Cobra installs flawed via label?

I have seen two cobra systems fail. One was a large white Oak with an open crack, both stem over 24dia. The second a cracked maple. We are finishing a Silver Maple removal on monday that had two cobras in it. Both of the main trunks are completly hollow. Tree Service who installed said nothing to homeowner about the hollows. It was a total time bomb, major consequeces for failure. IMO, the manafacturer would not be liable for a poor decision on the behalf of the arborist. Unfourtunatly some think cobra is god's gift to problem trees....dont get me wrong it has its place. If a tree is "High Risk" the homeowner should be informed in writing. If they choose to move ahead with a "cable" system, then the liabilty is shifted back to them. I snap a pic on Monday of the decay...if your curious.
Side note, anyone remember why chouinard is now black diamond? Lawsuits!.....Manafacturers should not be responsible for misuse of there products.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well said No bivy.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Here...Here... !!"

[/ QUOTE ]

To expect Cobra to be the "Quan" solution for tree bracing, could be like expecting the rocket that boosted Sputnik to take us to the moon.

It's one more tool - not the final tool.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Manafacturers should not be responsible for misuse of there products.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that Guns don't kill people? I guess that you think that people kill people.......(me too)
 
First of all, 'cracks' and 'decay' would need to be defined.

If some instructions are followed without some interpretations any arborist or responsible tree care provider would be obligated to cut down any 'hazard' tree. Define hazard before going on. I am perfectly comfortable defending any tree care that I do including cabling with any material.

Like what has been said in this thread and over and over for years, dynamic cabling will NOT solve all support issues nor should it be used in all situations.

I have several hybrid installations in place. Seriously split trees where I through bolted the trunk, installed bolt/s above the split, a steel cable above that and then consier the tree 'not split' in a sense. The steel is there to support the crack.

Above the steel I look at the rest of the tree as a seperate entity and design a dynamic system that allows the canopy to move.

I've discussed and shown pictures of these installations with many people and no one has expressed any concerns for my liabilities. And, I have to make it clear, I didn't select these people just because they are supporters of dynamic cabling. A couple of people are Consulting Arborists who would likely be the expert witnesses on the other side if I were to end up in court someday defending my installations.

The chainsaw arguement is moot. Read the Stihl manuals...they say that none of their saws should be used off the ground. I'll see if I can site chapter and verse.
 
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, 'cracks' and 'decay' would need to be defined.

If some instructions are followed without some interpretations any arborist or responsible tree care provider would be obligated to cut down any 'hazard' tree.

The chainsaw arguement is moot. Read the Stihl manuals...they say that none of their saws should be used off the ground. I'll see if I can site chapter and verse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and safety first, not trees first.

Anyhow, here's one of Stihl's manuals - see page 11. Note the "unless" - saws can be used off the ground.

Stihl's manual .pdf / note page 11 "unless" regarding in trees

Its interesting looking for areas where the manufacturer "recommends" doing something, and seeing if there is a related statement about "never" doing something else.
 
Tom,

I like your term "hybrid installation". These types of solutions make a lot of sense. Expensive, though, and tough to sell.

So, do we compromise in such situations, and try to find a simpler, more elegant solution, that the less well-healed customer can afford? The option to just walk away does not always present itself, especially when dealing with a "client", who will not go to another company. So, we end up recommending removal when there is a pretty good solution almost within reach.
 
NB,

Or possibly do some crown reduction, cabling, monitor.

I've seen MANY old hollow trees in the woods and ones that have been under care that are still standing. Cabling can act like a safety net to hold the pieces in case of failure too.
 
Yeah Bivy, please post the pics. Time bomb, hmm...

From the Cobra Instructions 2004 page 12: "Do not cable a tree that shows signs of root or trunk decay (mushrooms at base)". Where does this come from? Page 6: "No support system should be installed in a tree with signs of decay."

Mario in your doomsday scenario of a failed tree or failed system, I would point to the Schwarze and Luley books on decay. These attest to the low risk of failure in some trees with conks, and show the author of the above "rule" was overreacting and perhaps underinformed about decay fungi and tree risk assessment. His PhD aside, I would have the credible references, which mean more than college degrees, so I would be comfortable defending the job in court.

Fred, if the hybrid system is out of the budget, then perhaps a simpler, pretensioned system with wirestops? Simpler and more elegant, as you said. A job done to standards is not compromised, it is professional.

I agree with Tom. most old trees have pockets of decay, aka "hollows". To liken them all to "Time bombs" is like comparing a tree with a mild defect to a gun with a bullet in it. Oversimplification, at best. Fearmongering, at worst.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah Bivy, please post the pics. Time bomb, hmm...

[/ QUOTE ]

Guy...

The word we use here now is "bullets". Even you wrote similar recently.

"Time bombs" is fine, we can use that one too.
grin.gif
 
Decayed and hollow trees are an ecological resource and should not fall under the always remove management strategy. As well Non Invasive support systems can be a tool to help manage large old trees that are 'retrenching'. Despite the 'rule of thumb' I would install........scratch that.......have installed Non Invasive Dynamic support systems in trees with moderate decay and limbs that fell just before we cared for the tree. That being said 9 Cobra Cables in a Horsechestnut is a far better perscription than 9 invasive systems due to the decay nature of the species and that the whole tree will blow over before a limb failed now. As well this tree is continuing to provide 'dead wood habitat' to the local ecosystem.
 
Post em' tonight. This was a silver Maple, no go side limbs to reduce too. Far to many hollow spots to consider an option. Monitor does what? Huge section ripped, so I guess that is monitoring.
I have seen MANY hollow/cracked trees in woods standing and on the ground......point is, this one was gunning for a house. Clear decision IMO was to remove.
 
Interesting thread!

One point I thought of is that Cobra is a purpose built system. Cobra is specificly designed to support trees. So it has specific directions for use.

EHS is a conglomeration of disparate pieces of hardware which when used together, form a static cable system which can be used for cabling tree limbs. (tree grips, 'J' lag screws, etc.)

Even wire stops while designed to work with EHS cable, are manufactured by a completely different company than the one which manufactures EHS cable.

I dont think there is a company which manufactures and bundles all the separate components necessary to cable trees using EHS cable.

So, that may be the reason for no instructions.
 
[ QUOTE ]
More thoughts on instructions...

If the decision is made to not use Cobra because of their detailed instructions and another product is used that has no instructions does the liability change?

Everytime a discussion about liability and cabling comes up I ask the question...has anyone ever heard, even anecdotally, of any liability being given from a cabling job? I'd like to know.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know of a large company that lost a lawsuit.

Quick overview: Comp A Installed cables.....Years later sent written notice of the need to reinspect. Customer highers co. B for the inspection...no action taken. Tree fails and lands on lawers car paralyzing him. Co. B ....no insurance....Co A pays...
Not fair in my opinion but the deepest pockets usually loose.
 
allmark that is a scary story--was there no appeal? Do you know what court it was in, or a case number? I cannot believe that A's insurer just bent over and paid.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thread!

One point I thought of is that Cobra is a purpose built system. Cobra is specificly designed to support trees. So it has specific directions for use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't have a beef with arborists being ingenious about devising tree bracing. But I posted in hope to see various opinions, especially different forms of defence for practices: practices of using something that instructions may say not to do. Plus, I didn't invent the idea for this thread. Another user mentioned it in another thread, and it seemed worthy of it's own thread.

Tom ...

Maybe I missed it, but you wrote something about "mute" pertaining to chainsaws, and a reference to the Stihl manual stating not to use chainsaws off the ground: basically that. So I posted a link to the manual, and page 11.

With that head start, how does that manual apply, and has the "mute" point flip-flopped? I review recent replies to see if I missed a reply.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I posted in hope to see various opinions, especially different forms of defence for practices: practices of using something that instructions may say not to do.

[/ QUOTE ]
"The use of methodologies which are controversial, experimental or not generally accepted (which can sometimes be referred to as "cutting edge" methodologies) can provide value to clients, employers or the public in particular assignments and might result in the advancement and evolution of arboricultural consulting."

Members may employ cutting edge methods if they are competent, able to explain and justify the methods and the results, and disclose their level of certainty and reliability.

from the ASCA standards of practice, a good document to work by. Works for non-consulting arborists too, imo.
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom