Tie-In-Point Backup?

D

DLF

Location
SF Bay Area
I highly trust my rope, saddle, and carabiners. I’m way more worried about the quality of any given tie-in point. Unlike our equipment, whose limits have been rigorously tested, a TIP is basically an educated guess about a branch’s load carrying capacity.

In addition to load-testing, I’ve started self-enforcing a rule of always climbing straight up to the TIP for an up-close inspection before doing any work. I’ve been thinking: Since I’m there, why not connect a short second line to the TIP and attach it to a nearby, but separate, branch union/crotch. Tension it just enough to remove any slack. If the main TIP branch failed, I’d have a backup.

Am I being over cautious? I’ve not seen statistics about TIP failures, but the “all or nothing” nature of them makes me think this simple hedge might be worthwhile.
 
Best not to get greedy and go for the absolute highest. Get a solid tie in and work your way up to it if the tree allows, then focus on advancing to where you want to be. Set rigging or whatever and work your way down or go back down and continue working your way up.
 
I've put a sling with a biner around the spar in some cases at the union or in others below as a redundancy. Secondary problem is if that big chunk of tree comes down and tries to hook/swat you - but at least you're not going straight to mother earth (not funny but picture Wile E Coyote splatting and then the boulder lands on him too - to be avoided).

There's also base tied SRT tip redundancy. Fundamentally opposite to isolating your tip.
 
DLF said:
I highly trust my rope, saddle, and carabiners. I’m way more worried about the quality of any given tie-in point. Unlike our equipment, whose limits have been rigorously tested, a TIP is basically an educated guess about a branch’s load carrying capacity.

In addition to load-testing, I’ve started self-enforcing a rule of always climbing straight up to the TIP for an up-close inspection before doing any work. I’ve been thinking: Since I’m there, why not connect a short second line to the TIP and attach it to a nearby, but separate, branch union/crotch. Tension it just enough to remove any slack. If the main TIP branch failed, I’d have a backup.

Am I being over cautious? I’ve not seen statistics about TIP failures, but the “all or nothing” nature of them makes me think this simple hedge might be worthwhile.
Click to expand...

Climbing to the TIP and inspecting before working the tree is a smart practice. Many times you can visually assess well enough from the ground or from within the tree before reaching the TIP.

Evo's comment about not getting greedy about getting the highest possible TIP is right on the money.

As a regular practice if you are climbing to the TIP and inspecting it (and the structural integrity tree as you go up) you can verify that it is secure or not. If you are not confident it's good to work off of you can move the TIP to something that is. Adding the short backup line as you describe would mean that you are not fully confident in the primary TIP. I would only do that if the resulting "supported TIP" is completely bomber. Make sense?

I think that building "failure backup" into your life support is not a sustainable way to work in trees. Customers often say to me "Aren't you afraid of falling?". The answer without getting too technical with them is: "Rope and harness tree climbers don't fall". Meaning that if we are doing it right we are on work positioning climbing systems. Falling is not part of the safety plan the way it is with rock climbers on dynamic lines. I don't think "mitigated TIP failure" should be part of your safety plan.

Falling is a result of tree climber decision making, for example falling off a limb on a low rope angle limb walk. Or running a saw without a lanyard or secondary life support attachment. And as you mention a primary TIP blowout.

There are exceptions that we've discussed often on the 'Buzz. For example building failure into your lanyard when you're working on a dead tree with your your TIP in a separate secure tree. For strong positioning running a saw you put your lanyard around some part of the dead tree. If the dead tree fails while you're working on it your built-in lanyard failure (zip ties, full release "sewn webbing screamer", or whatever) releases the dead tree and leaves you where you are. That's the best and most useful example of built in failure in tree work that I can think of.

To your question, I don't think you're being overly cautious but I think you're misplacing your general anxiety about tree structure into a solution that doesn't need to be implemented unless it's very strategic for a specific situation where the result is an unquestionably strong TIP.
-AJ
 
Last edited:
In the real world as opposed to theoretical there is often someone on the ground, coworker, foreman or boss who's telling you everything looks good "Go get it!". Or your own mind under quote or expectations pressure telling you the same thing. It's super easy for someone else to tell you 'It's good!" (the TIP). You're on rope not them. Resist ;-) You are "the decider", keep yourself safe. I'm far from perfect resisting outside or internal pressure to perform, I have to repeat this mantra to myself on a regular basis.
-AJ
 
moss said:
Climbing to the TIP and inspecting before working the tree is a smart practice. Many times you can visually assess well enough from the ground or from within the tree before reaching the TIP.

Evo's comment about not getting greedy about getting the highest possible TIP is right on the money.

As a regular practice if you are climbing to the TIP and inspecting it (and the structural integrity tree as you go up) you can verify that it is secure or not. If you are not confident it's good to work off of you can move the TIP to something that is. Adding the short backup line as you describe would mean that you are not fully confident in the primary TIP. I would only do that if the resulting "supported TIP" is completely bomber. Make sense?

I think that building "failure backup" into your life support is not a sustainable way to work in trees. Customers often say to me "Aren't you afraid of falling?". The answer without getting too technical with them is: "Rope and harness tree climbers don't fall". Meaning that if we are doing it right we are on work positioning climbing systems. Falling is not part of the safety plan the way it is with rock climbers on dynamic lines. I don't think "mitigated TIP failure" should be part of your safety plan.

Falling is a result of tree climber decision making, for example falling off a limb on a low rope angle limb walk. Or running a saw without a lanyard or secondary life support attachment. And as you mention a primary TIP blowout.

There are exceptions that we've discussed often on the 'Buzz. For example building failure into your lanyard when you're working on a dead tree with your your TIP in a separate secure tree. For strong positioning running a saw you put your lanyard around some part of the dead tree. If the dead tree fails while you're working on it your built-in lanyard failure (zip ties, full release "sewn webbing screamer", or whatever) releases the dead tree and leaves you where you are. That's the best and most useful example of built in failure in tree work that I can think of.

To your question, I don't think you're being overly cautious but I think you're misplacing your general anxiety about tree structure into a solution that doesn't need to be implemented unless it's very strategic for a specific situation where the result is an unquestionably strong TIP.
-AJ
Click to expand...
Very insightful response. Thanks! You and Evo just made me realize I don't always need to be at the very highest TIP, just one that's high enough to do the work I need to do! Seems like I'm always trying for the highest one-and-done TIP which puts it in the smallest, most vulnerable unions. Dropping the TIP down just a little would most often get things back into the rock-solid territory.
 
Don't want to be a bummer, but climbers I've met who fell from failed bomber tips were on an isolated tip. Funny story, when one of the guys was lying on his back regaining consciousness a girl was bent over him, he said "like an angel" and he later married her!
 
This is one of the best things about SRT from a base tie or canobase. Multiple branches sharing the load, with branches below as a back up should anything fail. It also allows you to create favorable vector that strengthen the tree, rather than pull it apart.

In rigging scenarios I've hung the block from a sling that's long enough to pass through multiple unions, allowing for a stronger rigging point higher up in the tree. Many ways to skin this cat, of course.
 
Ghostice, he said she was just a passer-by. I guess that counts as a checkmark for fate.

Tree climbing seems to evolve. Ladders, free climbing, rope-made fall "saddle", buck strap/lanyard-only ("what's with the sissy life line?") on spurs, required lifeline, doubled tie-in during cuts, two (1 redundant) lifelines in the UK, wire core fliplines, chainsaw protective pants. Standards on life/PPE gear. The UK thing is the closest to tip redundancy so far that I know of.
 
Bart_ said:
Ghostice, he said she was just a passer-by. I guess that counts as a checkmark for fate.

Tree climbing seems to evolve. Ladders, free climbing, rope-made fall "saddle", buck strap/lanyard-only ("what's with the sissy life line?") on spurs, required lifeline, doubled tie-in during cuts, two (1 redundant) lifelines in the UK, wire core fliplines, chainsaw protective pants. Standards on life/PPE gear. The UK thing is the closest to tip redundancy so far that I know of.
Click to expand...
i thought the uk woild allow the same anchorpoint, as long as you use two ropes.
 
Friedrich said:
i thought the uk woild allow the same anchorpoint, as long as you use two ropes.
Click to expand...
Funny how that fails to make redundant the weakest part of the system. The only thing that really covers you for is if you failed to setup your system correctly, but it takes so little to verify that you did set it up properly, I don’t see the benefit. Seems like a nationalized system designed to prop up gear manufacturers.
 
Friedrich, I think you're right, IIRC the tip wording is kind of grey. It would be hard to nail down such a grey issue and I think they just made a mild passing attempt, it being reasonable to take such an approach rather than outright ignore it (?). They probably presume/accept the "bomber" tip premise.

I could see the second rope better allowing fellow rescue climber access and also allowing emergency egress should your mistake include severing your lifeline. Shades of Sprat ideology.
 
Bart_ said:
Friedrich, I think you're right, IIRC the tip wording is kind of grey. It would be hard to nail down such a grey issue and I think they just made a mild passing attempt, it being reasonable to take such an approach rather than outright ignore it (?). They probably presume/accept the "bomber" tip premise.

I could see the second rope better allowing fellow rescue climber access and also allowing emergency egress should your mistake include severing your lifeline. Shades of Sprat ideology.
Click to expand...
except that one would almost certainly have those two ropes along side one another, and it seems like of a saw cut one rope it would cut the adjacent rope equally
 
Exact thought that crossed my mind way back when 2 ropes was announced. Of course similar reasoning can be applied to 2-tie-ins, lanyard/saddle/bridge/lifeline proximity. Spar work in particular.

Ever watch Reg increment the bar towards his belly when blocking? : 0 Cool as a cucumber. Freaked me right out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom