Proximity to the lowering device

A

arborer

Had an interesting conversation with the crew this morning. Do you guys think the rope man has more control of the lowering operation specifically the ability to let pieces run by being closer to the lowering device? Seems to be different schools of thought. I know where I stand but how about you?
 
I think it is easier to allow a piece to run if you are further away, that enables you to have more rope between you and the device. That additional rope allows an option to step/jump towards the lowering device to put rope into the system, similar to how a belayer would jump to brake a falling climber when lead/sport climbing (this only makes sense to rock climbers, my apologies to the rest of you!)
 
Further away is better and safer- more rope in the system, better view, and if the piece is heavier than expected hopefully you don't get sucked into the lowering device/ into the landing zone

I was at one company for about two seasons and we experimented with running the porty on an adjacent tree ( when possible). We would redirect from the base of the tree we were working in- usually with a ring and then to the porty. It was a huge pain in the ass when trying to land pieces and we eventually stopped doing it, but I think it had its merits- we'll only one really and that was it eliminated the risk of a groundy getting pulled into the LD and crushed by the piece being lowered.

This stemmed from an accident that happened in Ontario where the groundsman running the rope was killed when the piece became free of the rigging line while he was at the base of the tree lowering it. ( I don't remember the exact details of the accident- I seem to remember it was only timber hitched? )
 
I guess I’m going to differ in my opinion. Yes, further away is much SAFER for all aspects. But for the simple operation of controlling the porty close is better for friction and by close I’m talking about 6’. However like many have said there are so many nuance details to lowering, controlling the porty is just a minor element (a important one!)
 
I used to stay pretty close to the lowering device, 6 feet or so. Until I experienced an incident where we misjudged the weight of a piece, I couldn't hold it, and had to let go of the rope. The piece came crashing down and flipped, landing a few inches from me. Now I try to stand at least 10' back if the situation allows.

I'm not a fan of redirects at the base as I find the redirected rope often gets in the way or presents a tripping hazard.
 
In California I did an accident investigation of a situation where a crew member who was roping a piece got pulled to the portawrap. The involved parties misjudged the weight of the piece and thus did not have adequate wraps on the portawrap. The force pulled him forward (now in front of where the rope was stacked) and a marl wrapped itself around his leg. He tried to let go but was pulled to the base of the tree where he met the piece at the base. Luckily he had no significant injuries. Just major bruising, melted saw pants from the rope running around his leg, and a hell of a wake up call. Going smaller, more wraps on the portawrap, or a redirect would have prevented this.

Personally, I rarely go big unless I am very confident in the person on the rope. That said, ANY load can be a potentially dangerous or deadly load if the person on the ground can’t control it or keep themselves out of the way.
 
RyanCafferky said:
In California I did an accident investigation of a situation where a crew member who was roping a piece got pulled to the portawrap. The involved parties misjudged the weight of the piece and thus did not have adequate wraps on the portawrap. The force pulled him forward (now in front of where the rope was stacked) and a marl wrapped itself around his leg. He tried to let go but was pulled to the base of the tree where he met the piece at the base. Luckily he had no significant injuries. Just major bruising, melted saw pants from the rope running around his leg, and a hell of a wake up call. Going smaller, more wraps on the portawrap, or a redirect would have prevented this.

Personally, I rarely go big unless I am very confident in the person on the rope. That said, ANY load can be a potentially dangerous or deadly load if the person on the ground can’t control it or keep themselves out of the way.
Click to expand...
Daum! Early on I’m pretty sure I got a cracked rib from a hand hold knot. Two people on a speed line and the person behind me tied a slip knot to but up against their hand. The load was too heavy and he let go of the rope, and once he did it burnt though my gloves, and the knot flipped around my back hitting with freaky amount of force!
 
i always look at it like could get pulled into the braking device like they were open farm machinery of gears that will pull you in and chew you up/hands at least. Always visualized such things as greedy, hungry monsters looking for that opportunity, and give that bear a wider path of respect, never poke that beast with stick.
Also, not to be inline with the primary load line in case of rocket launcher type reaction at breech end of the power axis created. Close to braking, can put you in the wrong neighborhood from that perspective...but even spaced from brake want to be offset to the side of this line 90degrees as possible to avoid braking becoming breaking we would say, want to brake load, not break self !
.
Spaced away gives the clearer view stated, also tried to pre-plot options of if it got fugly would take additional friction on next tree etc. Sometimes started with that extra friction anyway looking to immediately relieve if went as expected; kinda over-prepped reverse strategy of remove not add frictions as plan.
.
The only times found close to brake useful if plan to lockoff brake or else if kinda have to shove rope into friction brake when still on hinge or rubbing something and wanted brake in chain for impact but frictions were presently over bearing, but at any point body ready/waiting to fall back hard w/body lean away from braking; and if it got fugly where were those next frictions coming from type plotting.

Old drawing (now) bottom left shows personal sentiment about being close to braking (system) as like open farm machinery; where "YOU risk drawing back just a bloody stub!!" (w/o the British accent type bloody meaning, mate).
Name_calling_lg.png


i draw actual turns now, these were faked, like coil a bunch of many same pieces to look as continuous ribbon.
The black shows off colors, but also hides errant shadows. If was lighter background could see all have shadow glows even around, just don't show unless cross over nonBlack of other item, therefore black background hides all other (errant) shadows for depth, only showing the shadows from crossing over an element more properly.

Years ago some wanted to have chipper painting contest.
i thought all should be as monsters to this imagery:
A chained slave dragged behind truck on road;
only fed gruel of dry wood as it raged.
Starving for fresh blood and meat and seems here maybe comes such a treat wrapped nicely in leather boot.
That is no challenge after gobbling 20' long 16" diameter solid azz oak w/o revving up.
Got any ketchup with that?

Please view all these perils as hungry monsters greedy to take you...to no place good.
 
Last edited:
evo said:
I guess I’m going to differ in my opinion. Yes, further away is much SAFER for all aspects. But for the simple operation of controlling the porty close is better for friction and by close I’m talking about 6’. However like many have said there are so many nuance details to lowering, controlling the porty is just a minor element (a important one!)
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding... we have a winner,, an apparently only one....

standing close to the porty allows so much more control when needing to let the piece run.

If you stand 20-30 feet back you can actually take a wrap off because there is so much more drag on the rope. though I never figured out exactly why.. seems like it shouldn't matter that much, BUT IT DOES....

Anybody that says different doesn't know. And that seems to be the majority here.. about as much knowledge as the clowns on facebook... on the bright side, this is one of the very few times that evo and I are on the same side of an issue.

I generally keep the porty on the back of the bucket truck and use a mid level redirect set in the tree at 10-30' to keep from side loading while allowing the ground crew free movement around the tree. Rope man can stand right next to the porty and be well out of danger and not have to crank his neck to look straight up all day...

If the LD is set on the tree, I'll try to set up a rigging point with multiple blocks or a satellite rigging point to make sure the wood is coming down on the other well away from the LD. pretty simple
 
Last edited:
Daniel said:
standing close to the porty allows so much more control when needing to let the piece run.

If you stand 20-30 feet back you can actually take a wrap off because there is so much more drag on the rope. though I never figured out exactly why.. seems like it shouldn't matter that much, BUT IT DOES....
Click to expand...
Seems like standing 20-30 feet back with one less wrap gives the exact same control.

As for why it makes a difference, it's because of the rope weight adding extra holding friction on your side of the bollard. Similar how on a long pull, you start to get some pull before the rope is tight.
 
I never condoned standing close to the porty, but still with the function of the tool you get more control... By doing so you risk being in the drop zone, missing the details of visually seeing the the piece being lowered, and risk fuckups such as getting pulled into the porty...
So the over all picture, stand back = more control of the situation, and stand close = more control of the porty but less control of the situation and WAY more risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom