gear committee?

J

jumbomonkey

Hello, I work for a large utility in Arizona who employs about 60 trimmers. We are in the process of creating a gear committee.
Each worker is currently provided a rope, eye to eye, friction saver and fs prussic, a few carabineers, a foot lock prussic w/ a figure 8 to descend, a micro pulley, and a few more odds and ends. We purchase our own saddle of choice. The main focus of the new committee is to approve the use of gear not purchased by the company but used on the property. Example being anchor bridges, hitch climbers, SRT systems ext... I am just curious how other employers handle this situation?
We like to think we are a progressive group and we have no intention of turning into an Asplundh. If a piece of equipment seems to make our jobs safer or more efficient it will become part of the company supplied gear list. Then again we do not want anyone falling out of a tree for using equipment they do not understand. Any suggestions?
 
I think thats a good idea Jumbo. The rule should be, if someone wants to use their own gear or technique, they must have each item and method approved by a committee first. This will encourage progress, but in a controlled way. The idea is, come up with new ideas, but don't implement without approval first - no-one needs to get their back up about it.

Thats what I do. We have little opportunity for back up after all. What do we say when someone in our charge has an accident with something we know is questionable...."I told you so!"?

Good luck!
 
Most employers don't really look into things THAT much. Good for you for staying involved. This will help you AND your employees.

Maybe you can bring some of the ideas here?

love
nick
 
It seems most of the ideas do come from Tree Buzz. I am amazed by the number of people I work with who follow the discussions but never post. At APS we work directly for the power company. Every tool used on the line side must go through a tool committee. Now it is the desire of management to have the forestry division do the same. I’m excited to be part of this but I am also a bit scared of these new regulations stifling the creativity of the climbers. If we ever come across any equipment or ideas that are not covered by ANSI standards or the ITCC rule book I will be posting. Tree Buzz is a great asset to tree climbers and the arborist community. mike
 
I'm the health and safety rep for my forestry division at my utility and one thing to keep in mind are the changes. Going from one piece of equipment to another involves change. One of the major casues of accidents is "what changed during the course of work?". For example: for years guys used a tautline hitch to ascend a tree then one day a newcomer showed them a new hitch. The older guys decide to try it and during the course of their work something happens and it fails. Why? because of change.

If you decide to use one peice of equipment over another make sure you get all the pros and cons of both items and as a committee decide to try out the method sparingly with your experienced guys. Sometimes the old ways or tools are just as effective or productive as the new ways.

Careful not to slip into the idea that what you see at a climbing event is the best way and everyone should do it. When you are talking about a group of workers think about the masses and not one individual because it only takes one guy to have a "stupid" moment and the whole process is down the drains.

Later
 
Buk;
Are they letting you use your own methods or still trying to standardize what everyone is using as far as climbing?
Are your contractors doing their own thing or have they adapted your methods?
 
Today I met with some people who work for the US Army Corps of Engineers in thier safety division. During our discussion we had an interesting talk about the subtle differences that can come from using different words. The USACE requires their contractors to submit a safety plan before they begin work. The plan is either accepted or rejected. The plan is NEVER approved. See the difference that a word can make?

On the work project that I'm working on we 'clear' a climber by having them go through a brief test. We do not 'certify' the climber.

A piece of equipment or climbing technique may meet current trade specifications in one configuration but not be the best suited for use in another configuration. This is where accepted and approved can come in. Approving for company use can lead to a level of liability to the company. That could mean that using biners in any configuration is approved which isn't the case.
 
Wow, Thank you Tom. I have not thought of accepted vs. approved or clear vs certify. That is great stuff. Buk, thanks for you response as well. We have no intention of forcing change on anyone who is safely and efficiently doing their jobs. Everyone was sent through the Arbormaster training modules a few years back. Some of our best, most productive climbers still prefer a Blake's.
 
Tom, Please don't take this as a criticism of you or your informative post..... Isn't it deplorable that our litigous society has reduced working men and women to playing poultrypoopoo games of semantics?
 
You're right...but that's the world we live in unfortunately. After spending time at Z133 meetings and working on clear presentations it is important to use the right words.

But...you know...I'd rather have more lawyers and fewer bureaucrats/techocrats in the world.
 
If I understand the function of this gear committee correctly, one concern that comes immediately to mind is if when a new technique or piece of equipment is determined to be acceptable, does it apply to all employees? As an example, "Joe" brings a piece of equipment he would like to use to the committee's attention, the committee say, "Okay" and "Joe" puts it to use. "Jack" decides he has to have the same equipment, knows it has already passed evaluation, and also starts using it. However, "Jack" doesn't really bother to learn the proper usage or to try the equipment at a safe height first, falls and is injured. See what's coming?

In a previous life I spent several years serving on a policy review committee for a police department and can relate to Tom's comments about the importance terminology plays in policy writing. Additionally, if policies/decisions will apply to entire workforce, unfortunately, they have to be geared toward the worst/dumbest/most careless of the group.
 
"Additionally, if policies/decisions will apply to entire workforce, unfortunately, they have to be geared toward the worst/dumbest/most careless of the group."

Thats what happens when a structured training policy with clearly defined levels of competence aren't put into place.

Tree work is a dangerous job that relies on expertise, which needs to be qualified on different levels.

This is a good discussion.
 
We have a great training dept. and a 2 year apprenticeship in place. The problem is we have so many climbers and such a big area to cover. Training each individual to use a new piece of gear will take some time. We're working on a plan but this is no small task.
 
The biggest concern about a gear commitiee is when you have an old dog not wanting to learn the new tricks and/or you set up a test and evaluation with a limited budget.

If you want to succeed in this task you have to weed out the old dogs, find out who wants to learn new, more efficient ways, train them, then dispurse them.

I worked for a large tree company this spring for my first time. I experinced being sucked into a vortex back to methods that were main stream about 20 years ago. A number of my coworkers worked wonders with just a saddle, a CB, and rope.

In this experience I found there were people that wanted to learn and people that did not. Focus on the people that want to learn, restructure you teams so that old dogs do not hinder the new tricks, then make progress the norm. When people start going home a little less tired due to the new trick, they will open the book to learn more about them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom