meanwhile....in Hong Kong

what I meant by saying "with no redirect" was that a smart solution would have been to install a block down low, and run the line down the trunk then redirect it lower down where there would be much less of a lever effect. as opposed to running right to the LD which seems to be set a fair distance away, but its hard to tell with the camera angle.

-Steven
 
countryboypa31 said:
weather it was a block or not wasn't the factor though cause it wasn't the lowering rope that snapped it was the attachment to the false crotch. To big, and didn't run. Good thing he tied in like he did, he could have just as easily went over the top, or slid all the way to the ground, tied into just the spar. Hope he and many others learn from the mistake.
Click to expand...


Don't forget the bed ratio on the shackle is going to be much greater than on a block...what part of the sling failed? looks like it was the eye... the type of lowering line used here was also a factor no doubt.... I;d bet $ it was somewhat static..
 
:)
SRTsteve860 said:
what I meant by saying "with no redirect" was that a smart solution would have been to install a block down low, and run the line down the trunk then redirect it lower down where there would be much less of a lever effect. as opposed to running right to the LD which seems to be set a fair distance away, but its hard to tell with the camera angle.

-Steven
Click to expand...

I agree. I just wanted to add that the direction/angle of the redirect is as much a factor here as the redirect itself.

All in all, poor application of technique and equipment. The climber makes the kit! Not the other way around:)
 
Daniel said:
Don't forget the bed ratio on the shackle is going to be much greater than on a block...what part of the sling failed? looks like it was the eye... the type of lowering line used here was also a factor no doubt.... I;d bet $ it was somewhat static..
Click to expand...

Agreed, but given the set up with the piece and the fall of the rope going in the same direction, the climber is lucky the sling broke before the tree.

We cannot forget that this was probably not the rigging gear's first rodeo. Cycles to failure would definitely come into play. How you do anything is how you do everything!

Tony
 
TC said:
Click to expand...
awesome video! What do you think that top weighed? I'm thinking 1,100 to 1,800 lbs maybe? I hope that sling didn't whip him and permanently damage something on his face. I hope he just got bruises from the chainsaw whipping. Wow, I heard of pistol whipping...... But CHAINSAW WHIPPING, OUCH.
No run and the top being felled right into the angled rigging line (great observation Tony! I didn't see that until you said it to be honest).
I'm thinking it was one of these for the rigging sling:
F535_toppping_down_strop_web_image.jpg

Or else it's a clevis, biner or rigging ring.
I actually thought it was the sling that broke at first.
Now after watching several times and also seeing the thickness of the single tool being used, I think the rigging rope broke at the single tool thickness. (tree might have broken if the rope or sling didn't though, so he's lucky I guess).
Whether it was this thimble shown, or a carabiner, or a rigging ring. What ever it was, it looked like one and not wide enough bend radius to be taking big weight on with no rope running.
This kind of stupid move is preciously why I've been preaching that you don't use one XRR as your terminal rigging point, because I never want to hear that a XRR cut the rigging rope.
A single ring, thimble or biner is not going to cut the rigging rope on light weight stuff. A biner is going to be the first to cut a rigging rope, then second the thimble type thing, then third an XRR if you are going to keep increasing weights until something breaks.
I hope everyone understands what Tony is saying about the top landing on the other part of the rigging line.

What is a better set up? 1. Fishing pole rig that odd shaped tree to keep the rigging line following the tree shape, this way less likely to break tree and also keeps your line tidy. 2. Take a smaller top, half of that was easily do-able, say 800 lbs. 3. Use double beast XRRs at the top so you add a little friction at the top but have a wide bend radius. 4. Let it run (which as Tony said, groundman might have tried to do this, but the top falling so fast into the other leg of the line creates a temporary "lock-up".

I actually was shaken way more violently then this guy when I was in my 20's. but luckily the spar never struck me, nor my saw or anything else. I was shaken so badly that my vision was blurry while it was happening. My feet was going up to the sky back and forth. Complete rag doll. People on the ground said that I was moving so violently that I was a blur to them too. Wish I had camera footage of it. Maybe this Chinese guy will become a much better rigger after this.
 
Last edited:
Good points X..

Important to realize that the fishing pole isn;t going to help with the line breaking, just redistribute the force on the trunk, so as not to have the tree fail (which is way more important than preventing the line from failing)..

In other words, the angle of the anchor side of the lowering line caused the tree to shake more violently, but did not contribute significantly to rope/sling failure.. (I still think it was the sling that failed)..

Obviously taking the smaller top is going to reduce the force significantly, but that isn't always an option... what if there is a defect in the trunk and you need to stay below it. and if we follow this line of reasoning, (smaller is better) we'd all be cutting firewood out of the tree. And letting it run is huge, as any experienced climber will tell you... AND as a climber you cannot control what the groundman does... so we should be thinking about the best way to reduce forces with what we can control... I only wish I had a dyno...

another consideration worth talking about is the climbers position relative to the direction of fall... he can either cut from the back or cut from the side.. I used to like to cut from the back and brace directly behind the tree... In this case I think the climber would have fared better from the side... not sure though... what do you think?
 
:eek:If there is enough force to kick out your spurs, you are going for a ride no matter which side you are on. Think he was cutting from the side(ish) so he could lean back on his tie in point, which looked to be on the opposite side from him. Being on the back side might lead to getting your torso slamed into the spar before you start swinging around. But with that kind of force you might get slamed into the spar from the side also. With how that tree looks in the picture I would expect to be shook up with a smaller piece, correct routing of the ropes, and proper rigging equitment. hope everybody is ok.
 
Daniel said:
Good points X..

Important to realize that the fishing pole isn;t going to help with the line breaking, just redistribute the force on the trunk, QUOTE]
Click to expand...

Usually this statement would be totally correct.
But, back to what Tony said and what I also missed at first. The top HIT the other leg of the lowering line, this would likely cause great force on the line and likely temporarily "lock" up the line so no run.
IF the line snaked down next to the trunk the whole way, this line would NOT be out in the open air for the top to land on.
wish I had time to do up one of my photoshop sketches
 
A redirect opposite the fall would have compensated for some of the force in the direction of fall, change the angle at the block and loaded the tree in compression better. Most likely it still would not have been enough.

Having said all that, it may not have been possible, maybe not even desirable. I was not there.

What we can see is improper gear as per tree dynamics and weight of load added to a rigging scenario that did all the wrong things at the worst possible moments.

Without undue criticism of a climber I have never met and know nothing about, the choices made as determined by what we can see lead me to believe he may have a basic understanding, but what he thinks he knows is far less that what he actually does. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt in that his set up and actions were consciously made with some form of reasoning)

I hope he has examined the incident, gets some good advice and improves. Should anybody know the climber, please refer him to this thread. Lots of good input and advise.

Tony
 
theXman said:
But, back to what Tony said and what I also missed at first. The top HIT the other leg of the lowering line, this would likely cause great force on the line and likely temporarily "lock" up the line so no run.
Click to expand...

In reviewing the vid , this does not seem to be much if any of a factor. It doesn;t look like that is what happened and certainly doesn't matter when the groundie holds tight.. Other factors which have yet to be mentioned are far more important... Even in a worse case scenario, how much friction could the top create create on such a small amount of surface area, relative to the force of the falling top?
 
Daniel, the force of the falling top is concentrated onto the smaller area, thus a great deal of friction. As for the top hitting the rope that is being held acts like a 2:1 MA if even for a second. That leads to the bending force on the top and increases the snap back when the top breaks away. It really doesn't take much time and considering the potential energy in a load that size it's more than enough as evidenced by how violently the trunk moves.
 
treehumper said:
As for the top hitting the rope that is being held acts like a 2:1 MA if even for a second. That leads to the bending force on the top and increases the snap back when the top breaks away. It really doesn't take much time and considering the potential energy in a load that size it's more than enough as evidenced by how violently the trunk moves.
Click to expand...
OK that makes sense... if the taut line is hit by the top, its going to be way more than 2:1... more like the kind of force multipliers that are generated by a speedline, which can be huge..
 
if the taut line is hit by the top, its going to be way more than 2:1... more like the kind of force multipliers that are generated by a speedline, which can be huge..

Good comparison Daniel. Yes, tremendous multiplication of force by hitting that "speedline oriented tail of the line".
 
the house reports that climber did not get hurt, just scratched and bruised a little... helps when you are ikn good shape.. that's what I thought too.. sounds like the groundie got hit and is doing the screaming.
 
Daniel said:
the house reports that climber did not get hurt, just scratched and bruised a little... helps when you are ikn good shape.. that's what I thought too.. sounds like the groundie got hit and is doing the screaming.
Click to expand...
I never thought it sounded like the groundie was screaming and still do not. the screaming always was timed with the chainsaw bashing on the climber.
 
Umm I think your math is off, if you have 2 parts of line both holding an equal load then you have a 2:1 load on the block( or in this case a rigging thimble), however if both those parts of line are attached to the load (which would be the case if the friction pinched the line between the load and the tree) then you have a 1:1.

So the case here was simply shock loading on poor rigging equipment it had nothing to do with the load line being pinched even for a second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom