RogerM
Carpal tunnel level member
- Location
- Louisville,KY USA
This, thanks to Mark B, has been my MO since he shared it...
2007 Rules
- Thread starter judge
- Start date
- Location
- New England (NH)
I agree KISS. I can't use ascenders well as is. Interesting discussion.
- Location
- Asheville,NC
[ QUOTE ]
This, thanks to Mark B, has been my MO since he shared it...
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like that system boils back down to a single web sling prussick. Seems a little sketchy to me, probably work though. I would be a little concerned about the prussick slipping down to the stopper not, causing some heat damage. I guess if you put the stopper not closer, no big deal then. I not a huge fan of working from a DRT attached to a SRT. I prefer to just SRT for access then switch over to DRT, it don't take that much longer.
This, thanks to Mark B, has been my MO since he shared it...
[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like that system boils back down to a single web sling prussick. Seems a little sketchy to me, probably work though. I would be a little concerned about the prussick slipping down to the stopper not, causing some heat damage. I guess if you put the stopper not closer, no big deal then. I not a huge fan of working from a DRT attached to a SRT. I prefer to just SRT for access then switch over to DRT, it don't take that much longer.
Riggs
Participating member
- Location
- Bryn Mawr , Pa.
"I also think that the person who said that Mark C.'s technique (running one set of ascenders up to the false crotch and then climbing off of a second set of ascenders) is "illegal as of 2007" was wrong."
That Should be wrong , and if you saw it , it looked real cool and safe . What I didn't like ( ITCC aerial rescue) was when Roachy was doing his thing , the judges were skeptical but Roach got the green light(at the earlier meeting and on the ground before his climb) and than the Aerial rescue tech in the tree ( Mahk) stopped him, in his grove and made him fix it . If their are rules all judges Should be on the same page . If you are gonna do anything questionable at a competetion judges and TECHS should know about it before the climb . The ITCC aerial Rescue event is a great place to see multiple ascenders being used .
That Should be wrong , and if you saw it , it looked real cool and safe . What I didn't like ( ITCC aerial rescue) was when Roachy was doing his thing , the judges were skeptical but Roach got the green light(at the earlier meeting and on the ground before his climb) and than the Aerial rescue tech in the tree ( Mahk) stopped him, in his grove and made him fix it . If their are rules all judges Should be on the same page . If you are gonna do anything questionable at a competetion judges and TECHS should know about it before the climb . The ITCC aerial Rescue event is a great place to see multiple ascenders being used .
- Location
- Retired in Minneapolis
[ QUOTE ]
This, thanks to Mark B, has been my MO since he shared it...
[/ QUOTE ]
My preference is to see all of the backups moved a bit closer together. If events came together to have any of them slide there is a high risk of generating some larger fall factors. The slipping could damage the friction hitches. It's too easy to slide them together just in case.
This, thanks to Mark B, has been my MO since he shared it...
[/ QUOTE ]
My preference is to see all of the backups moved a bit closer together. If events came together to have any of them slide there is a high risk of generating some larger fall factors. The slipping could damage the friction hitches. It's too easy to slide them together just in case.
I have concerns with both the cam techniques and prusiks expressed here.
Its bad practice (in all rope sport and industry I'm familiar with) to belay/rescue off of prusiks and cams without backing up to the mainline/anchor, because of the risk of damage/failure to the lifeline/prusik (potential two person loads). There are also slipping cam issues with the double ascenders when traversing, as Mahk explained. Remember as a rescuer you assume responsibility for another person (that person may have a family whose welfare depends on them). Too much emphasis on speed ahead of truly safe systems (especially with the added pressures of a real live rescue) and potential two person loads makes a ripe situation for further accident. If climbers set seperate access lines, an expedient SRT rescue comes with natural speed and safety.
There are very quick systems that have profesional security and ground retrieval built in to the rescue ascent, casualty security and descent. In a competition situation, there is no reason why the Rescue TIP cannot be set up with a back up for a totally secure system.
I explained this system in a post last night, but it timed out. I've got plans for effectively sharing the technique with everyone. I'd like to hear of someone trying it in the comps (it won't be me until the speed footlock event becomes a professional ascent event - this would reward speed because the set up and dismantle is on the clock, but effectively weighted against bio-mechanical efficiency, sufficient energy absorption, security and immediate descent - wow, imagine the simple, fast, safe and efficient ascending systems that would be used at work because of that!).
I wonder if the rescue security and ground retrieval would be rewarded above time (it should be within reason)? Got to read the rules I suppose.
Its bad practice (in all rope sport and industry I'm familiar with) to belay/rescue off of prusiks and cams without backing up to the mainline/anchor, because of the risk of damage/failure to the lifeline/prusik (potential two person loads). There are also slipping cam issues with the double ascenders when traversing, as Mahk explained. Remember as a rescuer you assume responsibility for another person (that person may have a family whose welfare depends on them). Too much emphasis on speed ahead of truly safe systems (especially with the added pressures of a real live rescue) and potential two person loads makes a ripe situation for further accident. If climbers set seperate access lines, an expedient SRT rescue comes with natural speed and safety.
There are very quick systems that have profesional security and ground retrieval built in to the rescue ascent, casualty security and descent. In a competition situation, there is no reason why the Rescue TIP cannot be set up with a back up for a totally secure system.
I explained this system in a post last night, but it timed out. I've got plans for effectively sharing the technique with everyone. I'd like to hear of someone trying it in the comps (it won't be me until the speed footlock event becomes a professional ascent event - this would reward speed because the set up and dismantle is on the clock, but effectively weighted against bio-mechanical efficiency, sufficient energy absorption, security and immediate descent - wow, imagine the simple, fast, safe and efficient ascending systems that would be used at work because of that!).
I wonder if the rescue security and ground retrieval would be rewarded above time (it should be within reason)? Got to read the rules I suppose.
- Location
- Nashville, TN
I would have concerns too if my line were going to support two climbers. This is not a practice that i teach or use. my climbing line is for me........ Remember that the first rule in AR is don't become the seconed victim. Most of our lines and techniques are rated for one person, don't take a chance of having an extra load on your "Life Line"
- Location
- New England (NH)
We are pushing the envelope Rob, in a good way. This is where innovation comes from. I was dissapointed about the ruling on my Rock Exoctica pulley system (quick release), however it makes sense, just wish Sherrill would market it differently. Retarding innovation is helpful in hte sense that it keeps us from putting bad products/techniques on the market and in the field. I want to bring up the score sheet issue also. Local Comps give the sheets out post comp, ISA Chapters and Internationals do not. I see not causing friction between judges and competitors, but knowing where aand why points were deducted would be helpful. And if the rulings are legitimate, competitors have a right to see their score sheets. Why not cross out the judges names and give the sheets out post internationals if requested?
I noticed the AR judges looking at Ben Poteets system post event, Mahk could you fill us in on that discussion for our benefit so we can improve on this technique?
I noticed the AR judges looking at Ben Poteets system post event, Mahk could you fill us in on that discussion for our benefit so we can improve on this technique?
The way I see it Rob (and UK best practice taught), is until you get to a casualty, you won't know if their line is trapped/cut/damaged.
Hence, we teach be prepared to put a casualty onto the rescuer's system, and plan the system accordingly.
No point wasting time getting there, then back and forth changing systems because they're stuck, when it could be prepared for from the beginning.
AR assessment attached (personally I feel it could be much improved, but its a good start).
Hence, we teach be prepared to put a casualty onto the rescuer's system, and plan the system accordingly.
No point wasting time getting there, then back and forth changing systems because they're stuck, when it could be prepared for from the beginning.
AR assessment attached (personally I feel it could be much improved, but its a good start).
- Location
- Bloomington, Indiana
[ QUOTE ]
What I didn't like ( ITCC aerial rescue) was when Roachy was doing his thing , the judges were skeptical but Roach got the green light(at the earlier meeting and on the ground before his climb) and than the Aerial rescue tech in the tree ( Mahk) stopped him, in his grove and made him fix it .
[/ QUOTE ]
If I could remember, or if someone (Riggs? Roachy?) could remind me, what system Roschy used, I'd explain what I asked to have 'fixed' and why.
[ QUOTE ]
If their are rules all judges Should be on the same page . If you are gonna do anything questionable at a competetion judges and TECHS should know about it before the climb .
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. And we're working on it.
At the Southern Chapter TCC competitors were required to demonstrate any system that involved ascenders (per 2007 ITCC Rules section 2.2.30) and were strongly encouraged to demonstrate any system that involved any type of floating false crotch or any system that involved anything more than a simple Prusik cord. These systems were viewed by the TCC head judge, the AR head judge and the AR in-tree tech as part of gear inspection the day before the event.
After the climber's/judges' meeting the AR officials had a team meeting during which everyone walked through the AR rules and the AR score sheet. Everyone was given a specific task for the next day, and then there was a synopsis of how the event would flow and how the dummy would be returned to its spot in the tree. A desciption was given of any intricate or unusual system that had been shown at gear inspection and what things were likely to cause problems or confusion during the day. Questions were answered, rules were clarified, and everyone was asked to arrive early to help set up the tree.
During the event itself the AR head judge informed competitors that they were to be ready to go when the person in front of them began the event. The head judge also checked that each climber had the minimum gear, and he and the ground tech doubled-checked the competitor's gear while they waited at the gate. The judges were apprised of when a particular competitor would be using an unusual or complicated system.
All-in-all this seemed to work well. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
[ QUOTE ]
The ITCC aerial Rescue event is a great place to see multiple ascenders being used .
[/ QUOTE ]
Its also where you see a lot of new techniques and gear. We're just trying to keep it safe.
What I didn't like ( ITCC aerial rescue) was when Roachy was doing his thing , the judges were skeptical but Roach got the green light(at the earlier meeting and on the ground before his climb) and than the Aerial rescue tech in the tree ( Mahk) stopped him, in his grove and made him fix it .
[/ QUOTE ]
If I could remember, or if someone (Riggs? Roachy?) could remind me, what system Roschy used, I'd explain what I asked to have 'fixed' and why.
[ QUOTE ]
If their are rules all judges Should be on the same page . If you are gonna do anything questionable at a competetion judges and TECHS should know about it before the climb .
[/ QUOTE ]
I absolutely agree. And we're working on it.
At the Southern Chapter TCC competitors were required to demonstrate any system that involved ascenders (per 2007 ITCC Rules section 2.2.30) and were strongly encouraged to demonstrate any system that involved any type of floating false crotch or any system that involved anything more than a simple Prusik cord. These systems were viewed by the TCC head judge, the AR head judge and the AR in-tree tech as part of gear inspection the day before the event.
After the climber's/judges' meeting the AR officials had a team meeting during which everyone walked through the AR rules and the AR score sheet. Everyone was given a specific task for the next day, and then there was a synopsis of how the event would flow and how the dummy would be returned to its spot in the tree. A desciption was given of any intricate or unusual system that had been shown at gear inspection and what things were likely to cause problems or confusion during the day. Questions were answered, rules were clarified, and everyone was asked to arrive early to help set up the tree.
During the event itself the AR head judge informed competitors that they were to be ready to go when the person in front of them began the event. The head judge also checked that each climber had the minimum gear, and he and the ground tech doubled-checked the competitor's gear while they waited at the gate. The judges were apprised of when a particular competitor would be using an unusual or complicated system.
All-in-all this seemed to work well. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
[ QUOTE ]
The ITCC aerial Rescue event is a great place to see multiple ascenders being used .
[/ QUOTE ]
Its also where you see a lot of new techniques and gear. We're just trying to keep it safe.
- Location
- Nashville, TN
Great job Mark(at the southern). this event is the hardest for the competitors and judges. this was a great event this year
- Location
- NJ
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it Rob (and UK best practice taught), is until you get to a casualty, you won't know if their line is trapped/cut/damaged.
Hence, we teach be prepared to put a casualty onto the rescuer's system, and plan the system accordingly.
No point wasting time getting there, then back and forth changing systems because they're stuck, when it could be prepared for from the beginning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you make a great point Laz, but my only question would be is would the judges understand the added time to rescue the person in planning ahead as well as understand the system you are using? I didn't see anyone use something like it last year, I guess you would have to explain to the judges what you are trying to accomplish.
I have actually been thinking of a few systems for this years that would do just that but there are a few things about it that I don't like. Hopefully I can get it worked out over the next 2 months.
The way I see it Rob (and UK best practice taught), is until you get to a casualty, you won't know if their line is trapped/cut/damaged.
Hence, we teach be prepared to put a casualty onto the rescuer's system, and plan the system accordingly.
No point wasting time getting there, then back and forth changing systems because they're stuck, when it could be prepared for from the beginning.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think you make a great point Laz, but my only question would be is would the judges understand the added time to rescue the person in planning ahead as well as understand the system you are using? I didn't see anyone use something like it last year, I guess you would have to explain to the judges what you are trying to accomplish.
I have actually been thinking of a few systems for this years that would do just that but there are a few things about it that I don't like. Hopefully I can get it worked out over the next 2 months.
Thanks for supporting my point C020
It is a little worrying to me that such a fundamental point ISN'T considered as part of the comp
. Are judges, techs and competitors planning their systems at work without considering this?
IMO anyone planning to undertake AR, should be aware that at least a two person load could act on the system once the casualty is clipped to the rescuer. And potentially much more (with surging forces/shock loads if either the casualty's or rescuer's system slips or jams). Certainly, events can easily transpire that dictate the casualty be transfered totally on to the rescuer's system (the casualty's 'short rope surprise' just one of them!). No fun hanging in mid air with nothing in reach, and then wondering if your system is strong enough for two!
All climbers should choose a suitable anchor point for their access rope, considering it could be used to rescue THEMSELVES. Why not ask the person who is likely to rescue you if s/he is happy with it before pulling the line up? Why not both proof load it to your combined bodyweights swinging and bouncing around before committing to your respective climbs? Seems a little defensive? Remember, nobody expects the Spanish inquisition! (for python fans : )
If in doubt, set another, stronger anchor for the rescue.
The system I use is very quick, and can be used to bring the casulaty down on their system, on the rescuer's system or with third person ground control, without having to change anything. It is also demonstrably simpler and safer than any previously mentioned system. I'm not even sure if footlocking would be quicker. If it is, it won't be by much of a percentage, especially with a rope bag on your back. The speed should count for little compared to the other safety benefits.
Just a few considerations to help keep us all safe and effective.
In the comps, give the dummy a short rope to get the point across.......I suppose the competitors ought to be informed first?
.
It is a little worrying to me that such a fundamental point ISN'T considered as part of the comp
IMO anyone planning to undertake AR, should be aware that at least a two person load could act on the system once the casualty is clipped to the rescuer. And potentially much more (with surging forces/shock loads if either the casualty's or rescuer's system slips or jams). Certainly, events can easily transpire that dictate the casualty be transfered totally on to the rescuer's system (the casualty's 'short rope surprise' just one of them!). No fun hanging in mid air with nothing in reach, and then wondering if your system is strong enough for two!
All climbers should choose a suitable anchor point for their access rope, considering it could be used to rescue THEMSELVES. Why not ask the person who is likely to rescue you if s/he is happy with it before pulling the line up? Why not both proof load it to your combined bodyweights swinging and bouncing around before committing to your respective climbs? Seems a little defensive? Remember, nobody expects the Spanish inquisition! (for python fans : )
If in doubt, set another, stronger anchor for the rescue.
The system I use is very quick, and can be used to bring the casulaty down on their system, on the rescuer's system or with third person ground control, without having to change anything. It is also demonstrably simpler and safer than any previously mentioned system. I'm not even sure if footlocking would be quicker. If it is, it won't be by much of a percentage, especially with a rope bag on your back. The speed should count for little compared to the other safety benefits.
Just a few considerations to help keep us all safe and effective.
In the comps, give the dummy a short rope to get the point across.......I suppose the competitors ought to be informed first?
- Location
- New England (NH)
I agree, thanks for keeping us safe Mahk and team. You did make me feel slightly uneasy about my system. Enough to rethink it and not use it. I think it was safe but I need a system that is not foremost on my mind during a rescue. Laz 2, have you been involved in a fatality rescue?
I've done a few rescues - one serious. Its not the fatalities a rescuer has to worry about, or do you mean have I been involved with a rescue that evolved into a fatality (in-correct rescue)? No I haven't. I don't want anyone else to go there either.
Rescue in tree work could be extremely difficult. Better to plan a work approach that avoids it as practicably as possible.
Rescue in tree work could be extremely difficult. Better to plan a work approach that avoids it as practicably as possible.
- Location
- Bloomington, Indiana
[ QUOTE ]
The system I use is very quick, and can be used to bring the casulaty down on their system, on the rescuer's system or with third person ground control, without having to change anything. It is also demonstrably simpler and safer than any previously mentioned system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post the system you use?
Thanks.
The system I use is very quick, and can be used to bring the casulaty down on their system, on the rescuer's system or with third person ground control, without having to change anything. It is also demonstrably simpler and safer than any previously mentioned system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post the system you use?
Thanks.
- Location
- Bloomington, Indiana
[ QUOTE ]
I noticed the AR judges looking at Ben Poteets system post event, Mahk could you fill us in on that discussion for our benefit so we can improve on this technique?
[/ QUOTE ]
Rob had used the same system earlier in the day. It worked well for Rob, but there was a problem when Ben used it.
After Ben had set up the system he slowly let go of the fall of the victim's line so that he (Ben) could descend and control the victim's descent from the ground. But, when Ben let go of the line the victim started to descend--Ben had to constantly hold the fall of the victim's line to keep the victim in the air. This slowed down Ben's own descent and altered his route to the ground.
I looked at the system as Ben descended and then tried to recreate what had occurred after Ben was finished.
It seemed that the Croll (which was on the lead of the victim's line and was used to help keep the victim upright) had caught on the micro-pulley that was above the victim's friction hitch. The Croll (and tyhe weight of the victim)would release the friction hitch and cause the victim to descend.
I noticed the AR judges looking at Ben Poteets system post event, Mahk could you fill us in on that discussion for our benefit so we can improve on this technique?
[/ QUOTE ]
Rob had used the same system earlier in the day. It worked well for Rob, but there was a problem when Ben used it.
After Ben had set up the system he slowly let go of the fall of the victim's line so that he (Ben) could descend and control the victim's descent from the ground. But, when Ben let go of the line the victim started to descend--Ben had to constantly hold the fall of the victim's line to keep the victim in the air. This slowed down Ben's own descent and altered his route to the ground.
I looked at the system as Ben descended and then tried to recreate what had occurred after Ben was finished.
It seemed that the Croll (which was on the lead of the victim's line and was used to help keep the victim upright) had caught on the micro-pulley that was above the victim's friction hitch. The Croll (and tyhe weight of the victim)would release the friction hitch and cause the victim to descend.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The system I use is very quick, and can be used to bring the casulaty down on their system, on the rescuer's system or with third person ground control, without having to change anything. It is also demonstrably simpler and safer than any previously mentioned system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post the system you use?
Thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Mahk
I'd love to, but not at the moment - time, opportunity and resizing issues. I'll run it by some buzzers at some upcoming demos and see if they'll do the honour with the pics and post?
Its not rocket science - a little difference from a standard SRT ascent.
[ QUOTE ]
The system I use is very quick, and can be used to bring the casulaty down on their system, on the rescuer's system or with third person ground control, without having to change anything. It is also demonstrably simpler and safer than any previously mentioned system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Can you post the system you use?
Thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Mahk
I'd love to, but not at the moment - time, opportunity and resizing issues. I'll run it by some buzzers at some upcoming demos and see if they'll do the honour with the pics and post?
Its not rocket science - a little difference from a standard SRT ascent.
Riggs
Participating member
- Location
- Bryn Mawr , Pa.
"If I could remember, or if someone (Riggs? Roachy?) could remind me, what system Roschy used, I'd explain what I asked to have 'fixed' and why."
See Mark , if you were competing , you would never forget . Maybe the competitor should be able to throw a red flag and protest , and if he/she is right they could start over( if wrong, a points deduction) . When you are in the middle of the event , the last thing anyone wants is to argue over something that they thought was settled . Roach complied , but he really shouldn't have had to , at that time . He was in a lose lose situation . Roach got a green light and ran into a red light , than proceeded with his rescue . I'm sure if you had role reversal , you would remember the situation , and I'm sure you would have handled it with class like Roach . Me , I would have climb up the tree a little farther and had some words . My point is , that for Roachy's climb , you and the judges disagreed . Right or wrong , the contestant was , at the time , in no place to argue . Stupid stuff like that , though not stupid can affect the way you do the rest of the event , games on .
See Mark , if you were competing , you would never forget . Maybe the competitor should be able to throw a red flag and protest , and if he/she is right they could start over( if wrong, a points deduction) . When you are in the middle of the event , the last thing anyone wants is to argue over something that they thought was settled . Roach complied , but he really shouldn't have had to , at that time . He was in a lose lose situation . Roach got a green light and ran into a red light , than proceeded with his rescue . I'm sure if you had role reversal , you would remember the situation , and I'm sure you would have handled it with class like Roach . Me , I would have climb up the tree a little farther and had some words . My point is , that for Roachy's climb , you and the judges disagreed . Right or wrong , the contestant was , at the time , in no place to argue . Stupid stuff like that , though not stupid can affect the way you do the rest of the event , games on .
New threads New posts
-
test
-
-
-
Fruit tree holding on by a thread, client wants to get another year out of it. Thoughts?- Started by climbingmonkey24
- Replies: 49
-
-
-
