Double Doubled standard DdRT vs SRT

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but with all the recent ZZ talk I don't understand why SRT is talked about as always having to have two points of contact with the rope and any failure must not lead to a fall.
On most of my ascents I use a Unicender as the hand ascender and a chest ascender as the back up in a frog walker, then disconnect the chest ascender at the TIP and drop the Uni to chest height.
On traverses I am hanging from multiple ropes and connections that narrow down to that one little pin on the swivel.

And if SRT why not DdRT.

Helicopters have numerous back-up systems but it all comes down to that one bolt they call the jesus bolt, if it breaks, you see Jesus.

 

[bonner1040]

"why SRT is talked about as always having to have two points of contact with the rope"

Where is this talked about?

 

[evo]

when this is talked about it's concerning mechanical devices. Or if you are only using one acender you have to have a hitch backup above the acender. All of this is evolving and changing. Most of this is two attachments is due to the possibility of camed acenders accidentally popping off the rope. Some one like Tom D would be able to fill you in more.

 

[Tony]

Evo hit the nail on the head! A lot of what we do is borrowed. As arborists we change and modify, some for the good and some not so.

The challenge with production tree work is the changing environment of the climb, during the climb. Trees are not rock walls and the tools and techniques in one part of tree climb may be different in another part of the climb in the same tree! All of this on an often un predictable organic structure that may or may not have ever been climbed on!

It is this struggle to define and quantify that which we have created and that which we as trees climbers have stole and make sense of it in a tree to accomplish efficiency safely.

I know I keep plugging my blog http://gravitationalanarchy.wordpress.com/
But you are all making it too easy

This very topic is the thrust of my conversation there now.

Tony

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

All some very good points.
I have seen this written and stated in many publications/videos from those highly respected in the climbing community with years and years of experience and I certainly have no desire to challenge that with my experience.
I can see where these kinds of concepts come from and the example of using an ascender is a good one.
I have not been part of this, evolution and have come into this sport/work seeing so many options between SRT, DdRT and the equipment used that such blanket safely concepts just don't seem applicable. It puts much more responsibility on the individual to evaluate each set up. Seeing a stamped rating on a device or just not worrying about how one uses a device because it is covered in the guidelines just does not seem enough. Seems that a simple corner trap may be needed for some users of the Zigzag while others would be fine without it.
Point is, forums such as this where thoughts and suggestions are made become increasingly more important for safety and efficiency and the application of such, very individual.

 

[Richard Mumford-yoyoman]

Tony,
Just read your blog, nice work, thanks to you and many more like you that help guys like me learn and be safe!

 

[Tom Dunlap]

There is a bias when setting systems for srt v DdRT. The inconsistency is weird.

I would like to read chapter and verse of what reg is in place that requires a hitch or something when using a mechanical device. Not whAt is in the ISA t c rule book either Tcc is a sport not the work place. Lets be careful about what we blend into tree work besides the tools.

Most important is the way that cammed ascenders have been allowed on non kernmantle ropes for years. This is against mfgrs recommendation ... But arbos do it anyway????

 

[tuttle]

I think the ZZ is getting the stress, because its being used like a disposable friction hitch, some people go through an eye2eye in 2weeks.

SRT is for the technically minded folk, who know exactly what to add or subtract from a system to get the best out of it.

As all can imagine the ZZ is being used like a one stop shop, bombing round the trees, rocket fast descents and all bearing on just one rivet.

Its an accident (fatal) waiting to happen.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

Tuttle,

Be careful here. From what I read the victim was using the ZZ in DdRT following factory techniques.

Ther are some climbers using the ZZ in srt against Petzl instructions

I dread the day when the first arbo srt injury/death happens. With this antiSRT frenzy around the arena I'm sure there will be a suggested moratorium

 

[Tony]

[ QUOTE ]
Tony,
Just read your blog, nice work, thanks to you and many more like you that help guys like me learn and be safe!

[/ QUOTE ]


Thanks! I appreciate you taking the time.

Tony

 

[Grais]

[ QUOTE ]
Tony,
Just read your blog, nice work, thanks to you and many more like you that help guys like me learn and be safe!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ill second that, nice work Tony.

 

[tuttle]

[ QUOTE ]
Tuttle,

Be careful here. From what I read the victim was using the ZZ in DdRT following factory techniques.

Ther are some climbers using the ZZ in srt against Petzl instructions

I dread the day when the first arbo srt injury/death happens. With this antiSRT frenzy around the arena I'm sure there will be a suggested moratorium

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to its release, I stated a few things about the design on a UK forum, now it has appeared to be true, people have jammed and cut their fingers in the zigzag mechanism.

I personlly do not believe the design is good enough for this type of industry, where heavy weights are being used and fatal loads are always present.