are we actually targeting the cause of the accidents by legislating a different method?
ARLO
Branched out member
So, here is a typical scenario in Oregon. A team of two climbers is going to climb a 260' Doug fir and rig it so that other climbers can follow. They are packing 600' of rope, two saddles with full gear, helmets and radio gear, a 10lb crossbow, 2 cubes with 600' of haul cord each, binoculars, lunch, water, rain gear, and a first aid kit. Each climber is carrying about 60 lbs of gear in steep terrain. With a good crossbow they can shoot a line over a limb that is 200' up and pull up a 600' rope, which is tied off with a basal anchor (a canopy anchor is impossible in this situation). The first climber then goes up that rope, does a series of short advances on up to the top of the tree, and then re-rigs the main line to the top so that other climbers can follow. This whole process typically takes 2-3 hours, sometimes more if the tree is particularly large and difficult to rig.
If I am going to do the same thing with a second rope I need to shoot a second line over a different limb, and pull up another 600' of rope, plus I need to figure out how to always be on the second line which is never going to be oriented so that it exactly follows the first line through the branches. Then, when I get to the initial rigging point, I have to advance on up the tree to the top, while somehow hauling the ends of two rigging ropes with me (about 30 lbs of dead weight) so I can rig the tree to the top so that other climbers can follow. So, now I have nearly doubled the amount of time required to rig the tree, plus I need to pack in 1,200' of rope instead of 600'. And many of these trees are located a long way from the nearest road. Not only would this roughly double the amount of time required to rig and climb trees it would mean that we would need an extra person to help haul all the gear and I think it would lead to climber fatigue, which in my opinion is the worst danger that we face. So, I am willing to listen and learn, but I remain unconvinced that two ropes are wise or practical in all situations that tree climbers deal with on a daily basis.
If I am going to do the same thing with a second rope I need to shoot a second line over a different limb, and pull up another 600' of rope, plus I need to figure out how to always be on the second line which is never going to be oriented so that it exactly follows the first line through the branches. Then, when I get to the initial rigging point, I have to advance on up the tree to the top, while somehow hauling the ends of two rigging ropes with me (about 30 lbs of dead weight) so I can rig the tree to the top so that other climbers can follow. So, now I have nearly doubled the amount of time required to rig the tree, plus I need to pack in 1,200' of rope instead of 600'. And many of these trees are located a long way from the nearest road. Not only would this roughly double the amount of time required to rig and climb trees it would mean that we would need an extra person to help haul all the gear and I think it would lead to climber fatigue, which in my opinion is the worst danger that we face. So, I am willing to listen and learn, but I remain unconvinced that two ropes are wise or practical in all situations that tree climbers deal with on a daily basis.
Chaplain242
Branched out member
could be a brave new world
RopeShield
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
One long rope, one short rope. Hop scotch it. Lanyard is there so you always have two and never relying on one
Typical of what? Are you talking tree work or something else?
We had a demonstration by Jeff Inman at Legends 2020 Friday morning. Jeff has been climbing on two ropes for a number of months to test it out. The overall strategy is to keep the ropes fairly together but a bit apart. This confers the benefits of tending with one hand, as well as using multiple TIPs and redirects for both limb failure mitigation and work positioning triangulation. It was not always clear that the style was hassle free, but the way Jeff climbed clearly made it reasonable, and the advantages beyond baseline safety were occassionally present. I'm going to try this out this year.
One long rope,one long lanyard 40-60’on lower d’s,and waist lanyard is my favorite setup on really brushy or scragly trees.Sooo many options with that setup and only one rope on your bridge - no tangles!
ARLO
Branched out member
Mostly research work, but also contract climbing for surveys of tree voles and murrelets on US Forest Service and BLM lands. I realize this is not like urban forestry work or line clearance work, but I am pretty sure that the feds will eventually adopt any regs that are mandated for the rest of the climbing industry. Again, I am willing to consider any reasonable ways to make climbing safer, but I am concerned that in the rush to mandate a one-size-fits-all approach to climbing we could make it more difficult and expensive to do the work with no appreciable increase in safety.
Thanks, ARLO. Unfortunately, I don't believe that, difficult and expensive, will have any pull whatsoever with regulators. In fact they love that shit.
There are however, some very real possibilities that a two rope mandate, at all times, could actually increase danger and the likelihood of an injury. There are far to many variables in the world of tree work for a regulation as narrow minded and limiting as this.
There are however, some very real possibilities that a two rope mandate, at all times, could actually increase danger and the likelihood of an injury. There are far to many variables in the world of tree work for a regulation as narrow minded and limiting as this.
treebing
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Detroit, Mi.
Climbing on two ropes is not difficult at all. If mandated, the only person it affects is the customer whos price of tree work goes up because it is a bit slower. The rest of us charge by the hour unless we are in it for the fun of it. Which is often the case. Two ropes at all times can get a little dull. It's harder to do flying swings but not impossible and you do end up dragging a lot of tail.
I honestly FEEL safer when using two ropes. But that is not backed up by stats or science. I had two climbers I worked with, one took to two ropes and loved it. Gave him more confidence and stability. The other climber who was more athletic felt it stifling. I think it's great and if it was a requirement I don't see it would be a problem.
I would be way more pissed if they mandated doubled rope or Blake's hitches like many of the larger companies do here in the states.
I honestly FEEL safer when using two ropes. But that is not backed up by stats or science. I had two climbers I worked with, one took to two ropes and loved it. Gave him more confidence and stability. The other climber who was more athletic felt it stifling. I think it's great and if it was a requirement I don't see it would be a problem.
I would be way more pissed if they mandated doubled rope or Blake's hitches like many of the larger companies do here in the states.
It is actually climbers like you that we can thank for these new regulations.
I have said many times, that climbing with two ropes can be hugely beneficial. I personally climb with two regularly. It is the "at all times" that I strongly disagree with.
I have said many times, that climbing with two ropes can be hugely beneficial. I personally climb with two regularly. It is the "at all times" that I strongly disagree with.
treebing
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Detroit, Mi.
I highly doubt that anyone that had anything to do with these regulations knows anything about me or the way I climb. Nor any other climber. But I guess that's a compliment?
treebing
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Detroit, Mi.
I'm saying regulations like these only bother climbers that do it for fun. Ask the vast majority of production climbers that are mandated to only climb on a Blake's hitch and they don't give a shit. Give them whatever gear necessary and tell them how to do it and they do it that way. The boss charges the customer the customer hourly and moves on. Anyway Dave, we have nothing to worry about in this country as I don't think they have really addressed no rope climbing.
Sorry to put this on you, bud, but SRT is a primary driver for the UK extending 2 ropes regs into the arb sector. The big wigs thought arbs were on two ropes because they were using MRT... I'm not sure if that is true, but it was casually mentioned last Friday.
If someone polled professional tree climbers on weather or not they cared about what equipment and tecniques they were mandated to use and the results came back showing that they did not care that much, I would be shocked!!!!!!!
Chaplain242
Branched out member
Again, I have no issue using two ropes, in fact more than half of my prospective tree jobs at this very moment will mandate the use of two lines because of how fragile and nasty these trees are, and they will be using TIP’s on two leaders, and maybe even a third line, and a knife to cut a rope if one leader fails....
The thing that irks me is the fact that everything is pointing at the equipment and technique, assuming the anchors are bomb proof.
When using two lines, and two TIP’s, the assumption of needing to seperate TIP’s is that the tree has not been assessed but the two systems will fix any issue that arises.BS!
Any assumption that the TIP might fail adds a whole host of problems for a climber tied into said limb. I haven’t read that legislation yet, however maybe if going all that way into equipment, maybe the climbers tying in to that system should have an emergency release in case a leader fails?
How is it that tree assessment can be sidestepped in favor of dual systems hazard mitigation? Isn’t that what is happening? A climber can’t be trusted to inspect, assess, choose appropriately?
The thing that irks me is the fact that everything is pointing at the equipment and technique, assuming the anchors are bomb proof.
When using two lines, and two TIP’s, the assumption of needing to seperate TIP’s is that the tree has not been assessed but the two systems will fix any issue that arises.BS!
Any assumption that the TIP might fail adds a whole host of problems for a climber tied into said limb. I haven’t read that legislation yet, however maybe if going all that way into equipment, maybe the climbers tying in to that system should have an emergency release in case a leader fails?
How is it that tree assessment can be sidestepped in favor of dual systems hazard mitigation? Isn’t that what is happening? A climber can’t be trusted to inspect, assess, choose appropriately?
JeffGu
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Osceola, Nebraska
You can assess a TIP that's 90' up a tree and determine whether it is safe to climb on a rope attached to it. You can assess another TIP 75' up the same tree and determine whether it is safe to climb on a rope attached to it. However, you cannot assess whether you actually need one or both of those TIP/rope systems to get the work done.
There is a fundemental flaw in such logic that makes the whole notion of mandating how many ropes are used utterly pointless.
I like to climb with mutliple TIP and rope systems. I do feel safer during the operations when this makes sense. However, I don't feel one bit safer when I determine that two rope systems is going to be no safer, and possibly more dangerous, than one.
There is no regulation regarding this that would make anything safer. It still comes down to a human being assessing the level of danger and working accordingly.
Redundancy for the sake of decreasing the odds of failure only works when all components of the system are of a known safety value. This is not the case for our systems, because the quality of the anchor point is not something that we can be certain of, or properly assess from the ground. A tree with one TIP that is likely to fail is also likely to have another TIP that is likely to fail, if we assume that such failure is the result of poor tree structure. If we assume that the failure is the result of poor assessment by the climber, then doubling the number of poor assessments will not improve safety.
Until someone finds a way to address the TIP quality problem with as much certainty as required for the rest of the climbing system, safety of the system will always be a function of the quality of judgements made by the climber.
Although two systems of questionable quality might very well increase safety some of the time, it relies on false premises and will not increase safety to a level that will significantly decrease accidents. Increasing the probability that the climber will make reliable assessments of the safety of their systems will always have better results. Then, redundant systems will produce better results, because their use and effectiveness will increase. If we can properly assess when redundant systems make sense, and when they do not, I'd think we would be about as safe as we can be doing treework.
Effective, safe, two-rope systems for tree work are going to be developed by us, not by OSHA or any other regulatory body. Personally, I think this makes it important for us to try different approaches to such systems and work out improved systems that make sense for the way we work. It comes back to innovation and thinking about the problem of safety.
I'm glad to see so many other people trying multiple-line systems. It actually does offer some advantages for a lot of tree work.
There is a fundemental flaw in such logic that makes the whole notion of mandating how many ropes are used utterly pointless.
I like to climb with mutliple TIP and rope systems. I do feel safer during the operations when this makes sense. However, I don't feel one bit safer when I determine that two rope systems is going to be no safer, and possibly more dangerous, than one.
There is no regulation regarding this that would make anything safer. It still comes down to a human being assessing the level of danger and working accordingly.
Redundancy for the sake of decreasing the odds of failure only works when all components of the system are of a known safety value. This is not the case for our systems, because the quality of the anchor point is not something that we can be certain of, or properly assess from the ground. A tree with one TIP that is likely to fail is also likely to have another TIP that is likely to fail, if we assume that such failure is the result of poor tree structure. If we assume that the failure is the result of poor assessment by the climber, then doubling the number of poor assessments will not improve safety.
Until someone finds a way to address the TIP quality problem with as much certainty as required for the rest of the climbing system, safety of the system will always be a function of the quality of judgements made by the climber.
Although two systems of questionable quality might very well increase safety some of the time, it relies on false premises and will not increase safety to a level that will significantly decrease accidents. Increasing the probability that the climber will make reliable assessments of the safety of their systems will always have better results. Then, redundant systems will produce better results, because their use and effectiveness will increase. If we can properly assess when redundant systems make sense, and when they do not, I'd think we would be about as safe as we can be doing treework.
Effective, safe, two-rope systems for tree work are going to be developed by us, not by OSHA or any other regulatory body. Personally, I think this makes it important for us to try different approaches to such systems and work out improved systems that make sense for the way we work. It comes back to innovation and thinking about the problem of safety.
I'm glad to see so many other people trying multiple-line systems. It actually does offer some advantages for a lot of tree work.
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
-
-
-
Light 14 or 16" narrow kerf bar for 200t or 201t- Started by southsoundtree
- Replies: 9
-
