Complete and Utter Hypocrisy

  • Thread starter Thread starter rich_h
  • Start date Start date
R

rich_h

Guest
Just found out that another 'ISA' sanctioned TCC has decided to disallow the use of the Rope Wrench for competition. The reason for not allowing the RW is currently being blamed on 'lack of documentation'. Apparently allowing the RW would nullify the 'ISA' issued insurance to cover the event.....

One of the many (by many I mean several million) questions I have for the 'ISA' committee that makes these decisions is why certain gear and techniques (re: virtually every single climbing hitch on the planet, SRT ascent with ascenders backed up by a chest ascender...I can go on believe me) is allowed in competition with ZERO documentation and the RW is subjected to needing a 400 page technical manual before it will be allowed?

Until an actual answer is given as to how and why certain products and techniques are allowed over others I am just going to point at the elephant in the room and assume it is because none of the people making these decisions stand to make any profit from allowing SRT work positioning.

In every test run with the Rope Wrench to date the results have shown that the system is SAFER than many Doubled Rope Systems and certainly no more dangerous. Drop Test after drop test show that toothed cams in a standard SRT ascent system (hand ascender backed up by chest asceder)SHRED the the arborist lines currently in use....but this system is ALLOWED in competition??????? The test results are available...if you can't find them perhaps you have no interest to look !!

It is a well proven FACT that Doubled Rope Systems encourage climbing with a lot of slack in the climbers system. Slack in a system has proven to be one of the most dangerous factors when working aloft.....Use of the RW dramatically reduces the slack that a climber has in their system while working yet this is considered more dangerous ????

One of my personal favorites is that you are not allowed to anchor a carabiner on any device that allows for the carabiner to rotate into the attachment point and sideload....YET...you ARE allowed to anchor into a large ring or straight to a bridge on your harness
crazy.gif
Spare me the explanations for this...I have heard them and they are CRAP !!

I won't even get into the issue of the inherent safety issues of footlocking vs. SRT ascent nor the asinine use of a 'speed climb' to measure a climbers mettle in a tree as it would add several more hours to this rant....

You may ask why would I mention all of this in a forum vs. working within the 'system' to affect change....The answer is pretty simple...I and others have tried to work within the 'system' and the deaf ears and BS responses are just too much to take anymore....The hypocrisy needs to end ! The process for allowing gear or techniques needs to be more open and equal across the board ! Conflicts of interest must be addressed ! Either that or you stand to ruin something that WAS an excellent teaching and learning vehicle and NOW has turned into something much less than that.....
 
Good post Rich. Every time I have heard someone express concern about srt at a comp, they mostly based their judgement on assumptions and didn't understand even the basics of working the tree single rope. Srt is perceived as dangerous by people who don't get it.
 
Way to go Rich,this really needed to be said by someone and im glad it's you...What can we as climbers do to get this changed?This tool is just to good to not allow it's use at the comps...
 
I have been in a position to allow/disallow SRT work positioning at 4 competitions and in every case I have recused myself from the decision making process as I certainly had a potential for conflict of interest...In three of those comps I presented information and the RW was allowed (suck on that ITCC) and I was happy..In the fourth case I presented information and the RW was disallowed and I was happy. At least the people making the decision in the fourth comp reviewed the information and made a decision based upon the merits of the system vs. what they were told to decide (I hope so anyway)...

See anyone on this committee that might have potential for conflict of interest?????

Technical Advisory Committee Chair
Mark Bridge
Treemagineers
Basil, Switzerland
Email

Committee Members
Tim Bushnell
SherrillTree
Oxford, Pennsylvania, United States
Email

Ed Carpenter
C.O.R. Ergonomic Solutions
Milford, Massachusetts, United States
Email

Chris Cowell
Treemagineers
Pitlochry, Scotland, United Kingdom
Email

Rick Mexted
Asplundh
Hamilton, New Zealand
Email

Joe Harris
Burwood, Victoria, Australia
Email


I respect the hell out of everyone on that committee, however, I also don't recall there ever being a vote to decide who would be present there...Is it possible to remain impartial despite clear potential for conflicts of interest? Of course... Is it likely? Who knows.....



link to ITCC Tech Advisory Committee with online submission form for techniques and gear.

http://itcc.isa-arbor.com/committees/technicalAdvisorycommittee.aspx
 
Rich,

I hear a lot of frustration in your words. I can appreciate that since I have been there myself on many issues in the past. I don't blame you for trying to voiuce your opinion on this, but I don't believe some of what you say here is fair or based on fact.
[ QUOTE ]
One of the many (by many I mean several million) questions I have for the 'ISA' committee that makes these decisions is why certain gear and techniques (re: virtually every single climbing hitch on the planet, SRT ascent with ascenders backed up by a chest ascender...I can go on believe me) is allowed in competition with ZERO documentation and the RW is subjected to needing a 400 page technical manual before it will be allowed?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't pretend to know all of the details in the history of the RW, but I do know a few things that would dispute this statement to some degree. What I mean is most of the things we use have had testing and is distributed with a manual on mnfg recommendations for appropriate use and configurations. Many have documented test data in with the product or online as well. You mention climbing hitches not being tested and I remember many tests being done in the past to show how different hitches fail or slip and what loads causes this. There is even a VT system sold in Europe that is certified and has test data as we use it.

In 1994 the VT was brought to the competition and was disallowed. I started using it after I learned it there and was not allowed to climb on it until 1997 at the ITCC. Sounds pretty similar to this process, right?

[ QUOTE ]
Until an actual answer is given as to how and why certain products and techniques are allowed over others I am just going to point at the elephant in the room and assume it is because none of the people making these decisions stand to make any profit from allowing SRT work positioning.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree here. I really feel that the people in charge of the decision making process have too much integrity to disallow any item because they don't profit from it.

[ QUOTE ]

In every test run with the Rope Wrench to date the results have shown that the system is SAFER than many Doubled Rope Systems and certainly no more dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the data I think they need to make decisions. Does the ISA have this test data you refer to? If they have that and the manufacterer's recommended configuration descriptions along with appropriate uses, I would think that they could make a sound decision one way or the other once and for all.

[ QUOTE ]
See anyone on this committee that might have potential for conflict of interest?????

[/ QUOTE ]

Again I think this is unfair. If I was a volunteer on this committee I would really be offended.

Rich, you are a long time volunteer yourself and have given countless hours to help the event run smoothly and evolve. And I know from personal experience that you are a great guy. I just think you need a breather here and then come back and read this through again from another light.
 
Mark, We have to clarify between Rope Wrench and SRT work positioning systems. SRT work positioning systems were first accepted at the ITCC in 2009. The F8 revolver was accepted.

It is 2012 now. The Rope Wrench itself is still very new. Not even a year old. The F8 revolver, the kong robot. People have been climbing on the PETZL Rig for a while now too. There are many, many ways to climb trees.

I think this should not be a question of the Rope Wrench but any new technique and how it gets vetted. This isn't about gear it is about new techniques. This is the main reason why I go to competitions, to see and learn new techniques. What is the documentation that a new technique needs to meet? I play around with new techniques every time I go out and climb.

SRT climbing is a technique and I can guarantee you there are 110 ways to do it. Is the volunteer committee going to have to go through every new technique like this?

Ideally, I would like to come to a competition with a different way of climbing every time. If I could think up a rope wrench for every comp, I would. Thats the way it should be. That is what the comp is about right? I would like to see guys coming in with new techniques every time. There is no point in going if the only technique allowed is one that is certified bottom to top. How boring. Might as well work for Davey or Asplundh.

Great moments in ITCC history:

Ken Palmer breaking out the ring to ring Cambium Saver invented by the frenchies. His model was made with Parachute rings.

Frank Chips breaking out the Secret Weapon.

Mark and the M technique

Beddes working off the midline butterflies.



The VT also came out at the TCCs It was virtually unknown before it was used in 97 at the comp. then it took off.

SRT is different than the VT because it has been gaining popularity steadily for the past decade. It also has been allowed in comps for years. SRT has been employed in many many comps now, there is a quite an extensive track record with many competent people looking it and unable to find anything wrong with it. at one comp in Indiana 1/3rd of all climbers were SRT. 9/30. Kentucky had similar numbers.

the fate revolver the RIG and Unicender have all been used in various comps around the world. The Rope Wrench has been involved now in several masters challenge victories and several event placings as well.

I think Gear should be inspected and vetted. Absolutely, I think it would be wiser to focus on the operator and make sure that operator knows how to operate the equipment that he is bringing to the table.

I make my own hitch cords, using rated cord of course, I select my own length and I have my own variation on my own knot. There is no way to certify that system. Is it going to be mandated that everyone use the same hitch? The same rope? does every hitch/ rope combinations have to be tested? I have seen some people at comps fly with some very loose hitches ddrt. Instead of focusing on not allowing SRT, focus on operator competence in the competitions. A dumb climber will get hurt on a system no matter how certified it is. Last but not least I have never seen a certified tree.

I have faith that it will all work out. There are a lot of questions at the table here and I'm sure the only thing everyone wants is a safe and fun event.
 
The decisions on what gos is in the hands of those who are capable of such. Often what makes since to us does not turn out our way. So we ask for an explanation. Rich has served long and hard for so many competitions. Rich and the community deserve logical and clear communication on the matter from the committee.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Rich,

You mention climbing hitches not being tested and I remember many tests being done in the past to show how different hitches fail or slip and what loads causes this. There is even a VT system sold in Europe that is certified and has test data as we use it. [ QUOTE ]


These tests that you refer to all support the use of the Rope Wrench. Mathias and Dussenne did some great tests on the VT and the MT and tested it on a single line. The tests done by Sterling Ropes, and Yale Cordage appear to confirm the 20 year lod studies by the Europeans. The Testing done by the Treemagineers on their CE hitch also Certifies its holding strength on a Single Line.
 
Mark, I truly appreciate your thoughts. I hope that you and anyone reading this understands that my frustrations are related solely to the process of gear approval at TCC's and is in no way a personal attack on any of the individuals involved with that system. As you have stated I have worked many long hours with the volunteers at ITCC and various TCC's and I can say honestly that I cherish every second of those experiences. I have benefited immensely from the knowledge and experience gained at those competitions and I hope to continue to be part of the volunteer team for many years.

The truth is that I am extremely frustrated and the more I read over the various threads on various forums concerning the Rope Wrench the more frustrated I get..Let me see if I can explain my thoughts a little more clearly...

[ QUOTE ]
...What I mean is most of the things we use have had testing and is distributed with a manual on mnfg recommendations for appropriate use and configurations. Many have documented test data in with the product or online as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not always the case with techniques or gear approved at ITCC.. A case in point could be the "secret weapon" which I first saw used in 2004 by Frank Chipps. In those days all "innovative" techniques could be reviewed in private the day of gear inspection in order to determine whether it would fly or not. I could be wrong here, but I don't think Frank had a manual for his innovative technique....and it was extremely innovative. To be able to work with a doubled rope system off of a static rope set up was not something that I had ever seen prior to that date....Come to think of it I have yet to see and written documentation as to the appropriate use and configuration of that product.....

I have personally witnessed and been party to situations where climbers have shown their personal AR set ups to qualified staff for review and then have received approval for the set up based upon the the documented strengths of the individual components and the "eye ball" test of the overall configuration...This approval came without an ounce of documentation of testing of the entire configuration...


Bear in mind that I what I am seeking for is consistency. I fully realize the struggles to make the TCC's safe, fair, and innovative....Let's take the RW out of the equation entirely and I would still feel that there needs to be consistency with how gear is analyzed and approved ..

If there is an ISA warehouse filled with the documentation for all of the 'approved' devices and techniques it might be a good idea to make that warehouse available to everyone so that climbers can pick and choose from what has been accepted and those looking to innovate with new devices can see EXACTLY what is required to get their device or technique approved.


[ QUOTE ]
...I really feel that the people in charge of the decision making process have too much integrity to disallow any item because they don't profit from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certainly not one who buys into conspiracy theories and I have the utmost respect for every person willing to donate their time, energy, and money for the benefits of others....but.....I also am a realist and as badly as I would love to think otherwise I am certain that personal agendas can and do find their way into volunteer situations..

The simple fix to this would be for the decision makers to be as transparent as possible in the entire workings of the committees that they are on. This is the CORE of my frustration...There is a complete and total lack of transparency to anything that goes on within the TCC committees.. As of right now I am still not certain exactly why the RW has not been allowed in competition..no one has ever come flat out and said what the issue is...Why?

[ QUOTE ]
See anyone on this committee that might have potential for conflict of interest?????[ QUOTE ]




[/ QUOTE ]Again I think this is unfair. If I was a volunteer on this committee I would really be offended.

[/ QUOTE ]



Again, transparency is the key here...The people on the Tech Advisory Committee are all among the most intelligent people that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. I have the utmost respect for all that they have achieved and all that they have done and continue to do for the TCC's and for Arboriculture in general. If I were ever asked to be on that committee I would be extremely honored...and then I would refuse due to the fact that there is the potential for a future competitor to see me in that position and potentially question my motives for decisions I made...

I have a pretty good feel for my own integrity, but the climber would be right to question me...Without transparency there will always be a question of conflict of interest !! Always !!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and I can't blame Chapters for not allowing it since we usually follow the ITCC's lead on that sort of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it a Master Climb in NJ prior to 2011 is not "that sort of thing" ?
grin.gif


C'mon you asked for that one .....
 
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