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

[DSMc]

... canopy anchor is the best option when cutting is involved.

No, it is not, it is just an option. If you limit your options you will limit your potential.

 

[oldoakman]

I wonder what Dr. John Ball and some of our other U. S. safety gurus think about this?

 

[JeffGu]

What is the rule about having people working near others' life-support systems that are dumb enough to cut their rope.

I believe that's the problem, right there... it's not their rope, the give-a-shit factor drops like a huffer's IQ when he has a fresh can of paint.

 

[Chaplain242]

Actually that may a point in its favor, if the anchors are on opposite sides of the tree and one gets cut, there’s the other system the groundie might not cut at the same time.

‘might’ may not be enough to mitigate the determined soul...

 

[JeffGu]

...the determined soul...

Let alone the unmitigated moron...

 

[KentuckySawyer]

I disagree. A canopy anchor may be best when there is cutting on the ground.


What is the rule about having people working near others' life-support systems that are dumb enough to cut their rope.


Canopy anchors mean a trailing rope. An extra rope to get into the chipper.


Expect less work to be requested because of higher costs, and more under the table work. Trees needing work for safety reasons will not be done as much, leading to less-safe trees.

I know one climber personally that cut his own basally anchored line, so its not just the idiots on the ground. There is potentially an idiot in the tree.

Any climbing line means a trailing rope...

"ANSI Z133 7.1.4 Workers shall maintain a safe working distance from other workers when using hand tools and equipment." What a "safe working distance" is will have to be answered by each individual unless there is a larger company policy being followed.

 

[KentuckySawyer]

No, it is not, it is just an option. If you limit your options you will limit your potential.

In general, I think a basal anchor isn't a great option. I've had no cause to rely on a basally anchored rope for my primary life support since 2012. If that one technique is what reliant on, then I'd say its a crutch.

If you limit your exposure, you limit your risk.

 

[DSMc]

Do what works for you, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, to state that a basal anchor has no potential benefit over a canopy anchor, just more risk, is not only not true, but shows a lack of comprehension of tree and rope dynamics.

The perceived risk of force multipliers is reduced by friction, never calculated but which, of course, is there none-the-less. It can be further reduced by opening up the rope angles. Rope angles and the corresponding vectors created by doing so, is a huge safety advantage. Being able to load all points of suspension in compression will reduce risk of load-point failure.

The fears of cutting the base leg are real, but are also avoidable. Keep it out of the work zone! If the ground crew is the concern, tie it out of their reach. If the climber themselves think they might cut it, again, move it out of the work zone. In most situations, there are so many ways to do this that not doing so is thoughtless.

 

[TC]

from here -

http://www.treemagineers.com/blog/life-changing-events/

'We’ve had 6 fatalities in arboriculture so far this year in Australia. The highest per-capita fatality rate of any industry in Australia, for the 6th year running. Think somewhere we’re going wrong with the whole way we’re going about this work.

* 2 x climber cut anchor line on basal anchor, 1 x device prevented from engaging due to too-tight chest harness, 1 x device opened too far, operator gripped on and went to ground.'

.

 

[KentuckySawyer]

However, to state that a basal anchor has no potential benefit over a canopy anchor, just more risk, is not only not true, but shows a lack of comprehension of tree and rope dynamics.

I never said it has no potential benefit. Careful putting words in my mouth. We allow for basal anchorage for access into the tree, but once there the climber must establish a canopy anchor before anyone on the crew cuts on the tree in question.

I'm rarely worried about applied forces from a basal anchor. There are canopy anchors that afford the climber effectively the same load disbursement options without the added exposure of damaging a basally anchored line.

but shows a lack of comprehension of tree and rope dynamics.

Thats my favorite part...

 

[JeffGu]

There should just be one rule. No less than two TreeBuzzers on the jobsite at any time. The trees would die, rot away, and fall over on their own and the entire crew would still be arguing over what type of SRT anchor they should use.

 

[DSMc]

I never said it has no potential benefit. Careful putting words in my mouth...

Fair enough, my bad. However, if there are instances where a basal anchor can benefit the climber and, at the same time, it is possible to remove the risks associated with a poorly implemented basal system, how is that "not a great option", and why in the world would someone that uses basal anchors be admonished as "using a crutch" any more than someone that just uses canopy anchors?

"I never used to think that equipment was a major factor in most incidents. It’s usually shortcuts, laziness and sloppy decision making." From the above posted blog.

Nothing has changed, our tools are still good, better than ever in fact. That puts it squarely back on the climber to understand how things work. To state otherwise, inferring they are not capable, is a slap in the face to the intelligence of climbers.

 

[southsoundtree]

After carrying 200' of HTP on my hip (more rope than needed on this climb, but I don't want to cut it shorter), a rigging/ pull rope, and two chainsaws for a solo 100'+cottonwood dismantle/ homeowner cleanup, considering weight and if I would want another climbing line for a large upwardly sweeping trunk off to the side, and what that would mean logistically, and weigh-wise, and CF-wise

I took just the one climb line. When I went to piece out the main secondary leader, I ended up slacking my main TIP so I could midline canopy anchor/ trunk-choke where I was working, as I was going above horizontal from my original TIP, unexpectedly, in order to fit the drop zone without rigging or hoping.

Seems like one rope, worked SRS from both ends, like a giant Motion Lanyard could be useful, if you could access (in and out) both ends, easily.

A middle divider, maybe velcro'ed in place, between two halves of the rope-bag, with a gap at the bottom for the middle of the rope to be able to move from one side to the other, freely would work.

This would assist in having two systems readily available and working, I think, without two full climb-lines or the dangling ropes of the typical tail-tied secondary system. Basically the same weight and increased options.

 

[Rob Stafari]

After carrying 200' of HTP on my hip (more rope than needed on this climb, but I don't want to cut it shorter), a rigging/ pull rope, and two chainsaws for a solo 100'+cottonwood dismantle/ homeowner cleanup, considering weight and if I would want another climbing line for a large upwardly sweeping trunk off to the side, and what that would mean logistically, and weigh-wise, and CF-wise

I took just the one climb line. When I went to piece out the main secondary leader, I ended up slacking my main TIP so I could midline canopy anchor/ trunk-choke where I was working, as I was going above horizontal from my original TIP, unexpectedly, in order to fit the drop zone without rigging or hoping.

Seems like one rope, worked SRS from both ends, like a giant Motion Lanyard could be useful, if you could access (in and out) both ends, easily.

A middle divider, maybe velcro'ed in place, between two halves of the rope-bag, with a gap at the bottom for the middle of the rope to be able to move from one side to the other, freely would work.

This would assist in having two systems readily available and working, I think, without two full climb-lines or the dangling ropes of the typical tail-tied secondary system. Basically the same weight and increased options.

Check out the Anderson Rescue Solutions Breakout Rope bag. Opposite rope ends easily deployed through opposite ends of the bag. Side of rope bag opens for access to middle. I believe there are some other options already available and setup for deployment of both ends in the rope access/rope rescue world. Sounds similar to what you are talking about if I'm understanding correctly.

 

[climbstihl]

Check out the Anderson Rescue Solutions Breakout Rope bag. Opposite rope ends easily deployed through opposite ends of the bag. Side of rope bag opens for access to middle. I believe there are some other options already available and setup for deployment of both ends in the rope access/rope rescue world. Sounds similar to what you are talking about if I'm understanding correctly.

The courant rope bag opens at both ends too I believe. My boss has one, I packed it the other day.

 

[KentuckySawyer]

Fair enough, my bad. However, if there are instances where a basal anchor can benefit the climber and, at the same time, it is possible to remove the risks associated with a poorly implemented basal system, how is that "not a great option", and why in the world would someone that uses basal anchors be admonished as "using a crutch" any more than someone that just uses canopy anchors?

"I never used to think that equipment was a major factor in most incidents. It’s usually shortcuts, laziness and sloppy decision making." From the above posted blog.

When problems arrise, it's always the fool, and not the tool, that's at fault.

From Limbwalker's perspective, basal anchors are riskier than canopy anchors, because the climber's life support system takes up that much more space on the jobsite. Now it's easier for a ground worker to cut the climber's rope (happened to a friend of mine... lived to tell the tale), easier to drop a big chumk and have it damage a basally anchored line (happened to another friend), or even for another climber in the same tree to cut the other climber's line.

Like I said, we do allow basal anchors for access, and then require changing it to a canopy anchor. Also, we allow it if the climber AND Crew Leader agree that it is the safest option and it will generally be anchored on an adjacent tree. Option 1 has been used regularly since we added the policy. As far as I know option 2 has never been used.

The most interesting anecdote to me from implementing our restriction on basal anchors... I assumed that I'd get a fair amount of blow back since we had a lot of climbers using SRWP. The ONLY climber that complained was a DdRT holdout that like to float a pulley and base tie the anchor line. He ended up embracing the Rope Wrench and never said anything about missing the basal tie.

Honestly, I think SRT makes the work SOOO much easier, that it may just be laziness that keeps people using basal anchors. Its harder to establish a canopy anchor, so its equivalently hard to fail the system. It requies learning a few anchor options and learning how to mitigate the friction that can build up on SRWP systems with a lot of natural redirects.

Nothing has changed, our tools are still good, better than ever in fact. That puts it squarely back on the climber to understand how things work. To state otherwise, inferring they are not capable, is a slap in the face to the intelligence of climbers.

Everything has changed in the last 15 years of climbing. OSHA and ANSI don't give any help in the way of guidance... thank god! I'd say it falls squarely on the company the climber works for to understand the tools and techniques out there and be able to train their people to discern the good from the bad. I am a climber, so I don't mind slapping other climbers in the face when they deserve it. I know climbers that do stupid shit and use janky cobbled together tools, but they don't work for my company or use that shit if they ever visit.

 

[DSMc]

When problems arrise, it's always the fool, and not the tool, that's at fault.

Not always, but the fact that most accidents can be avoided through careful thought leans that way.

From Limbwalker's perspective, basal anchors are riskier than canopy anchors, because the climber's life support system takes up that much more space on the jobsite...

Are climbers no longer capable of rope management? Do base-mounted friction devices create unmanageable risk on the job site for the same reasons?

Everything has changed in the last 15 years of climbing. OSHA and ANSI don't give any help in the way of guidance... thank god! I'd say it falls squarely on the company the climber works for to understand the tools and techniques out there and be able to train their people to discern the good from the bad. I am a climber, so I don't mind slapping other climbers in the face when they deserve it. I know climbers that do stupid shit and use janky cobbled together tools, but they don't work for my company or use that shit if they ever visit.

Climbing systems and tools have certainly changed in the last 50 years I've been climbing, and like I said, for the better. What has not changed is the leadership and education a good employer will provide or the dedication to learn and become proficient that a good employee will display. Trying to adjust systems to encompass those outside those boundaries, "to dumb it down", is IMO counter productive.

 

[Tom Dunlap]

The issue that's being talked about is the Paradox of Technology. Things that seem to simplify our lives can make them more complicated.

Before posting I Googled 'Paradox of Technology' and opened the first citation. Wow! Right there in the first paragraph is a quote from a obscure book I bought in Stockholm in '07, The Design of Everyday Things.

P of T

Thinking back on my career I wondered which system is the simplest but most efficient that functions without a lot of care and understanding.

Here's what I think covers the mark:

Half inch 12 or 16 strand...synthetic of course
Double locking rope snaps
Split tail..single strand to tie a Blake's hitch
Leg strap saddle
Floating/rolling bridge

This can be taught easily, functions well enough, strong and simple components that don't need to be fiddled with or fine tuned. Not expensive and usually durable.

Adding more requires more teaching and more monitoring. There's the paradox. Most climbers will go back to variations of this simple system to solve a short term problem but not for everyday use.

Too often climbers are either tossed off the dock or jump off...expecting to learn how to swim before they drown. It is stunning to read some 'help me' questions on social media...and TreeBuzz too...from new climbers who have got the cart in front of the horse. They've bought some whizzy gear then want to learn how to climb via social media. Jeff Jepson's sold over 100,000 copies of The Tree Climber's Companion, priced about fifteen bucks. Nothing safer than sitting somewhere and reading a book.

With all of the different climbing systems and gear combinations in use now I can't fathom how a company keeps up with training and education. I know...most don't .

Be careful of getting caught in a Paradox

 

[KentuckySawyer]

Its not a question of rope management. Its all about hazard mitigation. Lowerable base anchors are generally a waste. The only instance I know of where one was used in an emergency, the "rescuer" dropped my friend as she was self extricating.

Thinking back on my career I wondered which system is the simplest but most efficient that functions without a lot of care and understanding.

Here's what I think covers the mark:

Half inch 12 or 16 strand...synthetic of course
Double locking rope snaps
Split tail..single strand to tie a Blake's hitch
Leg strap saddle
Floating/rolling bridge

Agreed. I start all new climbers with a closed Blakes system and 16 strand rope. Then on the Choking up a running bowline and rope walking up... as soon as possible!

 

[DSMc]

Its not a question of rope management. Its all about hazard mitigation. Lowerable base anchors are generally a waste...

I agree, but I didn't specify a base anchor, as in climbing, just a basal friction device like most of us use all the time in rigging operations. Same load bearing line configuration, with the same exposures, that we somehow seem to manage without trouble.