SRT or SRWP?

Tony...would you give us your definition of 'work positioning' and 'ascent/descent'?

To me, once I leave the ground in a tree I'm in work positioning. If I move up, down or all around, it doesn't make a difference.
 
What do you call the time, the very important time that you pull out a saw and actually perform work. I believe that moment needs its own terminology. It's one thing to be scampering around the tree. But you have to be able to position yourself safely and securely before you make a cut or perform a dangerous task at height. Without the cutting, tre climbing is not work. Do other disciplines not move laterally? I can't believe there is not lateral movement on a wind turbine.
 
To me, once I leave the ground I am climbing. I am working when I am performing a task that changes the tree or object that I am climbing
 
I think this naming effort will fail if we attempt to cover every nuance of single rope work climbing in one phrase or acronym. Legacy terminology dies hard, lines or ropes, SRT is single rope technique. So we're stuck with that.

There are generally three phases or modes to tree climbing:
1. Getting up into or getting down out of the the tree (access)
2. Moving around in the tree (crown or canopy movement)
3. Performing a task (work positioning)

Access is a dedicated system for getting into or out of a tree. Secured footlock and traditional SRT systems are examples of dedicated access systems. Many climbers use DRT or SRT "work positioning" systems to access as well as work. No problem there, it just means that a more flexible system can be used for different modes.

I'm currently using a rope wrench and hitch for all SRT access, my cammed ascenders are gathering dust. It just goes to show that you can't box these new SRT tools into a particular technical category so easily. Whatever name folks come up with, it needs to be general enough to cover the flexibility of these systems.
-AJ
 
I agree Moss.
There has been a huge shift in tools used for SRT access. Those who know know the use of toothed cams as worth disregarding since the Uni became available.
And so the ball keeps rolling.
A shift away from the SRT fall arrest concept is needed.
 
Well put, Andrew.

Fall arrest is a distant cousin to treework. We need to keep that distance too. If not, and I've heard rumors of this coming from Canada, the OSHA-type regulators think that we need the same type of protection.
 
Let's not forget about other people in trees that aren't "working".

Recreational tree climbers are using these systems but not positioning for work.

Are we thinking of industrial applications only, or a broader scope of climbers?
 
Keep in mind here I am only talking about production tree work.

The phases as I see them are thus.

Assess: Look the tree/site over define hazard and obstacles, work plan accordingly with work objectives in mind.

Ascent: verticle movement into the tree with the purpose of establishing a TIP for work. Very little if any lateral movement.

Work: lateral movement with multiple ups and downs. The structure of the tree becomes a key player in the climb. Multiple tie in to separate anchors may be necessary/possible

Descent: simply coming out of the tree with no need for the tree's structure. Classic example, abseiling off a pole you are going to fell.

This is a basic run down. If more of you would follow along at my blog you could get all the details and I could stop with the shameless plugs and self promotion
grin.gif


http://gravitationalanarchy.wordpress.com/

These are the phases as I see them this is based an a good deal of travel, training, talking with or about problems and successes.

This will be a topic for an educational session at TCI expo in Charlotte. I hope to refine it all through comments on the blog.

Next blog topic: putting it all together.

Tony
 
Whew...now the hairs are being split..hahahaha!

Since the demarcation line for OSHA is work positioning and fall arrest...the harness manufacturers, New Tribe included, follow WP design factors.
 
Tony,

In many to most SRWP set ups there is no need to first ascend to establish the best possible TIP as more than likely you can begin working right from the get go and continue to work on the way up. Once at the top you may decide to reposition your Primary Suspension Point, but for the most part SRWP eliminates the need to focus so heavily on ascent to the top first, then work..
 
Come to think of it SRWP eliminates the need to focus to heavily on the idea of working the tree from one single TIP or even several TIP's.

I find that I tend to section off the tree into smaller work areas that I will set static re-directs for so that I am always safe from spills and always in a comfortable position to work. Once I work the section, remove the static redirect, move to the next area and re-set.

It is this complete quantum shift in thought in how to work the tree and the near limitless range in new options that makes things feel weird when first utilizing SRWP.
 
Rich,

I agree. However, I think there are differences in setting TIP's and or suspension points remotely as opposed to up close and personal. I think the quality of tree inspection plays a factor.

I admit that at times I split the hair of hairs, but look through the accident reports. So often it is the details, the little things over looked that change the outcome from what it was a thousand time before. "But we've done it that way a hundred times." I hear. No. No you did not, one thing was different and it was a small thing, less you would have caught it and remedied it.

Really all my thoughts are currently on the blog. I fully support SLWP for production tree workers on the job. I see the benefits. It is not totally to my style, but that is O.K. I spend a good deal on my time showing others the pros and cons of SLWP. More than most.

In the end, I am not talking about systems or even specific techniques. Those will sort themselves in time, by climbers better and more creative than me.

What I see the need for is a systems approach or protocol so we can look at describe and then use systems, tools techniques in the safest most efficient manor. Right tool, right job kinda thing. A way to break the complicated down so climbers can make good decisions, on their own.

I am not addressing my 4 phase approach to only single or doubled systems. I am trying to work it to cover the most common approaches to climbing for the production arborist.

In the past we had just a work positioning system as I define it, saddle, connecting link, line. As we introduced things there was a lag, in safety, efficiency and learning. I am just trying to address this lag.

I have no interest in redefining climbing. I just want guys and gals to go into it with heads up, eyes open, cognoscent of the options, aware of the limitations, able to address the ever changing climbs we face daily with understanding.

This struggle to define is part of the process.

Tony
 
[ QUOTE ]
...It is this complete quantum shift in thought in how to work the tree and the near limitless range in new options ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice, and oh so true!

The simple question that Tom presented " SRT or SRWP " has elicited many thoughtful and varied responses. This shows just how difficult it can be to accurately define something in simple, easy-to-understand terms.

In the discussion there have been many remarks on how we are perceived by other industries. Keep in mind that while we might not be the largest, by a long shot, we are still an industry. They set up their rules so they could safely function in their environment. Their needs are not ours.

From the very beginning, we have been doing rope work our own unique way and stood our ground when challenged on our methods. Along the way things got complicated because we started borrowing bits and pieces from other disciplines but not adopting their ways. This has created many problems in safety and allowed the other industries to look more closely at how we do things.

I believe we have come full-circle with these new tools and are once again using tools and systems designed by our industry for our industry.

These new tools have the potential to improve safety and efficiency in our very unique work environment. With understanding and acceptance of what we are doing by our own peer groups, we will be on firm ground for the defense of why we do things the way we do.
 
We're making the transition from being scavengers to innovators.

Arbos are famous for borrowing the tools by forgetting the techniques.

Look at belay/rappel tools/procedures. At EVERY comp I go to belays are given using hand over hand rope taking. If that happened in any rock/ice/mountaineering program that I've been involved with the howling would be loud.

We are getting better though :) Getting our issues in order will, like David said:

With understanding and acceptance of what we are doing by our own peer groups, we will be on firm ground for the defense of why we do things the way we do.
 
Why complicate it?
SRT-
Access, work, positioning, rec or production.

DbDRT or shortened into DRT

Anybody here really confused about what either technique is?

They are mostly accepted terms although not totally descriptively accurate.
Easy acronyms to use and commonly understood.
I say leave it as is.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Let's not forget about other people in trees that aren't "working".

Recreational tree climbers are using these systems but not positioning for work.

Are we thinking of industrial applications only, or a broader scope of climbers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point to clarify...

I think the concepts discussed cross over very well to any category of what you might call "technical tree climbing". If you're a canopy scientist you won't be doing removals but you will be performing many tasks up in trees. That's why I use the term "task" instead of "work" to cover any focused activity in a tree that is not the climbing activity. Same for rec climbing, access and canopy movement are more relevant but there are many possible tasks for rec climbers. I don't think there's much difference for scientists, rec climbers or tree workers when it comes to generally classifying these systems. For specific tasks in tree work there's plenty of detail that can be worked out as Tony described.

As Rich mentioned access and work modes are blurred with SRWP, that's true to a lesser extent with DRT. Probably fair to say whenever you tie in with a lanyard or second attachment to a tree and perform a task you're in work mode. When you're not performing a task you're in a mobility mode. You pretty much know for sure when you're climbing into a tree or getting out of a tree ;-) Work positioning can occur at any time during access or crown mobility phases of the climb with any climbing system with the exception of secured footlocking which is a pure access mode.
-AJ
 
I dont think it really matters much.
In time the regulators will require the same thing of tree work as they do any other work at height. Hav they not already started moving in this direction ?
It doesnt really matter how you defend the techniques, or how it is worded, regulators will want to see redundancy in systems, of which there is little now.
 
Grais,

You may be right, I sure hope not though.

One of the foundations of rope access is to have anchor points that have a certain known breaking limit. How would that ever be codified in trees?

In the current vision of SRT a base anchor of some sort is the most likely way to have a known anchor. But, setting up a choked PSP in the tree is still unknown.

Does 'Stationary Rope Positioning' ring true here?
 
Kevin,

I agree. I know SLT and SLWP are already ingrained in my lexicon! However, the process is important. How we speak, how we communicate is often indicative of how we think, process new information.

The oft used Shigo quote, define your terms, is not originally Shigo. He like all great thinkers borrowed it. More famously it comes from, Voltaire, the French philosopher. He said, to paraphrase a bit, If you wist to converse, first define your terms.

Much has been said about this quote and the context in which it was/is used. The important part for us simple tree guys is that we develop a way to clearly communicate our ideas across many platforms. Back, not so long ago, the only real way to share knowledge for us was to get together, face to face, at a climb comp, over lunch on the job. Now there are many more ways so we need more language. Could use it accordingly.

My thoughts are just this, and I see it happening already. By defining our terms, by breaking down what we do, we can converse better. If I tell you I just developed a great new ascent system. You automatically know I am talking about up and down. If I then tell you it doubles as an excellent work positioning system, you know certain things or requirements it meets/should have.

That's it. For me the idea is not to develop a "climber's dictionary" but rather a climber's vernacular. A set of terms linked to accepted guidelines and/or understandings so we can begin any conversation literally and figuratively on the same sheet of paper.

Thanks for reading my Sunday morning diatribe on bad communication. Every once in awhile I like to put my philosophy background to use. Makes me think I did not waste four years and a but load of money
grin.gif


I'll return to my coffee!

Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom