Puzzled about back ups

F

frans

Location
healdsburg, CA
With ascending systems, we are taught to have a back up for the primary system.

For example, an ascender used should have a back up on the same line so if the ascender fails, the back up will hold you.

So If I am climbing up a single line rope using an ascender, and use a rocker as a back up, then the ascender is my primary safety.

So is one type of climbing gear considered 'primary' and the other 'secondary'?

If so, are the different tools rated differently?

Is a rocker considered good enough to be a primary? Or only a secondary?

Or must both systems be considered good enough for primary use?


confused.gif
 
I would say that any "primary" or "secondary" should be considered of a "primary" rating.

To me a back up is -simply put, a redundancy.

A redundancy built into the system should your primary fail. So your secondary should be every bit as strong (if not stronger) than your primary.

About the rocker...
I would think it would serve as a primary just fine, by by design it seems to work much better a a back up due to its "tag along" design and operation.
 
Technically, back ups are NOT REQUIRED for ascending, but a very good idea!!!

And in my opinion, any back up is better than none.
 
TH and I are on the same page, any backup is better than none.

When I look at my SRT system I see my primary ascender and then I see the backup. The primary is 'active' and I move it up and down the rope. The backup is 'passive' and tags along like a faithful dog ready to protect it's master in case of emergency.

The Rocker is a fine tool but it might not be the best choice for tree climbers. I used to use the R as my lower attachment/backup. It was binered to my front d ring. But...if a fall occured while on a loaded footlock the R would not grab the tensioned rope and I could have fallen until slack was in the rope. In other words...slack needs to be in the rope below the Rocker in order for it to lock off in a fall. Mahk Adams pointed this out to me a while ago. When I studied the setup I agreed and stopped using the Rocker in that configuration.

All components need to meet safety standard specifications.
 
[ QUOTE ]
All components need to meet safety standard specifications.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, none of the handled ascenders meet the USA ANSI Z specs (5,000 pounds). Therefore, they all must be backed up with something that does meet ANSI Z specs.

What is the 'Rocker' rated at? I can't find a rating for it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All components need to meet safety standard specifications.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, none of the handled ascenders meet the USA ANSI Z specs (5,000 pounds). Therefore, they all must be backed up with something that does meet ANSI Z specs.

What is the 'Rocker' rated at? I can't find a rating for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Here is what the ISC web site says on the rocker, no specific breaking strengths listed...It seems to depend on what type of rope and what diameter rope is used.

web page

Rp500 > Rocker rope grab, for
use on 10.5 - 12.7mm dia rope.
ISC manufactures an extensive
rangeof fall arrest rope grabs
for use on10.5mm - 16mm diameter
rope. All rope grabs
conform to relevant EUROPEAN
and ANSI standards.
I.S.C.
Rocker
U.K.

Minimum breaking load >
Dependent
on type and dimeter of rope.

Here are the specs. for the ascender(s) I use. It is the ISC twin hole ascender.
Does this ascender meet relevant ANSI standards?

web page

Rp210/220 > left & right handed
ascender twin hole.
ISC manufactures an extensive
range of ascender’s & descender’s
for use on a wide variety
of ropes. All ascender’s &
descender’s conform to
relevant EUROPEAN and ANSI
standards.
Dimensions >
Length >
Width >
Thickness >
Features >
Material >
Minimum breaking load > T
Approved standards >
Finish >
Quality >
Weight >
217mm
87mm
30mm
Made for continuous &
arduous use in tough conditions.
High strength Aluminium
alloy. Stainless steel cam.
ested on 1/2”
superline primary failure of rope
sheath at 2500lbs (11kn). Ascender
Still operable.
CE tested to
En567. NFPA approved
Hard Anodised
100% inspected
350g



Frans
 
'Testing' ascenders is a tricky bit of engineering.

If they're tested in fit for use setups they will generally either slip and grab or tear up the ropes before they break or distort.

This is a place where Z133 standards could use a bit of work. This would be a very hard change to make.
 
[ QUOTE ]


So If I am climbing up a single line rope using an ascender, and use a rocker as a back up, then the ascender is my primary safety.



[/ QUOTE ]

My friend, if you are climbing single rope SRT - you should always have another rope as a back up regardless of back-ups on the individual single line....that is to say, you should be using two ropes for a SRT ascent. That way if one of your ropes fails you will be held up by the other rope.

This is how industrial rope access climbers ascend and it is also how we should ascend.

I predict within ten years it will be normal to use two ropes for a SRT ascent, one primary line and a secondary back up.

Thank you

Gary

Amen
 
[ QUOTE ]
2 ropes for srt?!?!?
what in the hell r u talking about?
I was confuzzeled about the process already, now you are suggesting a back up line? Belayed from the ground or what?


[/ QUOTE ]

Its simple - install two static lines about 2 to 4 ft apart and use one as your main SRT line and the other as a back up.

What is so wrong with this suggestion?

Dont you want to use a safer technique?

Surely two lines is safer than one? If one fails you will have a back up to save your life, its not rocket science.

Using only one line is purely based on economics and the marketplace.

So your ascender becomes unattached during a SRT climb on a single static line and your back up will save you right? But what if your line fails, what is your back up then?

Thank you

Gary

Amen
 
[ QUOTE ]
haha 101... i know safety is #1, but wonder if arboraddict ever meets production time

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I make a healthy profit most times as I price accordingly. In my experience there is no point in doing this job if you are not going to try and make it as safe as possible by minimising the risk of death or serious injury.

If you are telling me that you value profit over your own life then you really need to do some serious soul-searching my friend. I believe that two ropes for a SRT ascent is only common sense.

Years ago it would have been guys like you who laughed at people using saddles and ropes instead of ladders.

We must try at every opportunity to make the job safer, by having a back-up rope on a SRT ascent we are making the job safer, no?

Thank you

Gary

Amen
 
[ QUOTE ]
your goofy
but I still like ya

[/ QUOTE ]

Why you say I am goofy?

I am but an arborist.

Two lines on an SRT is the best way due to safety implications. One as a primary ascent line one as a backup line.

Thank you

Gary

Amen
 
[ QUOTE ]
trolling mofo arborist....two ropes, why not trust the first one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your language is like that of a common hoodlum. Please be at peace!

Those inexplicable feelings of unease we sometimes experience when ascending on a single static SRT line can be put to rest with the use of a back up line. Two lines are safer.

Dont try and tell me you've never felt unease when climbing a single static SRT line? especially when your anchor point is 60 or 70 ft up in the tree and you are ascending in open air out from the stem?

Two lines are safer, tell me why this is not so?

Thank you

Gary

Amen
 
I think the point ArborAddict, is not that the second rope is safer; but is it marginally more safe? That is, do the costs of working with a second line outweigh the added benefits in safety? Could you make a better case for the second rope than your assertion that it is safer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom