Close Call Today

DSMc said:
Base-anchored climbing systems are not more dangerous than non-base tied systems. Climbing in the practice of arboriculture is unforgiving and only as safe as you make it.

Do take note that in the portion of the article I pasted below, most failures involved MRS. Some others involved SRS that used top ties not base ties, with just one really lame report involving an SRS base tie.



tcimag.tcia.org

Tree-Worker Safety Update

Tree-worker safety has become a popular topic at tree care [...]
tcimag.tcia.org tcimag.tcia.org
"Most of the falls involved climbers who either disconnected from their climbing lines while repositioning or changing climbing systems or experienced failure of their anchors – the branch for their tie-in point. Movable rope systems (MRS), what we used to call double-rope technique or systems (DdRT), comprised most fall fatalities, but a significant number occurred with stationary rope systems (SRS), once called single-rope systems. A key hazard with SRS is failure to adequately test the top anchor and having the anchor isolated. If it fails, there is no backup. However, there have been incidents related to the selection of the basal anchor, including one where a truck driving between the tree and the basal anchor caught the line and dragged the climber out of the tree."
Click to expand...
I had never thought about it from that angle, but that is some interesting data.
 
DSMc said:
Base-anchored climbing systems are not more dangerous than non-base tied systems. Climbing in the practice of arboriculture is unforgiving and only as safe as you make it.

Do take note that in the portion of the article I pasted below, most failures involved MRS. Some others involved SRS that used top ties not base ties, with just one really lame incident involving a SRS base tie.



tcimag.tcia.org

Tree-Worker Safety Update

Tree-worker safety has become a popular topic at tree care [...]
tcimag.tcia.org tcimag.tcia.org
"Most of the falls involved climbers who either disconnected from their climbing lines while repositioning or changing climbing systems or experienced failure of their anchors – the branch for their tie-in point. Movable rope systems (MRS), what we used to call double-rope technique or systems (DdRT), comprised most fall fatalities, but a significant number occurred with stationary rope systems (SRS), once called single-rope systems. A key hazard with SRS is failure to adequately test the top anchor and having the anchor isolated. If it fails, there is no backup. However, there have been incidents related to the selection of the basal anchor, including one where a truck driving between the tree and the basal anchor caught the line and dragged the climber out of the tree."
Click to expand...

I find this meaningless until the data is normalized, relative to how much MRS is done and how much SRS.

I know a lot of folks here and on Reddit's /r/treeclimbing talk mainly about climbing SRS (though, a fair number say they SRS the initial ascent then use MRS while working the canopy). On the other hand, when I as a rec climber observe a tree worker working on rope, it's almost *always* MRS...

Without knowing something like how many worker-hours are spent on MRS and how many on SRS, knowing that MRS comprised "most" fall fatalities is meaningless. If worker hours are split about 50/50 between MRS and SRS then yeah, MRS is more fatality-prone. But if it's 80% MRS / 20% SRS, maybe not (we can't even tell because we don't know what percentage of fatalities is in "most" -- 51%, or 95%?).
 
Matias said:
I had never thought about it from that angle, but that is some interesting data.
Click to expand...
You know what fall fatality data thankfully didn't show up in this report? The 3-4 stories of cut basal anchors in this 3 page thread alone.

It would also be helpful if they told us what percentage of working arbs climb MRS, and what percentage climb SRT. Then we might have a better understanding as to why MRS fall numbers where higher.

And the fact that a majority of falls happen when a climber is disconnected tells us almost nothing about one climbing method being safer than the other.
 
Base anchors DO exhibit an increased risk. Like a Ddrt system if either leg is cut the climber plummets. There is twice the chance of this occurring opposed to a canopy based system. With a static false crotch system there is three times the chance.

The main difference of a canopy tied system and a Ddrt is the anchor side of the line is often obscured instead of infront of your face.
All this means is that there needs to be more awareness if working from this system.

98% of my srt climbing is off of a base anchor, the three things I do is: remotely set the base tie in a different tree when possible, only work the side of the tree my ascent is on if the base tie is on the opposite side, or slack my climbing line and hook the base tie out of the work area.

I very rarely do removals on a base tied system, and I predominantly work in conifers which arguably can have the highest chance of cutting the down leg of the line if set against the trunk
 
BurOakTom said:
I find this meaningless until the data is normalized, ...
Click to expand...

As stated by Dr. Ball in the article. Did you read it? Gathering truly accurate data on tree industry injuries and deaths is basically not possible. I can't think of anyone that has spent more time and effort trying to do so than Dr. Ball.
 
evo said:
Base anchors DO exhibit an increased risk...

98% of my srt climbing is off of a base anchor, the three things I do is: remotely set the base tie in a different tree when possible, only work the side of the tree my ascent is on if the base tie is on the opposite side, or slack my climbing line and hook the base tie out of the work area...
Click to expand...

The question that comes to mind, is why would anyone knowingly use a climbing system for 98% of their work that they claim to be more of a risk?

Everyone on this 'increased risk' bandwagon are using the hypothetical worst case scenarios created by bad work practices as the standard and projecting that is how the system is used by all climbers. While in reality, climbers that understand what they are doing use many different techniques to mitigate those risks.

Will base tied systems work in all situations? Of course not! But that is true of virtually everything we do. Using the wrong tool or using it improperly is not a fault of the tool.
 
One more thing. It has been stated that the only reason MRS is more often listed in accident reports is due to its higher rate of use. While this may be true, it is also true that no matter what is being used or done the most within our industry will by default account for the majority of accidents.
 
DSMc said:
The question that comes to mind, is why would anyone knowingly use a climbing system for 98% of their work that they claim to be more of a risk?

Everyone on this 'increased risk' bandwagon are using the hypothetical worst case scenarios created by bad work practices as the standard and projecting that is how the system is used by all climbers. While in reality, climbers that understand what they are doing use many different techniques to mitigate those risks.

Will base tied systems work in all situations? Of course not! But that is true of virtually everything we do. Using the wrong tool or using it improperly is not a fault of the tool.
Click to expand...
I’ve had basal anchor nicked up where I was tied in and no saw was used remotely in the vicinity only to discover the a small sharp pine stub was repeatedly slicing fibers upon the loading and unloading throughout the climb in another tree
This is why I choose to set go straight up to my tip and inspect where I’m anchored
 
DSMc said:
Yup,excellent practice and I do the same. That is amazing though and I have never seen such a thing.
Click to expand...
Very rare and I’ve never seen it again since
Just a consideration for use in practice of anchor here work there type setups
I was over 2 stout limbs close to the trunk and this pitch pine had a sharp very short rock hard little stub with odd old break that cut my cover on tachyon to a point I could see core fibers when I retrieved my line down. I couldn’t understand at first why and was perplexed and as the line was newish and the anchor point of course was near the middle of a 150 line . I spiked back up the tree which was on a removal list and had to see what and why this occurred and there it was rope fluff still hovering under the stub where my line ran over the main limbs.
3 needle Pitch pine around here have destroyed my equipment and body more than any other tree species ive worked on by far I’d say
 
DSMc said:
The question that comes to mind, is why would anyone knowingly use a climbing system for 98% of their work that they claim to be more of a risk?

Everyone on this 'increased risk' bandwagon are using the hypothetical worst case scenarios created by bad work practices as the standard and projecting that is how the system is used by all climbers. While in reality, climbers that understand what they are doing use many different techniques to mitigate those risks.
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
Treetopflyer said:
know I fellow that plucked his basal anchor with a large limb removal and sent him for a ride up to his tip.
Click to expand...
The increased list of things that could go wrong when falling limbs interact with a basal tie should not be ignored. I saw this kind of thing happen to a climber once, not too extreme, but from that point on it was a hard rule to always switch to canopy for removals when you’re using the removal tree as your TIP. No reason to leave a tensioned, life load end of the rope in the mix with a bunch of pieces of wood falling from above.

I love working a large removal with a canopy tied short rope, NO retrieval end, and switching to ring and ring choker for MRS spar work.

Of course, if it’s remote TIP that’s a whole other story. The basal end can be far away from the action and can be very practical.
 
Used to be that all the stories were DdRT cut themselves out or broke out their isolated TIP/fell to the ground - because no one used SRT. At least now there's recognition of redundancy (double tied in cut, non-isolated tip) as a benefit unlike the very old school DRT/lanyard/buckstrap. Don't know if there's been a surge (10 to 30% (?) more) fall accidents since SRT went mainstream. Spitballing numbers. Maybe the overall fall rate is the same as before.
 
Stumpsprouts said:
I love working a large removal with a canopy tied short rope, NO retrieval end, and switching to ring and ring choker for MRS spar work.
Click to expand...
Likewise except I stay srt and spur down for logs then retrieve with tail. I climb with bagged rope often too which makes for one less thing for the person on the ground to keep track of. Personal preference, I climb with bare minimum on the saddle and keeping srt is faster for me.

I’ve climbed with a log tape but @Steve Connally posted a couple yrs ago(?) about tying a 16’ retrieval tail onto the quickie/biner tie-in for crane work. Decend to the end of the tail, retrieve, and cut a perfectly measured log for the mill. Brilliant.
 
Serf Life said:
Likewise except I stay srt and spur down for logs then retrieve with tail. I climb with bagged rope often too which makes for one less thing for the person on the ground to keep track of. Personal preference, I climb with bare minimum on the saddle and keeping srt is faster for me.

I’ve climbed with a log tape but @Steve Connally posted a couple yrs ago(?) about tying a 16’ retrieval tail onto the quickie/biner tie-in for crane work. Decend to the end of the tail, retrieve, and cut a perfectly measured log for the mill. Brilliant.
Click to expand...
I used to throw a stitch of whipping twine through the rope at 16' for an indicator. Worked great when all the pine logs were usually about the same length. Cool that you remembered that. Thanks for the shout out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom