The Hitch Hiker

Once slack tenders became de reguer it seems like fewer climbers had their hitches at arm's length. The whole style of slack tending and upward movement works better with a short tail. The concern about a panic grab of a hitch, or descender, might be over played. In about 40 years of climbing I don't remember doing it even once. Nor, talking with anyone who did or even heard of it happening. Not saying it hasn't of course.

Working in trees on ropes is unique amongst rope/work at height. its certainly not a bad idea to incorporate some of the systems and norms of other rope work professions but lets be careful about making others mandatory. After all...DdRT is the same as SRT---one rope/one hitch. Its worked for generations. Now, we're using one rope/one device. With a good understanding of the devices I am sure that we're entering the next generation of tree work. We're at the point that cavers were in the mid/late sixties. Transitioning from rope and hitches to rope and mechanicals. In time, arbos will have worked out the mechanicals.

I gave me first SRT presentation in March of 2001 at the Minnesota Shade Tree Short Course. Now...look how far we've come! This is so exciting!

At one time I thought that I might not be climbing to see the fruits of SRT in trees. That isn't true! I was at Geezers this weekend. Many SRT climbers, including a guy who is 59! He did OK, finished seventh, good finish for a Geezer!
 
Dave,

A valid question about my experience. My use of SRT for ascent is extensive. For work positioning, I have used both the HH and the RW, Uni (both generations) as well as a gri-gri, rig, Id and so on. I will not go into detail, but suffice to say my experience goes beyond familiarization.

Of the the HH and RW I have used the HH more. This has to do with personal preference and some misgivings/reservations on function of the RW (this is another discussion so I will leave it there)

I fully realize the pros of SRT. I do not need converted. I understand the systems, their function, the forces involved as well as the limitations of both doubled rope systems as well as single rope systems. I am fully versed, but constantly learning as I feel you are as well.

Please do not take my words the wrong way. I just wanted to very clearly state my experience. Online discussions lack many things and personal interaction, a smile, a nod, an expression are the main ones, so forgive if I seemed a bit blunt above.

I know that systems have changed and the way we climb now is different than it was even a few years ago.

I believe however, in stacking the odds in my favor. If incorporating a second attachment point for SRT ascent does not hamper the efficiency of the situation or compromise climber safety then I see no reason not to do it.

To use your system, Dave, as an example. how hard would it be to incorporate another hitch, an ASAP, a Buddy a (put your choice here) to form a redundancy. Redundancy to guard against operator error, unforeseen hazards, sudden alien attack!

Should this be done in all situations? No. Climbing down with gravity through a trees structure where a second point of attachment (lanyard) is readily available when work or excessive lateral movement is necessary is different that scaling up a line mid air on remotely inspected anchor points into a canopy that may have hidden dangers.

Body thrusting up the trunk with a taunt-line in a birth control saddle is yet another!

That is why I suggested we segment our work into task/goal oriented pieces. This will help us define objectives, identify tools, equipment and techniques that offer the most amount of security for the given situation. What we do on a daily basis is to complex for one single "silver bullet"

If we would recommend two points of attachment when using a saw, weather it be hand or chain, why would we not when ascending mid air into a tree?

Let me be clear I am not advocating that we always be attached by multiple points. However, when easy to do, when not offering interference or compromising safety then we must ask "why not" instead of "why."

I often use my lanyard when sitting still for a drink of water and quick break. Not because I need it, but because I can think of no reason not to.

In my mind this is the struggle. The struggle to progress, but not forget the often tragic mistakes of the past. The struggle to borrow judiciously from other disciplines. The struggle to innovate, but not get lost in our own independence and pride. The struggle to develop systems, tools and most importantly process that others new and old alike can be educated on, trained to use and promote first and foremost safety through intelligence and efficiency.

In the end we are talking tools and systems, but it is bigger than that.

Thanks for reading and forgive if I seem to have drifted afar. These are big matters that manifest themselves in conversations of knots, hitches and rope!

Respectfully,

Tony
 
[ QUOTE ]
...To use your system, Dave, as an example. how hard would it be to incorporate another hitch... to form a redundancy.

If we would recommend two points of attachment when using a saw, weather it be hand or chain, why would we not when ascending mid air into a tree?...

[/ QUOTE ]

Tony, do not worry that I will misunderstand the meaning of your statements. You are very well spoken and thorough in explaining yourself. I always enjoy reading your posts.

On issues of safety I can only speak for myself and not for what others should do. I am afraid that it would be unwise to use my judgment as a gauge for what is safe. I am a risk taker by nature.

I isolated the two statements above to highlight what I see as a leap in logic: "If it is good in one instance why not the other?"

The first statement is akin to wanting to fly a biplane so you always have a spare wing, just in case. The second statement would be like wearing a parachute because you planned on doing some high risk, acrobatic maneuvers.

There have been a lot of trees climbed for a lot of years with just a single rope and hitch. Failure rates of the hitch are extremely low. In contrast, many accidents occur during the cutting phase of our work.

For me, if I cannot trust my climbing system to perform safely and reliably in all situations, I will not use it! That is quite a different situation than creating dynamic movement with sharp saws in close proximity to tensioned life support ropes.

David
 
I use my lanyard when resting, drinking or what not too... In all forms of verticality I will add the 2nd safety when stopped, because of the 'why not' But during ascent and SRWP I am with Dave.

Great discussion though guys!
 
Dave,

I do not agree with the leap in logic. I like your second analogy with the parachute. However, I would like the first to be more like filing a flight plan even though you only plan on a short trip you have done a hundred times. It can't hurt to go through the motions, and could be invaluable if there is an unexpected problem.

I agree on your point about safety and personal concern. Ultimately there is only one who is responsible to get you home at the end of the day and that is yourself!

However, as we have this discussion (even though I couch it as a conversation between the two of us) the ramifications are far greater than a casual conversation between two experienced tree guys.

We have both been around the block enough to know that weather we intended it, want it or try to actively avoid it, what we say, the pictures we post, the points we make, influence others.

We lead tacitly, constantly.

It is unavoidable no matter the disclaimers we attach. (This is one reason poor posts with little attention to clarity and punctuation annoy me. That is however, another topic!)

I agree we have been climbing a lot of trees for a very long time with one rope and one hitch. We have both done it safely for decades, thousands of trees in varied situations and we are just two of many!

I am not it proposing we never do it. I just suggest we design our systems to fit the need. We look at the job before us and stack the odds in our favor.

For illustration lets look at a simple SLT ascent system. It could be any system. The taski is to ascend the tree establish a secure T.I.P. evulate for hazards and remove deadwood 2" and larger.

We set a isolated line through a load tested branch union and anchor to the base of the tree. We could simply attach the HH as ascend. We could alternately attach a second rope to the first and set it so it hangs parrelle to the mianline , but separate rising all the way to the branch union. We then attach the HH to one side and some other form of attachment to the other that will follow us up.

The specifics of the system are not important. What is important is the plan. No, we do not expect problems. Yes, we load tested the line and T.I.P. to the best of our ability. However, so many variables, so many things out of our control. Let's stack the deck to the best of our ability!

The question to ask is, as stated earlier, why not? Furthermore, let's ask: What do I lose? What do I gain? You see, I could quote numbers and stats for accidents. I could give real life stories and experiences that have happened or been told too me.

What I cannot do is attach a number to accidents avoided, injuries short circuited, lives saved by simple actions that may have not been immediately necessary, but made all the difference weather realized at the time or not.

I do not have all the answers. This is an evolution, not only of climbing tools and techniques, but mindset, attitude and education. It has been going on for longer than I have been in tree care and will continue well after.

Weather you climb SRT or DBRT, weather you are a weekend warrior or in the branches daily makes little difference. We all must take responsibility for our actions. We must realize that our actions and thoughts effect others.

I have made my points and I hope they make a difference. I have enjoyed the conversation and do indeed look forward to that day in the future when we an sit down and have the beverage of our choosing and converse knowing we have done our best in the face of uncertainty, hazard and preconceived notions.

That is one mark of professionalism, doing the correct thing because it is correct, because the difference it makes may never been known, but to the fickle winds of fate.

Thank you all for reading along,

Tony
 
This sort of remind me of the debate over the safest way to venture into the wilderness. On one side there is bring in the supplies to handle anything, or, pack light and fast and avoid dangers with mobility. I think if course there is a balance. I tend to lean on the side of mobility both when I go to the woods and when I climb a tree. But there Are plenty of downsides to this mentality as well.
 
Kevin,

I think we can have our cake and eat it too. I don't think it needs to be an "either-or". In some cases light and mobile is the way. In others a reasonable amount of redundancy and back up is well worth the investment.

The goal is to define these situations and when each is called for. Let's work to that end.


Tony
 
Tony. Do you think ascending by use of footlocking with only a prussic is in need of a back up. I'm trying to fully understand the conversation. Are we differentiating ascent from work positioning? Maybe thats where my confusion lies.
 
Derrick,

I think using just a prussic to foot lock is flawed and in need of back up or other redundancy. I know, I know we have done it for years, but I am learning, rethinking how and why we do what we do. I would no longer recommend it as an ascent method for production tree work.. I can think of at least three instances where this system failed for one reason or another.

Tony
 
Derrick,

Indeed! And a backup is not complicated if that is a chosen ascent method. Again the key is to ask three questions? Why not? What will it cost? What will I gain?

Tony
 
Tony, this is a good topic for discussion and deserves a dedicated thread. The ideas being suggested here will be missed by many as it is just a thread on the Hitch Hiker.

Dave
 
[ QUOTE ]

Tony, this is a good topic for discussion and deserves a dedicated thread. The ideas being suggested here will be missed by many as it is just a thread on the Hitch Hiker.

Dave

[/ QUOTE ]

+1
 
Derrick, a number of options. Two independent lines with a smaller prussic on each. Two independent lines one on belay like a TCC. Use a true Kernmantle with various ascender set ups. Petzl ASAP, DMM buddy. If you set a throw line why not attach two ropes instead of one?

Foot locking is a great skill and useful. I just feel that as a solo technique with only rope and prussic it has outlived is usefulness in production tree work. (Please keep in mind I am speaking to working for a living, not rec climbing, drunken beer bets at the BBQ, or TCC's). The actual foot lock is best combined with other techniques we have learned.

Tony
 
I started a new thread in the climbing forum titled "Tony's tenets" so this discussion can continue with more participation.

I know this is putting you on the spot, Tony, and I apologize for that, but this seems to be something you are quite passionate about. This should give you a better chance in voicing your views and thoughts.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom