Complete and Utter Hypocrisy

  • Thread starter Thread starter rich_h
  • Start date Start date
I would be extremely interested in reading the "minutes" from the Tech Advisory Committee meetings where the RW and other techniques and gear were discussed....

As no explanation has been presented my guess is that the RW does not meet some yet to be determined standard which has never been applied to any other piece of equipment. I wonder who has a say in developing these standards ? Surely it would be a completely independent, non partial, industry related organization that stands to gain nothing from the standards developed?.......Surely
crazy.gif
 
I've expressed my opinion about manyfacturers sitting on technical advisory boards before and was shut down for it. I accept that since I have difficulty questioning another person's integrity because it's a personal thing and none of us are qualified to judge another.

But having a manufacturer on the Tech Advisory Committee LOOKS fishy, regardless of motive. I wouldn't want that over my head if I were a gear producer. At the same time, we NEED the leaders of the industry to have a voice... but preferrably without decision making authority.

If for instance, Treemagineers came out with a dedicated SRT postitioning system of their own that's competitive with the Wrench in the next year or so... well, that would look a LOT more than fishy. Especially if it got through the TAC without the same long deleberation as the Rope Wrench is getting.

Gear approval at comps does seem inconsistent to me. I think that's actually OK because every chapter is different and chapters are made of people, they aren't just little clones of the ISA. At the ITCC level though, there should be precious few restrictions on gear or technique. The ITCC is where we should see the newest innovations, not stuff that's 2-3 years behind. Techniques are developing rapidly now. Look at the Rope wrench, less than a year old and already in worldwide use. 2-3 years is a whole product life cycle in some cases.

Besides the comradery, the reason most people go to comps is to learn new stuff. How can you do that if the people running the comp refuse to allow anything that hasn't been in use for years?


You know I'm not gonna close without saying this...

COME TO CHARLOTTE! Where you will find friendship, innovation, hard climbing and non-stop learning... and bigass hand made silver belt buckles. We're staying up with the climbers because CHARLOTTE IS ABOUT THE CLIMBERS.
 
I think the writtings on the wall for DdRT in treeclimbing, except for crane-work maybe.

And even as such a positive addition to the market, on the flipside the RW - SRT has got to hurt alot of the DdRT related products out there, if not already.

Bet I'm not alone in wishing I'd thought of it.

Sorry for the derail, but having a hand in Manufacturing one cant help but wonder the knock-on effect over the next few years. I have several friends/associates who it'll probably hurt, but I suppose its inevitable in an ever evolving and vibrant industry.

I'm sure it'll work out Rich, still relatively early days.
 
Mr. Hattier,
I can assure you that all the Technical committee members are 100% professional in their assessment of new equipment and techniques being brought to the table, and there is no secret agenda.
With regards to the rope wrench I have a few remarks of my own to add to this subject.
Firstly the rope wrench has no certification, this is probably due to the fact it is unnecessary for hard ware which is not for “Primary life support” and this is quite clearly stated on the device.
Here is the situation as I see it. It has been clearly stated in the rules for a good number of years that there can be no descending on a prusik hitch unless attached to a dynamic overhead belay i.e.: A double rope system. This is also the reason you are DQ’d if you put your hand above the friction hitch while foot locking we all know how prusiks react when unloaded in a 1-1 situation hence the rules.
No one I know has issues with this rule or reasons for it.
So the situation is that the prusik hitch needs the extra friction from the RW to work safely, thereby making the RW an integral part of the primary life support system, failure of the RW could lead to catastrophic failure of the entire system and this means that as it is a manufactured piece of equipment needs to be rated for life support, meaning it needs to be tested.
Not least the quick release for midline removal which takes only one movement to prepare the system for removal (If integrated)
The experimentation using the Spider jack and lock jack by a number of climbers on single rope with the RW integrated is another worrying situation
I have been in contact with Hubert and his position is clear the ART devices are only certified for double rope application and should only be used in this configuration.
I’m sorry I don’t agree with you and I support the Technical committee 100%
Without further testing and independent documentation on this device and exactly what it is certified under it should not be allowed at competition.
Regulating and certifying the equipment for the high access industry (arboricultural industry) is a little bit more complicated than writing an instruction manual and have a bunch of climbers play around with it for a while. There is a reason why professional industrial equipment manufactures spend millions of dollars (Euros) every year to test equipment and have it certified and stamped under government legislated test criteria. SAFETY, RESPONSIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY.
These are three words that all of the ITCC committees adhere to when making these difficult unpaid decisions.

Regards

John Coles (Didj) ETCC-OC Head judge, ITCC rules committee
 
If people saw how the rope wrench worked they would see that it is impossible for it to be break tested for life support. All the independent testing that has been done has verified that it is the friction hitch that does the work. Catastrophic failure of the wrench does not lead to failure of the system. This has been shown by cutting the tether from the wrench while descending. It has also been proven by a few wooden wrenches catastrophically failing on the climber (myself and others).

A half a dozen Wrenches have been break tested and all exceed 7,000 lbs breaking strength. There is documentation of this.
I would never consider stating or certifying the breaking strength as I fear it would give people the impression that it was rated for life support. WHICH IT IS NOT. Understanding that the wrench is not Life Support is absolutely crucial to its safe and proper usage. The Wrench can never be rated for life support.

You mention the rules but is is very clear in what context these particular rules are written and I see it as very simple to clarify the reason that those particular rules were written and under which context.


But, PLEASE, this conversation is not about the wrench. It is about new techniques. I am still working on compiling all the independent studies and research done on the Wrench and will be mailing it to Sonia Garth shortly. There has yet to be an official verdict on the wrench so lets all just hold tight a bit yet.

What I worry about for the comps is that The Wrench may be passe by the time it is allowed into the competitions. There may be a whole new better way of accessing trees by the next competition. The fact that the ITCC has not allowed the Wrench has not stopped people from buying and utilizing the wrench in their day to day. When it has been allowed it has cleaned house. The real question is whether or not the
ITCC wishes to be ahead of the curve or behind it?
 
So what system other than the teuflberger climbIng system is certified? Must we all climb on that and use that certified lanyard? How come a spiderjack that can easily be released and cause a freefall be used? How is this any safer? Maybe I'm not understanding fully.

Thanks for the link Tony. And thank you for commenting Joe didjo. Even if I don't agree or dont fully understand it's good to see some of the insight.

Personally i feel there are way to many grey areas. And as techniques and equipment evolves so must the rules. I understand the rule you expressed and as stated it's hard to disagree. It's more that I want to see an addition or change to the rules to start to acknowledge srt in work positioning. Not for a specific piece of equipment or gear but for our industry and competition to move forward with this advancement.

Thanks again Joe

P.s. The beginning was more of a rant that I needed to get off my chest but I feel there are questions there that should be addressed and answered. Some might be just my lack of knowledge and I except that and just want to be informed.
 
[ QUOTE ]

No one I know has issues with this rule or reasons for it.

[....]

John Coles (Didj) ETCC-OC Head judge, ITCC rules committee

[/ QUOTE ]

I seems to me that a great many people have issues with this rule if it prevents a safe, viable technique.
 
Mr. Coles,

I truly appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I half wish you were on the Tech Advisory Committee as you at least seem interested in putting your opinion forward and defending it against criticism. It is helpful to be able to see exactly what the problem areas are so that a dialogue can begin that might just shed some understanding....possibly in both directions..
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like Kevin has it in hand. Why the drama?


Tony

[/ QUOTE ]

Until the issues of "potential for conflict of interest" and lack of transparency are addressed I would suggest that this "drama" is FAR from over...

And yes Tony, the avenue for submission of techniques may be transparent, but the inner workings of how the decisions are made is far from clear...
 
Rich,

You never offended me in any way. And (I am saying this because people in internet land may not know this but you do) I respect the hell out of you as well. I was just saying that naming a list a people who I know you respect tremendously and prefacing it with the statement like you did would cause me to be offended because of what it implies about everyone on that list. I don't blame you for being frustrated at all since I too have been there.

[ 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....

[/ QUOTE ]
Truth be told I used a similar idea in the way of the floating false crotch the year prior and it took a long consideration before it was approved. I half thought that it would not get the nod because it was never done before and was pleasantly surprised when it was approved. However, techniques like Frank's secret weapon was not a far stretch from other systems familiar to us all. That makes it an easier decision. It is just a french prusik that is retrievable. My floating technique is now disallowed because of the use of an ascender (which you know of course).

Things that are ground are ground-breaking and are that innovative take more thought and time to let it marinate a bit. A fast response could be fatal to the event should someone have an accident.

[ 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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I take it a Master Climb in NJ prior to 2011 is not "that sort of thing" ? C'mon you asked for that one .....

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I suppose I asked for something, but I will reply to that one... That (without the smiley face) would lead me to believe that you feel defensive towards me, but I hope that this will change. Anyway, to the point, I feel that this is not the same in that it is the other way around for one (meaning the ITCC did it first). Am I to think that you feel that I am the one you squashed the Masters event in NJ? For the record (and you can quote me here
grin.gif
) I don't have a vote on these matters since I compete and I have a "conflict of interest" in that regard. I actually made it known that when I retire from competing in NJ I would be sure to start having one. Until then I will abstain from voting...
 
I wish that the competitions would cease to be so much like competitions. That part of the competitions has become quite annoying to me. I personally feel like there is a conflict of Interest right there. I really wish they could be more like climber showcases. Come and hang out with a bunch of climbers and show off what you got and check out what everyone else got. The Arborcamp in Australia was a really awesome event.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I wish that the competitions would cease to be so much like competitions. That part of the competitions has become quite annoying to me. I personally feel like there is a conflict of Interest right there. I really wish they could be more like climber showcases. Come and hang out with a bunch of climbers and show off what you got and check out what everyone else got. The Arborcamp in Australia was a really awesome event.

[/ QUOTE ]

The CAA TCC has a good thing going on. I missed it last year, but plan to bring the noise this year.

SZ
 
As my dad would say "Time takes care of everything."

Wisconsin allowed it this last summer and with time I do believe it will be at internationals.
 
[ QUOTE ]
You never offended me in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mark, thank you again for your thoughts and for understanding that it is not my intent to offend anyone personally with this rant.

[ QUOTE ]
....prefacing it with the statement like you did would cause me to be offended because of what it implies about everyone on that list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I would never presume to question the integrity of anyone on that list.......but......You cannot deny that there is "a potential for conflict of interest" with several of the members there. I am not asking for everyone to be cleaned right off that committee. It makes a TON of sense to have people with the level of knowledge and experience represented by those on the committee and I understand that there are precious few people with that type of knowledge base. What I would like to see is a LOT more transparency as to the actions of the committee so that the whole concept of " potential for conflict of interest" could be put to rest.

If I put a fox in charge of my chickens you can bet that that I would want a VERY detailed account as to his doings in case a chicken turned up missing.....(did I really just use that analogy? Good lord I need more sleep)

How bout this one? I am certain that Monsanto execs on the Agriculture Committee are only there volunteering their time for the best interests of all involved.. Some brilliant minds there, but without transparency in the actions of the committee you are opening up the possibility of EVERY decision being viewed as potentially jaded.

Again, I am not now and have never said that anyone on the Tech Advisory Board would act on their potential conflict of interest.......but the fact is that there IS a potential for conflict of interest.

Why not eliminate this problem with open transparency and accountability? Seems like the easy road to take.....what is everyone afraid of? This is NOT an issue of questioning any one person's integrity....It is a case of questioning an undeniable "potential for conflict of interest! " If I, as a manufacturer, were on that committee I would fully expect a younger, better looking (but with a slower footlock), loud mouth like myself to be grilling me as to my intentions as well...

[ QUOTE ]
...That (without the smiley face) would lead me to believe that you feel defensive towards me

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing could be further from the truth here Mark. I know you as a man who will happily engage in open discussion and will stick to your guns while doing your best to understand your adversaries viewpoint. I respect the hell out of you for that. My comment concerning the NJ comp was just a friendly poke in the ribs to thank you for a nice check to the boards..

I am fully in favor of local Chapters running their comps any way they choose. I think the lack of a Master in NJ was a nice tie to the history of the comps when there wasn't a Master. Cumulative scoring vs. New Life would be a good example here...I can see the arguement for either version and think local chapters should have the choice, but once you get to International all bets are off and you run by the International Rule book.

This brings up another issue with the continued delay in the approval of the Rope Wrench.....Whether ITCC likes it or not there are many, MANY climbers who operate using the RW on a daily basis. The continued delay in allowing the RW for competition means many of these climbers will be forced to run in their comps on a system that is foreign to what they normally run. This is a pretty big disadvantage to the climbers. This is similar to making a Rope Guide available to those who run off of pulleys for their daily work vs. forcing them into a friction control device.

...more later...
 
We are allowing SRT in the Portland Regional TCC this year. We will require an advance submission of the configuration so we can vet it. If we have advance notice to analyze what a person will use (as opposed to reviewing on-site at gear check), we have the time to ask more questions and get more info if necessary. I'm planning on having competitors submit their home made splices and Aerial Rescue set-ups in advance as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom