Petzl ZigZag letter

Bing, I think they are not alone in the European area for this. I am not certain but have heard that other countries as well have stated that they want to see climbers in arb using two independent lines. With the ice on the trees in my area I see no other logical way to get around the canopy..... well that and I do it anyway in good weather.
 
JontreeHI said:
Dang I didn't even know dropping out and getting a GED early was an option, or at least it wasn't presented to me as such. Oh well, too late now!
Click to expand...
It's an option when your stuck in lame school that cannot (public) keep a strong mind busy (to many students) .the whole thing were Tommie can't be left behind and repeating the same crap kills young minds. And if the people around realize you've already left they have no choice but to let you go
 
DSMc said:
Oh, that sounds great, maybe we should make it mandatory too. I just love being told what is best for me. :endesacuerdo:
Click to expand...
I don't think that mandatory means much, and I am not condoning it at all! but when tools are made that crack, the regulators are not left with much choice.
 
treebing said:
...but when tools are made that crack, the regulators are not left with much choice.
Click to expand...

They do indeed have another choice and it makes far more sense! Only use tools fit for purpose. Our tree industry has unique requirements that are very well known. A tool designed specifically for tree work should not only be able to meet those requirements but exceed them. If not what would be the incentive for buying it?
 
because Petzl, the leader of the vertical world makes it? I wouldn't want regulators telling me which tools I can and can't use either. Imagine if France told french climbers they can't climb on petzl products. Easier to tell french climbers they must climb on two Petzl products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: evo
I don't see this as an equipment choice issue as much as I see this an education problem. It is really easy to buy a bunch of gear, look at someone on YouTube or Facebook use it and THINK you know whats going on. Work at height is all for the most part the same, what changes is what type of job you are on that day (example being, a large Oak removal, a small Maple pruning, Caving into a 1000 ft muddy pit, ice climbing in -30 degree weather, oil rig work in 100 + degree weather in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico). All of these are at height, all have the potential for side loading different things, all can have fall factors or swings, and ALL need an education to safely do. Why does the industrial world do what they do with rules and regs? Because all the training is the same across the board. If I go do work for a SPRAT company or IRATA company, I will be climbing under the same rules and teachings as the guy or girl next to me. Sure they may know some tricks or have more experience but the fundamentals are always the same. The problem comes up even in the industrial world when people with no training go do work and get hurt, kill them self or need to be rescued. That is when the regulations come in and insurance companies start having a say. There has to be some type of span of control, from industry, local labor law, or as simple as in house. I doubt anyone worth their weight would allow some new guy to the company to come in and climb on a obvious bad system, nor would I think you would let them climb on a system that you as a manager or foreman had never seen without asking basic questions first about. No one likes to be told how to climb, but we have to police our selves for safety. I do wonder sometimes that if someone had come along and told tree climbers they MUST climb SRT if it would have ever been a popular means of climbing as it is now? Even if that same person told everyone they were doing it for the betterment of the climbers body, energy conservation, safety, things of that nature. It would be as insane as saying you should climb double static line because you are always tied in twice and have a redundant system in the case one were to fail (a safety factor). The bottom line is you have to personally keep your self educated, no one will go out of their own way to do that for you.
 
Fairfield said:
The bottom line is you have to personally keep your self educated, no one will go out of their own way to do that for you
Click to expand...
While true, in a situation of employer/employee, it is incumbent on the employer to ensure you're educated in the systems and their safe use in their workplace. This is one of the reasons large companies impose restrictions on the use of anything outside of what they have approved. Even to the point of complete control over the tools and gear.
It could even be argued that when contracting someone it is your responsibility to conduct your due diligence in regard to their ability to perform the work contracted for.
 
This thread has been a rather interesting one and an eye opener. I don't think it's asking to much for a product to function the way that the manufacturer built and marketed it. Sure it's just as simple as using another device, but what message are we sending the companies that we trust to build our tools? Go ahead and put out junk stuff and I'll weed thru it and find what works for me? I don't think that should be the message. Our voice should be very clear that we will not stand for it. I also understand the failure is very slight but with the risk we take there is no room for failure. Our safety is hanging from a thin thread literally.
 
I watched a climber fall 15 feet as he was zooming toward the landing station at an ITCC work climb. The ring that he had purchased from a highly respected and thorough gear dealer made by one of the oldest and esteemed companies in Europe had broken in half. I have never been able to look at any gear the same way.
 
treebing said:
I watched a climber fall 15 feet as he was zooming toward the landing station at an ITCC work climb. The ring that he had purchased from a highly respected and thorough gear dealer made by one of the oldest and esteemed companies in Europe had broken in half. I have never been able to look at any gear the same way.
Click to expand...

An aluminum ring on his bridge? If that's the case, that is eye opening. I'll be adding an extra on my bridge if this is the case.
 
treehumper said:
While true, in a situation of employer/employee, it is incumbent on the employer to ensure you're educated in the systems and their safe use in their workplace. This is one of the reasons large companies impose restrictions on the use of anything outside of what they have approved. Even to the point of complete control over the tools and gear.
It could even be argued that when contracting someone it is your responsibility to conduct your due diligence in regard to their ability to perform the work contracted for.
Click to expand...
Osha requires you to have a policy in place for contractors and sub contractors. You are required to police the protocol on your job site. However if that contractor has a policy that's equal or surpasses your own you may allow them to use theirs, but you have to make them A) aware of your's B) police it. What this means is if Oshawa comes up on your site and that contractor has an infraction your getting fined. Your not going to get out from under it by stating you was letting them use their own policy or you let them use their own safety man.
True the contractor can and should have its own safety man on site. He should enforce your's and their policy. He can remove from the site any of his employees that's working unsafe like wise be can stop any work being done that can't be safely done or their or your part.
This speaks for action as well as equipment. In my young twenties I formed concret. I worked for a company we where building a hospital, and they didn't allow for chain bridges to position yourself on a wall. This was my introduction to the rope bridge.
 
Just wanted to say that after discussing the subject with someone who has more inside knowledge of this, it is not clear who manufactured the ring that broke. It most likely was manufactured in China, and Not by an Italian company. The mistake appears to have occurred somewhere in the supply line to the distributer where faulty rings were mixed up with proper rings made in Italy. Somewhere along the line someone f'ed up and thankfully noone died but many folks' confidence was shattered. As well as a climbers foot. This is somewhat off the original post but it does relate in that it is always good to have a bit of a critical, skeptical eye towards the gear we use. This particular event I witnessed was in 2009 I beleive. Quite a while back.
 
The part that is most relevant to the discussion in your example TB, is how the company responded. It wasn't very good.

How companies respond to a such an event can really build their reputation and thus customer loyalty or erode it significantly. Petzl is walking a very thin line here. The other company, well, lets just say they could've done much better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom