No SRT this year?????

Give it time,Im sure it will happen soon but someone needs to submit a system first.Not everyone follows treebuzz and knows what a rope wrench is-yes even on the international level.Give it time this is fairly new to all of us in regards to tree climbings history.In fact I would bet that 95 percent of the tree workers out there dont even know its possible to work a tree using an srt system alone.Just the fact that using an srt system doubles the load should be approached differently.Just because weve known about the srt possibilties for a few years doesnt instantly educate everyone.Think about the unicender has been around what 6 years,the fate revolver since 08,thats not very long to get out to the masses.Just keep the pressure on,im sure when more and more top climbers are using these systems and actually submitting them it will change.I used a unicender at our comp last year in the masters challege.I climbed the entire tree using only srt and the funny thing is I had people watch the entire climb and not even realize I was climbing srt.It just goes to show you cant assume everyone knows what you know or even understands.Kevins going to Austarlia and continuing to educate people in the rope wrenchs uses will go along way.But the honest truth is alot of people will not understand it even if you tell them.Until theres workshops and climbers actually using these systems at international alot of people will never know.Just give it time and maybe try writing the powers that be if you want change.
 
The more I think on this, the more I find it to be hrsesht. The ISA memorandum, or whatever states, "Currently there are no approved SRT climbing systems. Concerns are in regard to the incorrect use of individual components as well as poor overall configures of components within these systems." First of all, where is the proof and why isn't the RW approved? Secondly, they are the same components in DdRT systems aside from the RW and aside from the RW, they are the same configuration. So is the concern the RW? In what way are the other components configured poorly and what are the concerns of the configuration? Have there been any documented cases of injury due to RW use that may substantiate said claims? In short, what is wrong with the RW and/or the configuration thereof? Speak talking heads, speak!

I have climbed on this system since the day after Kevin revealed it here on Treebuzz. So, nearly a year? I made a RW out of a replacement hammer handle the very next day. I have not had any type of snafu that I have not had in any split tail climbing system. Or any snafu at all that could be blamed on the RW. In a way the wrench adds to the fail safeness of the split-tail, i.e., stabilizing and adding friction in the SRT configuration at the same time. If anything in RW failure, you would be stuck aloft, not, flying to the ground. If the spider-jack and lock-jack are safe, why not a hitch and a clutch?

I think, it is the fact that it is possible to make one of these for 5 bucks, that has put the kabash on this product and its use. It makes many profitable products obsolete or too inflated in cost to entertain. If I am wrong in this assumption...prove that as well. Do anything but sit there silently and let one of the simplest, most genius climbing tools of the past decade die in a flacid type, mute filibuster.
 
In addition to the RW/Fate etc. the Unicender has been in production for 7 years. have there been any reports of accidents? None that I've heard either publicly or privately.

I feel like such a heretic sometimes...hahahaha!
 
What I am understanding from this memo and what Dawn said;

any new tool or technique must be submitted and approved by the ITCC, BEFORE it can be used at a chapter competition.

Are others hearing this as well? Does this mean someone who wants to bring out a new piece of gear or technique at a comp, has to be good enough in the "conventional" technique to break through to the internationals to submit a technique for use at the local level?
 
Kevin - that is not what I said.....!!! All of you read the rules for the ITCC and the Memo regarding the SRT Systems on the ISA/ITCC Page. Don't twist my words Kevin!
 
Ok, here it is, a little clearer memo. Thank you Dawn. Forgive me, I am not upset at the MTCC for this, I am just trying to figure out the process.

http://itcc.isa-arbor.com/rules-scoring/resources/ITCCstatement_newequipmentapproval_Final.pdf

I am concerned about the loss of chapter judges and comps having some say in innovation and not always be worried about allowing a new practice not for any legitimate concern but, worried about wether the ITCC board will pull their insurance.

Im not talking about just SRT but any new technique. One of the reason I go to comps is to see what kind of new tricks people have come up with. I trust our local judges and techs to make sure that they are safe. I know a lot of them personally and trust their expereince and jundgement. I go to comps to share some of my own ideas, (not just SRT related). What counts as a new technique or tool?
 
This is also a very new development, i have never heard of anyone submitting a technique to the ITCC board prior to a chapter comp or a local union event.
 
I have the utmost respect and understand the difficult tedious decision making process involved in these decisions. I admire the people who volunteer their time into making it a safe and fun event. I will be asking a lot of questions and challenging things I don't agree with or fully understand. Be patient with me.
 
Is the ITCC insurance the primary insurance for Chapter level comps or a supplemental insurance? Considering that each state has different laws concerning insurance I find it hard to believe that there is a single blanket insurance policy to cover all competitions regardless of where they are held.

I understand and fully agree with the fact that the ITCC committee has full sway over the ITCC event, but it seems to me that individual chapters do have and should have the right to have final say in their individual comps, especially if the Chapter itself is carrying primary insurance for the event.

Each chapter has a TCC liaison to the ITCC committee to represent their individual chapters in decisions made by the ITCC committee. It seems to me that approving techniques and gear would work though a standard chain of command, namely: head tech, head judge, chapter chair, chapter liaison, ITCC committee. Pretty obviously this transfer of information could not take place the day of a TCC event. Maybe the individual chapters should have a cut off date for introducing new techniques? Since many new techniques and equipment tends to be localized for a good period of time my guess is that the individual chapters may often have more complete information concerning some of the newer techniques than the ITCC committee does. In many cases it would be much easier for a competitor to clearly explain a new technique or application of gear to their chapter head tech than it would be for them to submit the technique in writing to the ITCC committee. If questions remain about the suitability of the technique or equipment, the head tech can send them up the chain of command to the ITCC committee for final approval/disapproval.


The flow of information should work in both directions through this chain of command. If the ITCC committee finds that there is evidence that a technique or piece of gear is unsafe then the committee should relay that information down through the chain of command to the competitors themselves. This has worked very well with disseminating recall alerts and gear incompatibility issues. It follows that information that the ITCC committee has for allowing or disallowing new techniques and gear should also be relayed to the chapter TCC liaisons.

The framework is already in place for the flow of ideas and concerns between individual chapters and the ITCC committee. Much like state vs. federal issues I think that individual chapters should have a much bigger say about what happens in their individual chapters. Once at ITCC the chapter champions must comply with ITCC rules and regulations, but shouldn't the chapters have final say for local events?
 
For what its worth, I demonstrated what the RW system was all about to the MTCC Chair roughly a month ago. He totally dug it and checked it out and questioned it and in the end talked about watching us climb on it in Lansing. Its a shame that local chapters don't have a say in this or a way to petition it.

On another note I fully demonstrated the RW to our local Union hall that, as far as I have been informed, isn't associated with the ITCC insurance policy and they gave me a go to use it. Now I get a phone call informing me that due to the fact that ITCC says no for SRT this year due to the fact that a technique hasn't been submitted that it won't be allowed at our comp. These techniques need to be shown, not only at the international level, or the state level, but even at this much smaller and unfortunately more close minded level. I guess more phone calls will be made tomorrow in the name of SRT and for its fight for freedom in the climbing community.
bud.gif
 
ISA carries the insurance for most of the chapter TCCs and the ITCC. So therefore, the systems have to be approved by the ITCC Committee - once the systems are approved by the ITCC Committe, the insurance will cover an incident for that system. If the systems had been turned into the ITCC Committee last year or the previous year, they probably would have been approved and this discussion/thread would not be happening.

Instead of discussing this in a forum, the time spent to write a post would be better spent turning in the SRT systems, ratings and manufacturer data sheets to the appropriate committee at the ITCC to be approved.

This is not a matter of the systems not being able to be used, it is a matter of the systems and the manufacturers/inventors not following the protocol of equipment approval procedures to be used in the ITCC.

The MTCC must follow the procedures set forth by the ITCC inorder to make sure that our competitors are covered by insurance if (God Forbid) an incident should occurr.

As I have stated before, there are many great SRT Systems out there being used everyday by Arborists in their professional businesses (including ours)! But, until they are approved by the ITCC, we, in Michigan, will also not allow them to be used in our competiton.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Instead of discussing this in a forum, the time spent to write a post would be better spent turning in the SRT systems, ratings and manufacturer data sheets to the appropriate committee at the ITCC to be approved.



[/ QUOTE ]

You are so right about this. With the amount of my time spent on the forums I could have accomplished so many things in my life....
 
[ QUOTE ]

Instead of discussing this in a forum, the time spent to write a post would be better spent turning in the SRT systems, ratings and manufacturer data sheets to the appropriate committee at the ITCC to be approved.


[/ QUOTE ]

A few issues with this that are not necessarily related to SRT:

Has anyone ever submitted ratings, data sheets, or anything related to new climbing hitches? Have these new hitches been shown to work with scientific data or practical demonstrations?

Is there a list of data sheets and ratings and testing information for any of the approved handled ascenders? Do any handled ascenders even have ratings? Are these handled ascenders allowed due to passing practical demonstrations or because they are backed up?

Is any scientific data required for the use of non life support products?


I'm not trying to question the validity of submitting techniques for approval. There is an established protocol to get gear approved and it should be followed, however, it seems that the approval process is not necessarily applied evenly across the board.

Case in point: We are all required to utilize cinching anchor knots on all of our rope terminations as we do not allow for cordage to be able to move on a carabiner in order to avoid side loading the carabiner and potentially loading the gate of the carabiner. We also do not allow a climber to climb off of a pulley that has a attachment point that is big enough to allow the carabiner to move and potentially side load the carabiner or gate. Despite this, we do allow a climber to attach their carabiner directly to their harness bridge or to a ring that clearly allows the carabiner to move and potentially side load.

The reason that the above situation is approved has been explained that because the carabiner is close to the climber he/she will have the ability to notice the side loading and fix it, while if the carabiner is aloft they will not have the ability to fix the issue or even see it......Seems to me that this is a direct contradiction of the approval process...While I'm certain that many climber do pay attention to how their carabiners are seated while they are climbing the very nature of climbing (weighting and unweighting your sytems often) practically guarantees that your carabiners will not be seated properly at all times...and this is allowed ??

Again, my question does not concern the process of how gear gets approved, that is fully set in stone. My question concerns how the approvals are decided as they don't seem to apply evenly to every situation....
 
It would be super helpful to have a full set of guidelines as to what exactly what must occur in order to have a climbing technique or piece of gear approved. This could help clear up:

What exact tests must be performed on techniques or gear?

If all individual components of a system are approved does this override the need to test the full system?

Must all individual components of a system be approved if some of the components are non life support?

Can techniques or gear be "grand fathered in" due to history of performance in other rope access disciplines? And if so, must all individual components of the system be approved?


Please note that I have full respect for those with the thankless job of working through all of this. This is a situation where it is clear that it is impossible to please everyone. There is also an incredibly fine line between guaranteeing safety and allowing innovation. A little more transparency as to the process of approval would certainly go a long way towards clarifying why a technique or piece of equipment is deemed acceptable or not.
 
At previous ITCC gear inspections there were systems for ascent and tip on access ropes shown to the head tech and others to approve the system and the user for that system.This included showing the backup etc. Documentation for the gear and the extensive knowledge those doing the inspection have, were used to base their decision. These people doing this at the ITCC are who the industry looks to for information and are extremely knowlegeable.
Why cant they do the same thing for the srt setups if someone would like to use it.
 
Tom has the right take on this, as there had not been any SRT system to be submitted for approval yet. Doesn't say banned forever, just not approved yet. I talked to Scott Prophet right before the Portland Regional TCC to get a clarification on the letter about SRT. He reiterated that there had not been an SRT system submitted to the committee for approval. Until these very good SRT systems are submitted, and discussions and debates occur (with and within the committee, not just here), we're just going to have to live with it. Someone else made the very cogent point that the insurance covers all ISA sanctioned events. I recognize that a lot of us use SRT systems to work the tree, but in a TCC we have to follow the rules that are covered by the insurance. I suspect that we will see SRT allowed in the near future, but it will take the excellent experience and knowledge of the leaders of our climbing community to help make that happen.
I wasn't around when the Blake hitch first hit the scene, but I bet there were reservations about that one. The old guys at my company were very suspicious of it, and many of them never switched from the Tautline hitch.
 
To clarify a little on this debate, an SRT system was submitted to ITCC 6 weeks prior to the sydney comp by Dan Stevens of the western chapter. Although most people on the board and technical advisory committee were unaware of this and there was no decision made in time for Sydney. It was also clarified at the climbers meeting that the ITCC has no mandate over what chapter and local competitons allow or disallow although they are encouraged to follow the lead of the itcc. Each individual chapter is free to make their own decision. Joe House of the wisconsin chapter won the masters this past friday on an SRT system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom