training a new climber

C

chad

Location
virginia
we had a new guy start and he is to be trained for climbing.he has never climbed before. i am leaning toward training him in the traditional style first and then moving on toward more modern techniques. i learned this way and i am sure this influences the way i feel this guy should be trained. any opinions?
by the way, with traditional i mean no micro, no ascenders, maybe a split tail and the blakes or tautline hitch. small trees of course.
 
As a beginner trying to help my son get started in the business, I have found that starting with the most basic and minimal equipment has worked for us. I am a believer that with any profession there are fundamentals that must be learned. Depending on the abilities of the student and teacher, your progress may be fast or slow, but still should start at the beginning. Trusting the gear is one of the first hurdles, and the less you have makes that easier.

I would also recommend getting them their own copy of the Tree Climbers Companion. I have purchased many great resources, but for a beginner it's a must. It's small enough to go with you, even in the tree if necessary.

Hope this helps,

GFB
 
Using the TCC is the best path for training. Jeff has the "Skill Performanc Sheet" in the back. An excellent way to check off the skills.

I've re-thought my training process. I used to start with the simplest setup at school. A rope, locking steel snap and traditional tail, Blake's hitch. This was fine but there are some limitations. My goal at the beginning is to have the students have fun when they climb. If everything is a struggle some loose interest. By changing to a Distal split tail and a brass snap for a slack tender, for the beginning slimbs, they get to the top and can move around. After a couple of days of climbing we go back and learn how to tie a traditional system, no split tail or snap, just a rope. Without this basic knowledge they aren't fully prepared to climb. There will be a time when they need to double crotch or don't have any hardware. Keep the bridge of the Distal short and use a slack tender.

If you choose to teach them the traditional means and then change in mid stream there can be some problems. Without getting bogged down in teaching/learning, the sooner you can get to a production level, the better off you'll be.

When ever I take people rec climbing they use the Distal and snap. Since I made that change, even little kids can loosen the hitch to move up the rope. Using a Blake's didn't work because it would tighten too much and the hitch was generally too bulky for small hands to slide. Besides, with a hitch tied with a different color cord its easier to tell them to pull/push the "...-colored" hitch. I use one color for the rope, another for the climbing hitch and a third color cord for the Klemheist thats used for an ascending foot loop.

Tom
 
That is pretty good Tom, on the short term training and rec/occasional stuff.

But, i kinda think that to make a climber as we know it, they should start at the olde school and evolve.

To know what can be done with minimal equipment (rescue etc.), have a common base of communication, sharing, exploring etc. with the few living and book refrences they will be able to glean from around them (not all of either would have knew stuff, and might make a 'newbie' feel lost and estranged). As well as, appreciate and know the strengths of the higher tech stuff and strategies, and why we use them.

So for a 'fuller', working climber; i think the steel is better slow tempered. Especially, if things are handled as familiar forms; linking hitch, clove hitch, tautline, distel into one form with several variants. Also learning a split tail as a possibly seperate strategy and strength from hitches that require it, to show it as a strength/ strategy of it's own.
 
Start at the top

I can see the argument for starting with more traditional technique...but I say start them with a split-tail...maybe distel. Make sure they know the blakes, in case they need to use the tail of their rope to do double-crotching.
Why have a person start out slower...just so they can see that the modern way IS better? Following that rational, would you want them to climb a couple weeks on 3-strand manila, them upgrade to a polyester rope? (Pardon the attitude...just trying to offer a different perspective)

love
nick
 
Re: Start at the top

I remember watching a student comp once. One student in particular was doing ok but his style was totaly dependant on his slack tender. Imagine not climbing a tree because you couldn't find your mini pulley. I think it is important to learn the basics first, then try as many newer techniques as possible to find one or two that are suited for you.
I do agree with Tom though on using different coloured rope to start. That make things so much easier and once they understand the system, you can show them how to use the tail. He is also right in that if you make things too hard, people will get frustrated and lose interest.
Tom, have you ever found the distel to be too fast and sensitive for beginners?

Dave
 
Interesting points here. I always started at the basics and worked up with new climbers. I did get to a point where I started them on Blake's hitch instead of TL. Split tails come early, but not until the climber has a better feel for what all the different bits of rope and hardware were and how they worked together.

Tom may be onto something though. I've known very few climbers who stuck with Blake's after seeing the "newer" hitches like distal or MT/VT. If it's an inferior knot, why teach it? But I'm like Dave, wondering if the faster hitches are too much, too soon. I definitely wouldn't start with MT/VT because it's too easy to have the bottom drop out before you know what's happening, but distal seems pretty secure.

It isn't necessarily the first thing to teach, but I think every climber should learn early how to climb with just a rope--bowline-on-a-bight tied into the tail. Stripped down to this level, a climbing system is easy to understand and hard to mess up. The bonus is that there is a chance of using it in an emergency when no other equipment is available.

I think it isn't very important which way you go, as long as you stay low and slow at first. The most valuable tip I've seen here is to use the TCC. Most climbers immediately get drawn into the book and they will find the things that they want to work on first. As long as they are supervised and safe, I say let them tackle anything they want until they find the style that suits them.

keith
 
Dave,

Do you mean "fast and sensitive" on descent?

Not any different than TL or BH.

My brother was climbing with his girls who have both climbed. Stephanie was ready to descend and she told Jim so. She grabbed onto her Blake's hitch and instantly slid!!! The protocol is to let the kids climb up until their feet are at our waist level and then we take the rope and tie a figure eight on a bite just below their hitch. This acts as a stopper before they might hit the ground. Stephanie freaked and started to cry. She got a pretty good rope blister on her finger but that was all. The next time we got together to climb, she was sure proud of her blister. And people think that guys only want to talk scars :)

I tell all new climbers that they will NOT put their hand above the hitch until the tell me. They won't descend until I am hanging onto their rope as a back up belay. This point is made very clear.
 
yes the TCC is an excelent tip and hurah for this guy's initiative because he already owns a copy. i remeber how hard it was on my first climb tied into my saddle with a bowline and a tautline, but that was a fun challenge for me. tom has a good point about belaying below the climber on their first rapel i will try this. i just dont want to see this guy become addicted and dependant upon too much gear too soon. i kind of feel too much gear can slow a person down if they are no proficient at it and move to far ahead too soon. i may take tom's advice and swich his style up during the trainning till he can show me how to climb in various techniques. i was promoted to trainning coordinator for this and i dont want my first trainee run off because i made it too difficult, so i truely appreciate all the input, and please keep it coming.
 
I have only trained a handful of climbers. I can say that starting with the TL or Blakes w/out split tails is the way to go. It is not that they can't handle the other hitches, it is because learning to climb is more than working a closed loop system or learning SRT. It is learning how to efficiently and safely work a tree.

I just find that if I start in with split tails, principles are missed. Mainly getting a high TIP. Then, with split tails, they quickly crutch to the habit of getting the 1st or second limb and rotating between lanyard and split tails to get to the top.

When you have one rope and a snap, you make sure you get the highest TIP from the ground because it is a hassle to untie and retie your climbing hitch every time you want to move.

Slower at first but it establishes good, efficient working habits from the get go. Newer, improved hitches, techs, and slack tenders are worthless if the climber can't see the benefit of them and thus, how to optimize the benefit of the newer techs.

It also gives them a foundation to help them evolve into their own safe style of climbing. After all, climbing equipment, styles, and techs are not one size/ blanket prescription fits all.

Why teach kids basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and long division?? Why not just give them a calculator?? So they know the basics, the foundation, and can build up from there.
 
I see many of ya'lls point that we want to make the next generation of climbers tough and rugged like us, right. But I think teaching a climber to climb smarter not harder might make the next climber more efficient, maybe if more efficient than us. Is not that a goal of a teacher to have the student surpass the teacher. what I have seen that impressed me the most at a paticular hands-on seminar was the explanation of the evolution of climbing. where we as climbers came from, what knots and saddles were used , why they have been abandoned and where we are going with new stuff. for instance it was said that climbers in Europe have been using a split tail as long as we in the States have used the tautline. I belive the hitch they used was the english prussik. Making a climber do it the hard way first just so it simple seems like a cop out on the teacher. if a climber makes it to the first limb and double lanyards to the top,, good job at least he made it there the safe way and i bet after few times of that he will try to get the higher crotch first.
Also climbing is only a small part of work climbing. the faster a climber can find his comfortable style the quicker he can focus on rigging, chainsaw use, and using other gear than his/her climbing system.
Basically show them whats out there ,let them choose the style, and be there to guide them. In all cases safety should be top priority.
 
Train today and he'll be gone tomorrow. Vince Lombardi said it best " some people are so worried about learning the tricks of the trade that they never learn the trade" .
 
Good points Treebeard but I think that the instructors were mistaken about the evolution of climbing in Europe. I just read a book on Alpine climbing(and lets face it -the recreational climbers are always pushing the envelope and bringing in new techniques before the working climbers ). The authors stated that the prussik came into use following WWII. The tautline and Tarbuck knots were in use here before that.
 
great points from everyone on both sides of the coin. and yes i agree with treebeard that no matter what i would like this guy to be a great climber if he sticks with it and surpass the teacher. i am still a student of climbing myself, and always will be. constant change and learning is why i love this career. no matter what, i just want this guy to be welcomed into a profession that he would love and stick with for a career - he has the right attitude and we need to keep the good people around. now if only i could get him to turn on a computer and sign on to treebuzz.
 
i think that the Tautline fits in several ways, and is more dependable next year than the same manilla line in use right now.

i think it suits emergency/ other non-split tail category. Blake's would beat it here;
But, then; a tautline has historical roots in writings, generations, virtually any climber around; linking, recognizing and reaching acceptance with all those factions. Important for a learning climber i would think, especially a roaaming or exploring one.

But, still more; as liken the mountaineer's family of 8's knottings, for quick familiarity of one principle and identifying charachteristics for immediate spot checking.

Not quite as frequently as hearing a bowline called the 'King of Knots'; i've heard the clove as the 'Mother of All Knots'. As, so it seems here in this tree climbing family of knots.

For, a clove (1|1)is it's own hitching, half is a preceding half hitch. A double clove (2|2); a tautline, a 4|1 attatching both ends- a distel. A clove (1|1) back to the line itself to form an eye; a buntline.

In it's simpler forms, (clove, tautline etc.) it walks and must be secured, until other factors than a seperate stoppper knot takes over that function. Also pulling on 1 end pushes the 'Z' bar towards the other end (that might be free), and also the pulled end tracks against the other end and tries to pull it out also, seeing as they are faced in opposite directions, i think.

This lacing family all continue in the same direction once the coils are started, they all pinch the 2 ends together between the tightening coils type engineering scheme, thus having an idenitfying 'Z' bar.


A 1|2 forms a utility friction hitch called a rolling/magnus hitch. Self trapping the tail on a 1|1 clove forms a constrictor. etc. Slipped configurations are easily possible too.

In fact, the other day, the only way i could get my buddy to see the knut positively, was to show him an inverted distel (1|4), loosen the top ring and force it down the column and set it around the other tail and host line under the coils. Then he saw how it fit this 'Z' bar family, and always rememberded to continue the lacing always around in the same direction from that.

So, given the acceptance, refrence, minimal gear need, historical placement, and placement in a comprehensive, single concept family of knots, it is definietely a keeper. i also think that the background, and really less learning from this aspect, and more exercised speeed and familiarity with every knot in the family at once for most 'leveraged' learning of 1 common principle/action done well repeatedly.

But, that would be to climber/rigger non-recreational. i can definitely see other cases in recreational field for quick, fun and confidence.

Just making a case for deeper, easier familiarity in that daily type climbing, and the humble tautlines pro-posed place in that class. And that with a comprehensive view of the basic lacing style, would be about nothing to learn the tautline, and any lesson learned in it so immediately, wide spread upgrading of familiarity with all in it's family at once.
 
Yesterday I took a friend climbing for the first time. There was a three stem Scotch pine in the park that worked out well. I could climb one of the stems and be close but not in her way.

Since there were many limbs I decided to set up a DEDA lanyard on her saddle. One of the adjusters was a distel the other was a Micro Cender. Before we left the ground we worked out the procedures of alternate lanyard climbing. then I started up my leader. After showing how to progress she followed up. When we got to the top, I tied in and she got into a comfy position while I tied in her climbing line. Then we descended on a traditional system with a distel. ]

We talked about the systems that she used. She found that the DEDA was easy to understand. In this situation, I wouldn't want to have any other system. If a novice can understand the value I think that pros would see it too.
 
Stumper wrote:

...the evolution of climbing in Europe....The authors stated that the prussik came into use following WWII. The tautline and Tarbuck knots were in use here before that.



By "...here..." do you mean in the U.S.?

The prusik itself was first described by an Austrian, Dr. Karl Prusik, in Osterreichische Alpenzeitung in 1931. The knot may not have gained widespread use until after the war. Note that Dr. Prusik was Austrian. The term 'English prusik' is confusing. It refers specifically to a loop of rope that has been spliced to form a large eye on one end and a small eye on the other.

What have been 'hot new climbing hitches' for our industry have been used in other rope applications for years. Blake's hitch was described by Jason Blake in Arbor Age in1994, but had already been published in German in 1961 and in English in 1990. The French prusik was first published for our industry in Arborist News in 1999 but was reviewed for the caving world in 1973 and even at that time was called "an old and well known knot". The Schwabisch was first mentioned in that same Arborist News article in 1999, but was described for caving in 1973 and called simply an 'asyymetrical prusik'. The Distel is basically a closed system tautline.

But we are not completely lacking in innovation. The Knut seems to have no predercessor outside of arboriculture. Also, (European) arborists were the first to terminate both ends of the French prusik on the carabiner and arborists were the first to employ slack tenders.

A topic for another thread is the terminology regarding the French prusik. The Valdotain and the Valdotain tresse are two different knots. They are tied differntly and and function differently.

Mahk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom