- Location
- Nationwide
Some day I will make them do it how I SAY IT should be done!!! And they’ll have to! It’ll be the LAW!!!!
then, maybe I can be happy...
Last edited:
UK. Two ropes at all times(USA next?)
- Thread starter TC
- Start date
Some day I will make them do it how I SAY IT should be done!!! And they’ll have to! It’ll be the LAW!!!!
then, maybe I can be happy...
There definitely is validity to the twin tension system, looking at this photo I probably would be a little safer if TIP of doubled rope was on more substantial wood then redirected to where i have it now. Thats alot more time and hassle. Question is is it worth it? I’m tied to three stems, when im not im smart enough to be distributing my weight between two anchor points and what im standing on. I feel pretty safe and I can pul second system in a second and be at other side of tree and reatatch second system. Would twin tension standards be safer? Yes, IF im not smart enough to mitigate risk by other mean ,of which there are many! I don’t mind hard work, but don’t make work hard!
Attachments
ghostice
Been here a while
What JeffGu said . . . Been thinking about this more (always dangerous) and climbing a rope, suspended totally in thin air and the "system" for that, is to me very different than climbing a trunk with one or even two lanyards (we most often use two - one long and one shorter one choked on trunk). In the latter example, you're kind of using the climb line as a "ladder" to advance four or five feet at a time so there's always at least two points of attachment. Used in this way, to me, it makes more sense to get on up there pronto and inspect the climb line TIP rather than hangin' around fussing with one more climb line that is probably not on a clear path up matching the first rope anyway - so there's gonna be a lot of fussin' that way. Think time of exposure to maybe dubious things - risk goes up. Two lanyards are way more straight forward. Spreading trees are different than conifers as has been pointed out many times. I can see using two climb lines in conifers even, with larger branches way up where you may be able to shoot two TIPS and have a clear path to the ground. But for a lot of what we climb here, you practically need a brush cutter to get up there anyway and fussing with two lines just prolongs the agony of getting to your TIP and being able to re-jig it if needed. This all assumes no other tree around to tie into etc. etc. Just flat out mandating two lines in all situations regardless isn't a great leap forward and seems just to be a "regulator seen to be doing something - look what we did - KPI box checked for HR department". I agree with Richard Hattier about shooting for the lower larger branch perhaps - which then may require moving two TIPS to get set up to work the tree. On some trees it can work , on others there's way better ways. If two lines are the path forward, it's going to mean huge changes to a vast array of books and training materials out there and new editions, not just buying more climbing gear. This seems a very substantial change which will require time to work through going forward.
But, I say again, still haven't seen clear, comprehensive incident causation analysis so am unclear on what it is exactly that's trying to be fixed by these changes and if this actually is the best way forward.
But, I say again, still haven't seen clear, comprehensive incident causation analysis so am unclear on what it is exactly that's trying to be fixed by these changes and if this actually is the best way forward.
Not exactly-it depends on what state you live in. If you top trees for beer money in New Jersey you’re breaking the law and more than likely be getting a big fine. Treework is regulated here , State of New Jersey adopted A300 and Z133 as law. If if twin tension is mandated in a revision of Z133 I’ll be breaking the law by climbing srt. Sounds like fiction but it’s true! Thats what is so dangerous is that people in the US dont understsnd how fast this could happen. I would suspect that a great many of you are living in states right now that are considering similar legislation.
Burrapeg
Been here a while
- Location
- Puget Sound
Sodding bureaucrats sitting in offices, and under pressure to be seen doing something, have caused plenty of grief in other industries. A single case in point, for the foundry industry, is sand. Silica sand is used as an ironfounding sand because it can stand the temps of molten iron, unlike other sands which melt and fuse to the casting. OK, so it is a known carcinogen. So they level prohibitively expensive and difficult restrictions on its use and disposal, adding one more nail to the coffin for the US foundry industry (already dying from cheap foreign competition and other factors). Now, if they care so much about us, why can you buy the exact same sand at Home Depot or Lowes for play sand for kids' sand boxes? And the ordinary beach sand that kids are wallowing in and tossing in each others' eyes is also mostly silica. These stuffed shirts behind desks easily lose sight of reality. JeffGu zeroed in on the principal difference with tree work, from other work at height, and it is the integrity of the TIP. This cannot be regulated in tree work, yet it is the single vital element it all hangs on and renders these new regulations to be ridiculously serious overkill. In industrial climbing, the TIP is usually a no-brainer, a heavy strap around a steel I-beam, big pipe, eyebolt, etc. When I climbed at the shipyard or on a drill rig, we never gave the TIP itself much thought and two ropes to two TIPs mandated in such a case is not hard to employ. In my opinion, there is simply no comparison with the complexity of most tree work unless you are completely ignorant of the actual working conditions.
Just to be clear, it is possible to still use one rope in the UK, if necessary:
"3. The system may comprise a single rope where—
(a)a risk assessment has demonstrated that the use of a second line would entail higher risk to persons; and
(b)appropriate measures have been taken to ensure safety."
"3. The system may comprise a single rope where—
(a)a risk assessment has demonstrated that the use of a second line would entail higher risk to persons; and
(b)appropriate measures have been taken to ensure safety."
SomethingWitty
Arkansawyer
- Location
- LR
I don't know how much you have seen Jeff Inman climb, but the fact that he can do something fairly easily is hardly a reason to pretend that most climbers could (even with his incredible focus on training and improving his game) ever achieve that level of proficiency. He's one of the smoothest and most thoughtful climbers I have ever seen, and it is easy to argue that he is one of the best on the continent.
Realizing that many guys are just at work rather than fulfilling their dreams is important. Two years of really training a technique could translate to a decade of work experience, and longer for someone who isn't as bright.
Where I'm from, you just don't stick the guys who aren't the best on the trees that require advanced techniques. That's most trees and most climbers, by the way.
ghostice
Been here a while
Just to be clear, from my experience (which includes helping draft legislation) these are standard, boilerplate exclusion statements that the writers in regulatory legal put in legislation to provide an out if someone should say regulations are too onerous or prescriptive. But try and argue your way out of two ropes onsite with Lester the Inspector when OSHA Comes A Callin ! No, I would like to see concrete practical examples from said regulators, perhaps in an HSE "Explanation Document" - similar are generated around the world by different regulatory agencies within safety and engineering fields (been there/ done that). In most jurisdictions I've worked in, these "duck phrases" only will end up in court/ kangaroo court or in the Director of Inspections offices.
Faith is not an option when it comes to the law.
Addenda: Some of the best regulatory lawyers I've had the priviledge of watching work had language skill to write what they intended in terms that was clear and unequivocal and could not be interpreted in any other way than intended. Unfortunately I believe in this day and age, this writing is becoming a lost artform.
PLEASE !!! Take a moment to contact ISA
about this matter. According to the response I got there are discusions happening right now about this topic, and more talks coming soon.
If ISA and TCIA get on board with mandating a specific climbing system and taking away your right to choose system you are comforable with who is there to advocate for the freedom to choose? IRATA ? SPRAT? So many great points here that should be considered. Ask to be put on the list to be notified of upcoming talks about safety regulations. A regulation to improve safety is going to sound awsome to OSHA or anyone else if only the positives are highlighted and no united organized group is there to point out negative impacts of such regulation and to offer REASONABLE/PRACTICLE alternatives!
about this matter. According to the response I got there are discusions happening right now about this topic, and more talks coming soon.
If ISA and TCIA get on board with mandating a specific climbing system and taking away your right to choose system you are comforable with who is there to advocate for the freedom to choose? IRATA ? SPRAT? So many great points here that should be considered. Ask to be put on the list to be notified of upcoming talks about safety regulations. A regulation to improve safety is going to sound awsome to OSHA or anyone else if only the positives are highlighted and no united organized group is there to point out negative impacts of such regulation and to offer REASONABLE/PRACTICLE alternatives!
You're right on both counts - Jeff is inspirational, and some ordinary guys might be sort of at the other end (although I'm not completely sold that that is or has to be the case).
I need to plunge in there to keep developing as a professional. I'm too confident in my own ability to just bow out because Jeff climbs so well. He showed me what is possible and I need to/can go there for it's own sake. I need to work mercilessly with the time I can allocate to become as good as him (and all the other inspiring climbers), even if I do not. What comes of it is speculative for me, now, but I'm going there for a time and place. It's too interesting not to.
SomethingWitty
Arkansawyer
- Location
- LR
I understand. I'm in the same boat, but I don't expect everyone to develop the skills that I intend to/already have.
Why do we care about these rules, anyway? There is no enforcement. We can do whatever we want with no fear of any formal reprimand. Is it just so that we can say that we follow the rules?
I think there is enforcement in the event there is an accident, and also for commercial construction. OSHA sunk Skanska for 75k for a helmetless bucket operator in my town. I know that is low fruit. Saw a climber waddle 10 feet up a live oak trunk on a nearby construction project on a major road - no connection, 45 feet up. Went out on a 20" horizontal limb, straddled it, cut it free, then tied back into the ball... Pretty sure he could have been very out of business.
I know this thread encompasses the discussion of whether everybody should have to do it. But, I want to be there before that happens, if it happens. I want to be proactive instead of reacting when the time comes. To an extent, I am parroting words said last week. I'm trying them on for size. I will see if it works for me. I'm not trying to put it on others, but I'm not going to hide what I'm doing either.
ghostice
Been here a while
Just to be clear about the UK guidance on the issue:
https:// www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Public/Two-Rope-Working-–-An-Update
and
https:// www.hse.gov.uk/treework/
https:// www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Public/Two-Rope-Working-–-An-Update
and
https:// www.hse.gov.uk/treework/
Chaplain242
Branched out member
The push for using a two rope system in tree work is not new, and did not start with the advancement of our tree specific SRS. The difference now though is that our new systems make it more feasible, so many are testing the limits of what can be done.
While this is good for the most part, it has, for the first time, created a breach in the overall agreement of tree workers, that two ropes at all times for us, would be a bad rule to make.
It would help tremendously if climbers that are experimenting with this would point out the times it didn't work. Keeping silent about those situations gives a very false impression of the workability of two rope systems in our industry.
At 8:00 in the morning when you’re about to climb a big tree it’s great,and pretty fun.At 4:00 in the afternoon when you have to climb a couple smallish trees to make 2 or 3 prunning cuts,it’s stupid. Set a rope clip on-go! No need to make it a bigger project, it’s a 15 minute job. We already have tools and meathods to do it safely! Its like you said DSMc “all the time “ is the problem!
southsoundtree
Been here much more than a while
- Location
- Olympia, WA
Around where, LOTS of climbers are spurs and flipline for everything. Don't even have a Closed-Blake's hitch.
Lots of climbers, aren't, too.
Lots of climbers, aren't, too.
