Chaplain242
Branched out member
Thanks for the podcast reference!
After listening to the segment I have a few takeaways.
The segment clears some things up that there is a push for rescue capability in the systems but I found the reasoning suspect and not well communicated, and Dave Stice himself said the subject deserved its own podcast so time may have been a factor.
I found suspect points in there that warranted attention. His accusations against TCIA about their objections to twin systems that was money oriented (did I hear this right?) was I thought an over-reach and the accusation could well be pointed straight back at SPRAT. SPRAT having authority over two rope regulations would be a financial boon to them. I have met industrial climbing operators interested in gaining a foothold in Arboriculture years ago, so such a development doesn't surprise me.
The facility of having a card with regulated skills certified on it (Dave Stice stated benefits of SPRAT regulation) to be able to travel workplaces and be regulated tick-box style on climbing skills benefits a few, but not the majority. Plus experience in the types of trees matters - certified skills could get complicated in its applicability.
Climbing in my opinion has to be proven in any workplace and should be audited both in joining a workplace, and frequently within a work environment, in my opinion unless reliable reputation can give enough confidence in having someone contract climb for you.
Plus competency training (which is implied in this proposal) has its own issues, and often requires regular mandated and validated renewal training, and also supposed to have verifiable log books kept by climbers etc. I see bureaucracy and cost attached. Some bosses don't want to pay for rescue training - do they want to pay for revalidation training on all climbing skills?
I believe the stated benefits of two rope climbing should be incorporated into climbing courses as a positioning and safety improvement in the situations that the systems offer benefit - as a tool in the toolbox. If one did a survey a lot of climbers would be using safety ropes in certain situations anyway.
Trees not having certified anchor points was brought up as reason to bring in two systems - the whole basis of Arboriculture climbing is to assess the tree and climb accordingly .
As with all new systems the two ropes systems may have other safety impacts yet to be identified. There is a stated learning curve to using two systems, and rope management also becomes an issue and I read this as rope congestion/twisting to climber and rope congestion on the ground.
It may well be rope management may distract the climber during the climb and or distract from other hazards, and even slow down the climb which may increase fatigue. I don't know if these concerns are valid but they should be investigated. If a widow maker came down would two systems channel the fall? Or impede egress from the system/s to facilitate escape?
The podcast mentions that the second rope will almost certainly have to be connected to the dorsal of a class three harness - the channel for a widow-maker is now aimed at my head and not my bridge...
To me a class three positioning harness is not a bad thing. I have been seeking one for years so I can transition from bucket to climbing seamlessly on those limited occasions I need to do it - it would replace my current fall rated bucket harness.
A mandated class 3 harness designed for positioning and ergonomics in the tree (this doesn't currently exist) would be a positive development to our trade and facilitate the rescue capability that this two ropes system is targeting. Not sure if I want a full harness in every case (especially tight conifer, or trees that will entangle a harness easily) but I can see the benefits - especially in something like a Palm Skirt Collapse situation where rescues are delayed because a rescuer cant easily fit a rescue lifting strop, or access the climbers bridge.
The interview does not sufficiently discuss issues with the systems but then starts to criticize objectors which I found distasteful. Dan Holliday himself has subtly incorporated a bias into the interview construction in favor of the two systems which I believe should have been more strongly independent.
But I have now after listening to that podcast have reinforced my distaste for this type of regulation to mandate two ropes at all times.
There seemed to be some indication of efforts in pushing the proposal of mandatory two ropes.
Dave Stice seemed convinced it was 5-10 years away. If so maybe its best get ahead of the situation before fighting it after its introduction if it is introduced and found to be problematic?
After listening to that podcast I believe the stated objectives for the introduction of mandatory two rope systems should be shared to the climbing arborist community so that the arborist community at large can respond and have input on developing an approach - if perceived to be warranted.
Systemizing could have benefits, but also could have disadvantages. I would prefer perceived versatility as a driver than regulation.
Statistical analysis of the issue should also be raised to see if genuinely warranted, including applicabilty. Discussion in the interview was not clear in identifying industrial climbing risks and arborist climbing risks as justification for the change. The case was also stated that the fall rate was much higher in the arb community than in the industrial sector. I am not sure you can compare the two, and I would like to see the statistics and the incident accounts.
But I think another podcast focused on the issue of two rope systems would allow better preparation and possibly more balanced discussion especially if a call for queries is requested to the climbing communities prior to the interview to enable a thorough discussion of all aspects of the proposal. Discussions targeting useability by all climbers, rope management, better discussion of how the rescue line works-or will be managed, mandatory class 3 harnesses, regulation, issues/implications, etc would be helpful.
my two cents...
Last edited:
