UK. Two ropes at all times(USA next?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter TC
  • Start date Start date
My biggest concern is still the widow maker channel made by two ropes. Even a ddrt setup in some trees I am concerned about when there’s heaps of deadwood or storm broken branches in the wrong place that if fell on the twin line would ride the line like rails.

I got the feeling that there’s a lot of tunnel vision on a cut line, or failing tip; when there’s more hazards elsewhere in the tree
 
rico said:
What a bunch of nonsense! Could you imagine having to work a tree with all that bullshit?
Next thing you know we will be forced to have a backup to our backup. Why have 2 systems when you can have 3?
Click to expand...
I can imagine working a tree with it, but definitely not every tree, and even the ones I would use two lines in I'd like to just unclip one sometimes. The only time I'd maintain two lines for the whole tree is if I need a high TIP but I'm not 100% sure it's good.
 
Chaplain242 said:
My biggest concern is still the widow maker channel made by two ropes. Even a ddrt setup in some trees I am concerned about when there’s heaps of deadwood or storm broken branches in the wrong place that if fell on the twin line would ride the line like rails.

I got the feeling that there’s a lot of tunnel vision on a cut line, or failing tip; when there’s more hazards elsewhere in the tree
Click to expand...

Good thought process.

There are plenty of matrices to use for risk analysis. While I was involved with the Z133 I saw how a proposal was made for a change or brand new regulation that seemed like a good idea but didn't deal with the real risk/hazard.
 
No

Maybe things have changed in the past year or so but while I was on the Z it was a universal, firm, standing that arborists use work positioning not fall arrest. This is the division point in how ropes are used to put treeworkers in trees.

OSHA seems to be working with our industry to come up with our own set of regulations
 
Tom Dunlap said:
No

Maybe things have changed in the past year or so but while I was on the Z it was a universal, firm, standing that arborists use work positioning not fall arrest. This is the division point in how ropes are used to put treeworkers in trees.

OSHA seems to be working with our industry to come up with our own set of regulations
Click to expand...
 
Tom Dunlap said:
No

Maybe things have changed in the past year or so but while I was on the Z it was a universal, firm, standing that arborists use work positioning not fall arrest. This is the division point in how ropes are used to put treeworkers in trees.

OSHA seems to be working with our industry to come up with our own set of regulations
Click to expand...
Work position vs fall arrest does not preclude requiring two ropes in a tree.

That screenshot earlier in the thread of the Euro rules describes how both classes of fall protection require two ropes.

The widow Maker channel idea is a valid consideration for each jobs hazard assessment.

I don't see it being a big issue with a twin tension system if they're set at a similar anchor point, definitely not much bigger issue then with a single rope.
 
Evan Sussman said:
Work position vs fall arrest does not preclude requiring two ropes in a tree.

That screenshot earlier in the thread of the Euro rules describes how both classes of fall protection require two ropes.

The widow Maker channel idea is a valid consideration for each jobs hazard assessment.

I don't see it being a big issue with a twin tension system if they're set at a similar anchor point, definitely not much bigger issue then with a single rope.
Click to expand...
Im totally confused,if my anchor point starts to fail or suddenly fails im hoping my other tip is on a different stem or adjacent tree or much lower down on same stem
 
Wrangler said:
Im totally confused,if my anchor point starts to fail or suddenly fails im hoping my other tip is on a different stem or adjacent tree or much lower down on same stem
Click to expand...
The twin tension system as I understand it isn't a solution for a questionable anchor point.

It does reduce risk of a rope failure, most like during cutting, and it provides options for preventing a slide down the trunk on only a lanyard.
 
Evan Sussman said:
The twin tension system as I understand it isn't a solution for a questionable anchor point.

It does reduce risk of a rope failure, most like during cutting, and it provides options for preventing a slide down the trunk on only a lanyard.
Click to expand...
Thats really important information,thank you,I was misunderstsnding the whole point of twin tension then.With all due respect I dislike the idea even more now.I got to deadwood an awsome huge black oak this week,huge codoms 65’ tall and at least 65, feet wide,a lot of redirects.It was great fun and the reason I do this kind of work.Dragging two ropes thru that canopy would have ruined it for me.It seems to me like taking tackling out of football,its definitely safer but.......
 
Wrangler said:
Thats really important information,thank you,I was misunderstsnding the whole point of twin tension then.With all due respect I dislike the idea even more now.I got to deadwood an awsome huge black oak this week,huge codoms 65’ tall and at least 65, feet wide,a lot of redirects.It was great fun and the reason I do this kind of work.Dragging two ropes thru that canopy would have ruined it for me.It seems to me like taking tackling out of football,its definitely safer but.......
Click to expand...

Just a query, are all ropes out of the factory tested to a non-permanent-deformation load prior to distribution? Or is only a sample of the production taken and tested like in the 3sigma system?

Seems to me if the system is to be changed to cater for possible faulty ropes, it would be better to regulate at the door from the factory, by testing every rope, than to curtail, regulate, control, and limit work disciples on a global scale...
 
Chaplain242 said:
Just a query, are all ropes out of the factory tested to a non-permanent-deformation load prior to distribution? Or is only a sample of the production taken and tested like in the 3sigma system?

Seems to me if the system is to be changed to cater for possible faulty ropes, it would be better to regulate at the door from the factory, by testing every rope, than to curtail, regulate, control, and limit work disciples on a global scale...
Click to expand...
Ropes don't fail. They have to be forced to fail. They're very consistent.
 
SomethingWitty said:
Ropes don't fail. They have to be forced to fail. They're very consistent.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I see here an imposition by the safety regulation on doubling up ropes in case one fails. So my statement was on the limited case of rope failure due defect

The cutting argument is thin. If you can cut one, you can cut two (and the probability of cutting/damaging two is likely fairly high since I haven’t seen too many cutters cut below their bridge/waist height...)

And justifying two ropes to prevent a slide down the trunk? Pretty sloppy to get an uncontrolled slide down trunk - use a lanyard in crossed configuration if need to stop an uncontrolled slide... and even then when lanyard only sliding down a trunk I have only received a bit of bark rash - hardly justification for two ropes...

Or install a Kevlar rope sleeve prior to cutting is less labour intensive than two ropes throughout the tree, if one really feels like cutting a rope is that probable...
 
Need some more discussion about practical risks on this committee methinks... out of all the accidents I read about, gear failure takes a small proportion, and the failed gear is not often specified and notably it isn’t often the rope being cut - caveat being the accidents I read about, safety officials may have access to data I don’t - but if so that is something that should be known/available to the climbing community in the first instance to bring more awareness to the risk.

Add in the mental/physical exertion increase on an already demanding task? Yes can sometimes be justified, but significant proportion of climbers are probably already using two ropes for navigating the tree when needed.

If a lifeline is damaged, why not a mandatory throwline to pull up a rope from ground crew to facilitate a safe decent on a newly supplied line?

Accident reports failing to mention exactly what gear failed is another travesty concerning the safety mitigation discussion... if liability issues means it cannot be discussed then the system of liability should be changed so that the issue/equipment can be revealed/discussed...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom