'Soft Technology' SRT Systems

chris_girard

chris_girard

Branched out member
Location
Gilmanton, N.H.
\'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

Some of you may have heard of the UK based cave rescue book Life On A Line. It’s a very good eBook that has a lot of useful info for the arborist as well as other Rope Access Technicians in various fields.
http://www.lifeonaline.com/

One of the things that bothered me though is what is written right on page one (note: you need to purchase the eBook to read this). This is what they say: “What Life On A Line is NOT going to do is become an American Rigging Book. The American system of ‘soft technology’ knot-based devices (release hitches, prusik loops, Italian hitches) and a scant regard for backups is something we have always fought against, and it’s not going to change anytime soon. The fact that almost every ‘industrial’ code of practice outside the USA forbids safety systems made of knots, when an officially-tested metal device is available, makes it not only impractical and dangerous to apply the out-of-the-box American system to cave rescue, it usually makes it legally impossible.”

OK, I get it. Every industry except ‘tree care’ thinks that rope-on-rope systems are dangerous and mechanical devices are safer. Really though? I know that I will trust a well tied hitch over a mechanical system any day. What I don’t get, is when did this become the norm for other industries and how did tree climbers escape it? With this kind of thinking going on around the world and basically taken as Gospel and Law, how are we ever going to convince others the safety and benefits of the Multiscenders that are out there, thanks to tree workers? Maybe the mechanical hitch based systems will be the answer.

Obviously our safety record SUCKS when compared to other ‘At Height Workers’ and maybe the rest of the world looks at that as a possible reason, but is this really because of a hitch-based rope system? Or maybe it’s the big corporations that are saddled up next to the governing safety/regulatory bodies that lobby for only mechanical devices and double rope backups/multi, multi anchor points to be only used?

Thoughts?
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

I think you will find a larger number of accidents in tree work due to the number of climbers in the world being so much higher then other crafts. So I think you may have to take that in to account. Also rules will be followed a lot more due to working so much more closer to other crafts and having eyes always on them. Tree work 99% of the time it's just the crew there. Not having to work along side Iron workers or elctricians, or even crane ops (that won't allow you to ride the ball). As for hitches they are used in brakes and backups but ya... Not so much for the climbing. I have tried using my arbo gear for industrial stuff and cliff work. Not that you can't but in a lot of jobs I have done it would have hampered me more then helped. Tree work is just a unique climbing craft that no other industries can compare fully to. It's a norm to swing in tree work and allow for dynamic loading. I would be fired on the spot if I do that at my full time job (for good reason). I would not want any of my hitch cord near the oil I find myself in sometimes, it's bad enough the rope is exposed to it. The mechanical stuff can be cleaned for the most part easier. Also for industrial climbing the ability to escape your climbing system fast or remove someone from their system fast is key. If I had to pick a climber off that was on the RW or other such setup it take a bit longer due to having to remove the hitch so the backup device can descend with the climbers. All comes down to the standards being different and effecting the climbing styles. Nothing against industrial climbers, but they would be lost in a tree setup for the most part. Even just coming across having to deal with another climber doing it. Most of them would freak because tthey just wouldn't know what they are looking at.
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

Do U.S. industrial access climbers have a poor safety record compared to the rest of the world? If you take arboriculture out of the data set how does the U.S. compare. If you compare only arboriculture accident data across countries who comes up the worst? Would be interesting to know.

For industrial at height (or depth) rescue I can see why there would be a trend torwards hardware tools, inspection and use of hitch cord requires more skill I think. Hardware has easier to quantify inspection protocols and recommended service life for specific uses. Makes sense that regulators would gravitate to hardware.

But... as we've discussed many times before arboriculture has unique functional requirements for gear. Hitches make so much sense. With the introduction of the Hitchhiker and Rope Wrench hitches now make tremendous sense for SRT/arboriculture. That's what it comes down to, a cave rescue technician can argue all day against soft technology but their argument has no meaning for arboriculture.
-AJ
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

Moss wrote what I was thinking.

Using hitches includes too many variables that can't be quantified. Too much art in a system when the regulators can only understand science.

Arbos, in the US anyway, are starting to firm up our boundaries. Not in a defensive or wagon circling mentality. This comes from confidence and the use of multi-cenders that work well in our environment.
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

"The fact that almost every ‘industrial’ code of practice outside the USA forbids safety systems made of knots, when an officially-tested metal device is available, makes it not only impractical and dangerous to apply the out-of-the-box American system to cave rescue, it usually makes it legally impossible.”

Maybe this is semantics but I don't like the way this statement is worded. It may be that "almost every 'industrial' code of practice outside the USA forbids safety systems made of knots"... But, this fact alone does not make it "impractical and dangerous" to apply it to cave rescue. Depending on the particular circumstance, the "out-of-the-box American system" may be "impractical and dangerous" but hopefully it has been established to be so, based on something other than "the fact that almost every ‘industrial’ code of practice outside the USA forbids safety systems made of knots".




Perhaps our safety record "sucks" because we are trying to accomplish some incredibly dynamic things. Seriously, the physics involved in what we do on a daily basis is fairly complex, particularly when you consider we do much of it without mechanization. In addition to that, the number of variables we contend with can sometimes be daunting. And, let's remember many tree climbers spend the majority of every day doing these things. That's an extreme amount of time to be in the "danger zone". I actually think the safety record is pretty good considering all this. And, let's not forget that what we do, often has to be done with a tiny fraction of the budget that other high angle tasks must be done with.

Maybe I'm biased but that's the way I see it.
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

It would take some very clever sleuthing to find out how many accidents or deaths in arborculture are caused by rope on rope friction device failures.

Accident rates overall can't be used to compare the merits of soft tech. That's oranges and orangutangs!
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

I imagine it is the "total number of incidents" being looked at, rather than the "percentage of incidents". Perhaps there are a lot more people climbing at height in the Arborist industry than in other industries of height, and this is why there are more reported incidents.

Does anyone know if this is true ?
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

I bet the number of rope on rope failures is pretty ephing low. I have never heard of one. Not that I am an authority, but I hear things, I get around. I think it is ridiculous for that author to throw soft tech under the bus without backing his bs with data.

It seems like this accident of mine keeps coming up in conversation recently, a few years back I dumped a top with my TIP still in. The top was probably fifteen feet tall and it hung from my friction hitch.! The hitch did not move. That is pretty bomb proof IMO.
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

you cannot talk to a tree guy who has not or does not know of someone who, has had a serious incident. but I cannot think of one involving a hitch. fall out of a tree for lack of stopper, struck by, cut out a tip, cut a line, blew out a tip, blow out a gin, saw cut, hand saw cut, I have seen all that. now I am a newer climber so I have never climbed on a tauntline, other than as a throw back and to show I can, and same with a blake's. But this seems like a non- issue to me. maybe its only because of all the ways we normally get hurt..


has anyone had a hitch fail and actually cause a incident? I know there were some issues/concerns with the original Wrench, these aside. any stories?
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

Chewbacca, all those things happened. but a leg strap caught on a stub and saved me from a good portion of the impact. It was over a fence, i had to lower it with my hitch. Sucked. A lot. I got away with minor bruising. I posted it on awakenings. Page 7, close "call with complacency"
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

I went over to awakenings and checked it out. Good thing you didn't take the full brunt of it. Sounds like the kind of thing that could cause recurring back problems. One more reason to take smaller bites whenever possible.
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

Excellent comments guys and I appreciate the info.

Jim, you make some excellent points on why you wouldn’t want to use a hitch-based system for industrial work with oil and other contaminants possibly being around. Makes perfect sense to me.

Like you said, it all comes down to standards being different (and for a very good reason I might add) and effecting climbing styles. Hopefully other ‘At Height Industries’ can see this and realize that there is a reason why we prefer hitches. Jim, your background in SPRAT, rock slopes and tree work gives you a very good idea of what works well (and what doesn’t) in each of those areas.

moss, I agree completely when you say that a cave rescue technician can argue all day against ‘soft technology’, but their argument has no meaning for arboriculture. Ours is certainly a unique industry.

chewbacca, I too was upset with the wording of the author and that was one of my main reasons for starting this thread. I know that I have said it before, but it really does bother me that we are perceived as a bunch of ‘cowboys and swinging apes’ by the other rope trades and when I see it written in an actual book, it makes it twice as bad!

Personally I can see the HH, RW, UNI, etc. having a place in certain industrial applications (but not everywhere). The question is, will the regulating bodies such as OSHA and the ANSI Z359 committee members have open minds to see this? Or will it be like Tom said that using hitches includes too many variables that can’t be quantified. Only time will tell I guess, but to me, they may be missing an awful lot of useful SRT tools if they continue to ban these systems.
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

i think the possibility of mis-tying a knot so that it doesnt perform properly and the possibility of a user error using mechanicals are probably equal.
people who don't work at height at all bring this up with me someone often. they ask how i trust knots and if there's other ways or means of ascending into a tree. the petzl zig zag will forever be my reasoning for hitch over mechanics. although i would never discourage people who are comfortable using mechanicals from doing so.
...but i would like to think no one would discourage me from using the knots i trust so much...
 
Re: \'Soft Technology\' SRT Systems

It is hard to replicate the feel of a hitch (with a micro pulley that minds it)with a mechanical that is small compact and light. For the exception of the RR maybe, but also having the same standards given to it as well will be a challenge from what we have seen in the past. I don't think it would be difficult to have a hitch certed for industrial work its more that enough people or the right people have not pushed for it. Like I have said cords are used all the time in all climbing crafts for different things. Although the only climbers that understand the potential of using a hitch to ascend and descend on a single line is arborist. I can all but promise that if you ask a rescue climber or industrial climber if you can safely descend on single line with a hitch smoothly they would look at you with the turned head (like a dog) and tell you no.

Oh as for the safety record, I actually think that Tower climbers are the worst of all in comparison to number of climbers. Worse yet they seem to fight safety standards and changes more then most arbos. (Sorry Nick Bonner. I'm sure you may agree though)

This is kind of conversation is echoed throughout all of the climbing world. You have us asking why not a hitch and you have industrial side saying why don't they like mechanical more? I have rock friends saying they should be able to use rock gear...... its never ending. What I am enjoying though being on both sides is the two worlds coming together slowly an silently. Tree guys are starting to see attempts at mechanical hitches, the industrial side is starting to see the advantages that tree guys have with "working" lanyards. What I would love to see is if someone can make a ring to ring steel sling. I hate the fact that I have great steel slings for industrial work but I have to add on gear to make it retrievable...... Maybe Nick or Kevin can send a message to their connections to get some made??????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom