The aim of demonstrations?

L

Lazarus2

Location
UK
Well, I could be way off mark here, but to my way of thinking they should be to reinforce good practice and clarify issues rather than confuse
confused.gif


However, following a recent hyped demo claiming to be 'training the trainer' I'm inclined to believe the only benefit they serve is to massage the egos of the demo crew.

Watching this latest rigging demo was bemusing - no gloves on when handling ropes on lowering devices, no use of pull lines, then standing under a LARGE suspended load to install a pull line when the section got hung up, setting of pulleys in such a way as to create unnecessarily high leverage forces........
tongue.gif


The posturing and 'excusing away' of poor practice just makes things more comical; a case of delusions of grandeur to have the audacity to claim they are 'training the trainer'???

I see it more like 'Dads Army' (click link); anyone competent is out fighting the war, leaving whats left to play with unrealistic scenarios, thinking they are helping matters - does anyone with expertise take them seriously? The best parallel characters were there - Mainwaring, Wilson, Pike - at least it was entertaining
grin.gif


Anyone can make a mistake, but when they come in bunches of fives or almost every demo.....its just like watching the actual TV series; you just know you're in for a laugh
laugh.gif
LOL!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/d/dadsarmy_7771975.shtml


I'm curious, any experiences of this states side, Oz, Nz?
cool.gif
 
Explaining that isn't of interest to me 8733, or the aim. Its just what continues to happen when there isn't an effective quality control/complaints procedure.

Essentially, I'm curious to see if industry at large thinks that the training schemes forced upon them or willingly attended, meet industry requirements, or are really an efficient marketing tool for commercial aims. My post above is of a typical 'carry-on' thats been happening for years.

What about demos at industry events - who is controlling what is being promoted as safe practice? Does it matter? Are impressionable climbers with little experience being influenced by presentations of 'cool' gear, without hearing the limitations? How do employers control what goes into the workplace following such events? Do employers train in house or mix it up with external visits? What about CPD? What about systems with levels of competence and supervision?

One danger is monopolisation of a training market. If a system isn't working, how can it change?

Accident stats in the UK are on the rise again, and we probably have the most stringent regulations, guidance and onerous training and assessment scheme worldwide. But there is no 'approved' alternative.

Just looking for some discussion/solutions from employers...
 
From what I have seen at national/int'l. tradeshows is that the people doing the demos are presenting techniques that are acceptable.

There was a thread on here a while ago about a training company that was contracted to teach aerial rescue and EHAP. One of the climbers that posted here was really diappointed with what was taught. Free climbing...fudging AR times...not giving the climbers the caution that they should have.

Sometimes sessions are presented with good technical information but not in a way that gives the whole picture. There are plenty of good climbers that know a lot but in that group how many can put together a lesson plan? They miss the mark as teachers and the students can fail when the time comes to use the lesson.
 
I remember the post now Tom.

Yep, setting a script, sharing it and sticking to it is the best plan. Doesn't have to be complex.

Then setting the scene etc to reinforce accepted good practice is pretty much essential for credibility. Unless the objective is to question best practice.

Over the past 7 yrs I've witnessed health & safety issues at major events/competitions with climbing and rigging. They weren't all under the same name and were spread across Europe. This one paled in comparison.

Some examples:

1. Rigging rediculously large sized sections with no explanation of appropriate WLL or limitations.

2. Dumping a heavy top onto a speedline that hung up and stalled the GRCS.

3. Encouraging a candidate to ride down a speedline when tied to a small dead top with the haul back line not manned (I saw it and ran down the hill to grab it in time).

4. Securing a speedline to a vehicle and failing to secure the Vehicle. People in front of vehicle (luckily quick on their feet).

5. Wearing of inappropriate PPE.

6. Setting up a demonstration under a windblown tree.

7. Removing of a large section over a crowd that tore down an advertising banner before being suddenly arrested with huge shock load due to the rope being inadvertently stood on (could split that into a few more points).

8. Loss of control of a roped section that wasn't secured sufficiently, causing it to crash through the target zone.

9. A footlock rope redirected to a dead branch that proceeded to fail.

10. Twin handled ascenders used for rescue that came off the rope. Fortunately the rescuer had a secure footlock and just popped them back on to cooly continue (!)

11. A suddenly arrested flying jump that could've resulted in the anchor failure (But made my eyes pop out to see it snatch).

12. Flat anchor points and avoiding going over a re-direct branch to save time - a swing would have resulted in a groundstrike.

13. Totally unjustifiable one handing of a chainsaw.

I think I'll leave it at that - the memories just keep coming, and thats just what I've seen.

Whos signature states 'Integrity is what you do when no one is looking'? I like that. But what about these examples when everyone IS looking?

I'm not trying to point the finger, just show an unacceptable acceptance of unnecessary risks and lack of proper planning at an educational level.

Seems the USA has it sorted, right?
 
A number of years ago a rigging forces demo was given. The drop zone and the area under the speedline were not flagged off. A couple of us discreetly suggested to the instructors that it would be a good idea to flag off the area. All we got was a dismissal. When it came time for the demos we both suggested to the crowd to move back out of the dropzone.

This really miffed the instructors...such is life...what would they have said if there was an accident...Sorry???
 
I too have experianced this same thing with the CAA workshops.

All of a sudden their is no one who 'steps up to the plate' to enforce safe working practices.
And when someone does, that person is ridiculed as being a pain in the butt type who just is drunk on authority.


Frans
 
Starting to sound more like it.

I think the morals of the story if involved with a demo are:

1. Make a responsible person accountable and in authority to see things are done right. They need to be respected and have sound up to date experience on the subject demoed. Someone with good self efficacy, capable of eating knuckleheads for breakfast is a good choice.

2. Have a plan

3. Take wider advice on the plan

4. Explain the plan

5. Stick to the plan

6. Explain limitations

7. Observe and reinforce good practice

8. Wear appropriate PPE

9. Cordon off the area and enforce it.

10. Employ appropriately experienced professionals - not everyone has to speak or 'instruct' eg Johnny the not so cool but ever dependable line handler will do a great job.

Look professional - not to be confused with wearing every cool coloured shiny thing imaginable on the harness.

I don't remember where I heard it, but if you're thinking about how good you look, you'll look bad, because you won't be focused on the job in hand.

Guess that makes waving to Mom in the crowd a bad idea.
tongue.gif
 
I once attended a demo by a famous arborist called Rip Tompkins. The demo was on precision felling for arborists.

It was excellent, I think they should introduce a seminar and course for precision felling for arborists in the UK and Europe as the NPTC felling units and corresponding courses are forestry biased.

Rip and his lackys gave an excellent insight into the need for proper planning, efficient techniques and precise results when felling in confined spaces.

Hope he's still out there doing these demos as they are a great way to help arborists understand the energy saving benefits of felling instead of always looking at the climbing option first.

Was the demo by base?
 
[ QUOTE ]

1. Make a responsible person accountable and in authority to see things are done right.

2. Have a plan

3. Take wider advice on the plan

4. Explain the plan

5. Stick to the plan

6. Explain limitations

7. Observe and reinforce good practice

8. Wear appropriate PPE

9. Cordon off the area and enforce it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Laz, I have video evidence here of all of these points being flaunted, perhaps your the man to help out with these serious issues.

http://tinyurl.com/2547xk
 
I honestly thought you had footage there Rupe; this happens so often, it wouldn't be difficult.

I've done many, many demos and training courses for many paying clients and some for free. I have thoroughly researched how the UK training system is not effective - vested interests in the current system appear to be hanging on to power and money by ignoring the wider voice of industry. No surprise there. But the low skill level and lack of aprenticeships is damaging the arb industry and urban trees: http://www.treemettlenexus.com/pdfs/facts_on_training.pdf.

Speaking out is never popular. Doesn't mean its not valid.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This one paled in comparison.

Some examples:

1. Rigging rediculously large sized sections with no explanation of appropriate WLL or limitations.

2. Dumping a heavy top onto a speedline that hung up and stalled the GRCS.

3. Encouraging a candidate to ride down a speedline when tied to a small dead top with the haul back line not manned (I saw it and ran down the hill to grab it in time).

4. Securing a speedline to a vehicle and failing to secure the Vehicle. People in front of vehicle (luckily quick on their feet).

5. Wearing of inappropriate PPE.

6. Setting up a demonstration under a windblown tree.

7. Removing of a large section over a crowd that tore down an advertising banner before being suddenly arrested with huge shock load due to the rope being inadvertently stood on (could split that into a few more points).

8. Loss of control of a roped section that wasn't secured sufficiently, causing it to crash through the target zone.

9. A footlock rope redirected to a dead branch that proceeded to fail.

10. Twin handled ascenders used for rescue that came off the rope. Fortunately the rescuer had a secure footlock and just popped them back on to cooly continue (!)

11. A suddenly arrested flying jump that could've resulted in the anchor failure (But made my eyes pop out to see it snatch).

12. Flat anchor points and avoiding going over a re-direct branch to save time - a swing would have resulted in a groundstrike.

13. Totally unjustifiable one handing of a chainsaw.



[/ QUOTE ]

Who were these guys? Laurel and Hardy!!!???

What a joke!, sounds like they are your typical show-off pre-madonna British arborists. These guys need a good hard slap to wake them from their ego trip!

Mind you, your description of the event does sound like an average working day in arboriculture.

Who are the best trainers in the UK?
confused.gif
 
That list wasn't of one demo crew Tockmal - the one I originally complained about was what started the post. I think everyone just accepts it happens, whereas I don't see why we should. My point being why dazzle with the mysteries of arb, when basic good practice is being ignored? The lack of pull line was excused away as 'not required through a risk assessment'. In this case, the section being released under winching needed a pull line because the climber was anchored vertically and could not swing away if required. Hence, it released and bounced around the pole with big smacks, as the climber 'made like a slim thing' behind the trunk. A pull line at the base of section would have controlled that back swing sufficiently. Less than ideal, but I could forgive that one.

The top section was released without a pull line, as it was weighted in the direction of fall. However, it got hung up on the descent (the other reason a pull line is used). I think you can see the comedy with all the posturing and explaining away of the lack of need of a pull line, when behind the presenter the crew are using throwlines and standing under a (wide spreading and brittle branched) load to pull it free - i.e. the need for a pull line was obvious but not recognised.

Probably the reason for this was because a pull line wasn't available, as a rather nice and bright looking access line appeared to free the section. Either way, its not what an experienced trainer expects to see when PAYING to be 'updated'.

Who are the best trainers? How would I know? I suppose the ones who respect basic good practice are a good start. KISS applies.
 
Paolo

As one of the individuals on the demonstration team that you write of I find your comments completely misrepresentative of what actually happened at the demo & completely off the mark. The plan was excecuted as was discussed prior to the start & in excess of 95% of the attendees (over 70 people)at the 3 demos I was involved with (all of which were trying to make a few basic points) have offered positive feedback either direct or to the organisers. If you must paint a picture it's important to be sure that it's a true representation of what actually happened from inside & outside. If your point is more general then be sure your audience appreciate that. I will not be drawn into any long winded explanations as I have neither the time or inclination to discuss your 'guilty till proven otherwise' view of what took place at the event.

It was the first time I've worked with that demo team & your reference to words like ego, posturing & explaining away of issues are simply laughable, misdirected & are possibly the result of your personal misgivings towards certain members of that crew. It's important to clarify between the two.

Nod

PS Please don't expect further explainations as earlier mentioned, but I'd invite other attendees to comment as this may broaden the overall feel of the aim & result of this series of workshops!
 
I never said what event or who was posturing Nod.

Obviously you identify with something that has been stated.

I think you are confusing a few of my issues about a certain event, with further general comments about these types of event that have been less than keeping to good practice.

My points of view about the event that I attended which started this thread are truthful and supportable:

- No gloves worn when handling ropes during the use of a lowering device.
- No use of tag lines, even when it transpired that they were obviously needed.
- Attempts to install a tag line under a suspended load.
- The setting of pulleys with unnecessary leveraged line angles.
- A confusing message on safe rigging.

This is what was witnessed by myself and others. The posturing and egos of course is my opinion, but lecturing me on appreciative audiences does highlight my point somewhat.

The issues and opinions I have raised about the event above have been raised with those responsible, so to avoid further bruised egos, perhaps its better left at that.
 
I have been discussing that demo with a friend of mine that attended, he was saying something about research having been done on the forces on rigging points in the tree, eg, removing limbs increases the forces on the rigging points but leaving them on helps dissipate the forces through out the tree canopy.

I said, but what happens if your load gets hung up on the branches that you have left to dissipate the forces?
He said that you have to cut a path for the limbs that you are lowering.

I said, just work smaller, no research needed.

Maybe I am wrong.

It has been known.
 
I forgot, is it true about the load not being equal on a krab when using a hitch like a VT?

Say if the krab has a 7kn rating, does the rating change if one leg of your hitch is loaded along the gate side of the krab?
 
[ QUOTE ]
but leaving them on helps dissipate the forces through out the tree canopy.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a new theory.

Leaving certain limbs on during a removal can hugely decrease the possible hazardous effects of stem wobble and oscillating stems and limbs.

Being doing it for years myself.

Sometimes it is better to go small though if you have to clear all lower branches first.

Who was perfoming the Laz2's 'demo'?
 
I attended the event that Laz and Nod refer to.

Before commenting further, it is important to stress that the reason for the event was to maintain instructor / assessor standards (annual technical update) and we paid for the privilege (comparatively small amount).

In my opinion the most interesting and absorbing demonstration was splicing (well done Nod; I was inspired to try splicing every spare bit of rope I possess!) and it seemed that was rudely cut short for more ‘event sponsor time’.

My concern is actually, that (aerial) UK instructors were ‘updated’ on the basis of listening to presentations and watching other persons do demos (however proficient or otherwise). I could have been sent it all on a DVD and watched it from the comfort of my armchair.

Now lets be honest; we were required to bring our equipment (as instructors / assessors we should be able to provide demonstrations on demand) but most, actually dread having to use it in front of peers. It would have suited many attendees to leave their kit in the van, watch others and get signed off for the year. They will have been very pleased with the event.

Consequently, my overall impression was one of disappointment and that is not a criticism of individuals whom I’m sure were doing the job they were engaged (paid?) to do. We should have had the opportunity to get more hands on. Important issues (UK) such as WAHR were swept under the table (again); both of the recent harnesses that have taken up so much ‘Buzz’ space were at the event, it would have been good for tests and try outs etc…………….

Anyway, I’m way off the point of the thread……must find some more rope to splice.


Frank1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom