Best Tree Climber In The World

TylerHoffman

TylerHoffman

Participating member
U may have seen this before. But im impressed by his amount of experience. He ain't no wussy.
 
Last edited:
is that jeff daniels red headed son?
ive always thought those mountain climbin' fanatics were a bunch sallys. i mean, its a big wide mountain. well said Tim, well said.
 
My former groundie, with two weeks real tree production experience, no climbing mind you, told me he though he could wreck out a big doug-fir (40"x 120-150'), if no targets around, in tw0 and a half hours. I would feel good if I was blasting it in a similar amount of time. Some people don't even know that their is a life outside of their little pond.
 
So Sean, if you don't mind my asking, why is he your former groundie? A statement like the one he made has me thinking that he might have a tough time being a good follower, and that paying his dues by dragging brush might be more than he was able to stomach. Is my wild guess anywhere close to hitting the mark? Thanks in advance for any answer you choose to give.

Tim
 
TimBr said:
So Sean, if you don't mind my asking, why is he your former groundie? A statement like the one he made has me thinking that he might have a tough time being a good follower, and that paying his dues by dragging brush might be more than he was able to stomach. Is my wild guess anywhere close to hitting the mark? Thanks in advance for any answer you choose to give.

Tim
Click to expand...
He wanted to reinvent my wheel.

We don't drag brush a lot, thankfully. Mini Power! Chipping yes.

Learning, and following directions, like Call and Respond issues.

I tell people that I don't want a brush monkey. I have an 'Ogre', my mini/ grapple, that will outwork them 10 times over. I need someone to learn technical skills that save so much time, energy, money, and risk (in some cases).

I have a procedure for most things. As much as practical, one 'staging area' for all gear out of its spot on the rig. Never where it can be run over, never under the truck or in the drive path of the truck. Not in front of the truck that is pointed out in case there is an emergency exit to the hospital. Last job it was with a staging area next to the chipper, with the limbing saw for the three guys to share, as needed, next to the chipper tire. They know where it will be when needed. I can check that it was out of the dropzone. One guy can track one saw okay, three ground guys with one saw, it could be anywhere.

Backing a truck up, for example. The default place for the guide person to stand is as far back to act as a target for the driver's corner of the truck or chipper, all else being equal. I can back the snot out of my rigs, because I have driven them for so many years. I don't need a lot of help. When they want me to go one way or the other, rather than "left is you're going backward, looking in the mirror", I expect a simple, unambiguous, "Driver's Side" or "Passenger Side". Rather than "Keep coming back", it is sooo much more informative to hear "20'...15'...10'... 5', slow down, 4" more passenger and 3' back." "Stop" means "stop". "okay" doesn't mean "stop".

He wanted me to change to his system, "so I don't have to think about it". Then he freaked out on me, yelling at me. granted he slept poorly, and said he got two hours of sleep. He apologized. I told him to take breaks as he needed if he felt frustrated or tired. AS ALWAYS, "if you can't do it safely, don't do it".


I tell new guys, I'm going to train you right. You will have to learn, or go down the road, or maybe be an occasional loader-brush pile stacker and chipper on big removal jobs. I can't dumb down my ways to accommodate a poorly trained Groundie. The answer to the question "Do you know what color fire engines are?" is yes, not red. Questions like "do you know where X, Y, or Z is?" doesn't mean start off to go look for it willy nilly. The response to "I'm going to snap cut this limb, hold it tight to swing it over X, and crash land it on the tips, controlling the butt to protect the house" should be " Snap cut. Hold it to swing over X, Crash it. Control the butt," not "OK".


I explain that I will train them, and sometimes it will be Wax On, Wax Off. Do what I say, not what you see me do. I'm training your to get to that point. You only see what I do, sorta, and don't understand the process and so many considerations (as with using two opposing face cuts to get a hung up forest type conifer down).

If I'm in the tree, I expect them to Wax On, Wax off in order for for me to walk him through a basic manuever with the loader to put a log on top of cut firewood for easier bucking, resulting in the wood being in the right place without double-working to pick it all up off the road, risking rocking chains all the time, and cutting slowly so they don't rock them. They will learn by doing. Until they are competent, I have to train them. Once their competent, I don't.

A question I ask myself a lot is, "How long do I want to let a rookie make a rookie mistake that is so easily corrected?"
 
Thanks so much for this detailed answer Sean. It is much appreciated.

You are willing to teach a man a trade that will provide him with work for years, possibly, even if he's starting from scratch. But, he must demonstrate an ability to focus intently on what it is you are telling him to do, and then do it. He must listen closely to the question asked, and then answer that specific question, not the one he thinks you are leading up to.

Attention span, focus, willingness to follow orders.

Thanks again.

Tim
 
The response to "I'm going to snap cut this limb, hold it tight to swing it over X, and crash land it on the tips, controlling the butt to protect the house" should be " Snap cut. Hold it to swing over X, Crash it. Control the butt," not "OK".

is there a point where you trust your ground guys to be able to just say "OK"? seems like there would come a point (im saying when your help is as good as you want them to be) where this would be feel like micromanaging. i agree with what your saying to an extent, not trying to be argumentative or that i think what your doing is wrong. just askin'
 
"I tell new guys, I'm going to train you right. You will have to learn, or go down the road, or maybe be an occasional loader-brush pile stacker and chipper on big removal jobs. I can't dumb down my ways to accommodate a poorly trained Groundie. The answer to the question "Do you know what color fire engines are?" is yes, not red. Questions like "do you know where X, Y, or Z is?" doesn't mean start off to go look for it willy nilly. The response to "I'm going to snap cut this limb, hold it tight to swing it over X, and crash land it on the tips, controlling the butt to protect the house" should be " Snap cut. Hold it to swing over X, Crash it. Control the butt," not "OK"

You are right, the answer is not "OK" but should be "all clear". I wont repeat back to the climber, what he just told me he was going to do.... He already knows it.... And knows the ground crew is compitent enough to stand clear. Not saying he didnt need to be let go, Ive seen the type that wants to reinvent the wheel, "change you to my way so I dont have to think", ect. ect. ect... They are everywhere in our business. Unfortunately we have to weed them out one by one and put them in our little black book (of never to work for us again). They cost money, they cost time and they cost our sanity.

P.S. Fire trucks ARE RED... Atleast the real ones :birra:
 
In Sean's defense, not that he needs defending, the purpose of his call and response repetition with the groundie is to make sure that the groundie heard and understood all the details of the upcoming action that Sean is about to take. For all Sean knows, his microphone cut out when he said step number 3 of 4, and unless he gets confirmation of all four steps in the upcoming process, he's not certain it was heard and understood. If the groundie did not, in fact, hear what was said, it's possible that property damage could be the result, or worse.

By using call and response for all of the critically important details, he has assurance that everyone is on the same page. He's just trying to make sure there are no mishaps.

Also, the phrase that comes to my mind is "Whoever pays the piper, calls the tune." The money that is being generated by his business happens because he manages to acquire the work for all of those guys. As long as he spells out what his requirements are to people when he hires them and as he trains them, why should they have an issue with compliance?

Bottom line, he's not asking them to do anything illegal or unethical. He's just asking them to work with him in a manner that he has found over time to work best for him. If they are mentally incapable of doing it because of a lack of focus, or a short attention span, or an inability to remember a four step process for two minutes, that is something that is good to find out about someone early, before you invest too much time into them.

You know, now you've got me thinking. He might be able to find, or develop on his own, some kind of standardized test that measures these capabilities in a person, before they even work for him in the field for the first time. Over time, he might be able to develop a correlation between a particular cutoff score on such a test, and success in the field after attaining such a score.

At the very least, it might warn you about folks that score near the bottom on such a test. This is probably all way more than a small operator would be interested in trying to do, but I think it is an interesting idea.

My understanding of the US military is that they have really excellent standardized tests that reveal the jobs that a new recruit is most suited for. They have to be able to quickly take large numbers of people and distribute them into the field in the occupations their minds are most suited for, just for the sake of effectiveness.

End of speech.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom