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

  • Thread starter Thread starter TC
  • Start date Start date
When we bring production into a conversation about safety then we are a part of the problem. The production argument has been used in every instance of advancing safe work practices. What that is saying is we will trade lives for a dollars. It assumes the client places no value on the life of the worker or their family. Yet, conversation I’ve had with clients, residential, commercial or government, there is never a willingness to accept an incident onsite.

We as an industry need to stop bidding on price and start selling on the true value of consistent safety, knowledge and best practices that encompass all of these elements.

When we no longer have preventable deaths and injuries then the productivity conversation can begin.
 
treehumper said:
When we bring production into a conversation about safety then we are a part of the problem. The production argument has been used in every instance of advancing safe work practices. What that is saying is we will trade lives for a dollars. It assumes the client places no value on the life of the worker or their family. Yet, conversation I’ve had with clients, residential, commercial or government, there is never a willingness to accept an incident onsite.

We as an industry need to stop bidding on price and start selling on the true value of consistent safety, knowledge and best practices that encompass all of these elements.

When we no longer have preventable deaths and injuries then the productivity conversation can begin.
Click to expand...

It should be part of the conversation otherwise the conversation isn’t representative of the community. You make the system more time consuming, more expensive, in the hope of making it safer - yet Treeworks don’t get completed due cost. Then you have reduced incomes and business downsizing or close for those businesses in communities that cannot absorb the cost. Then you have the trees that fail due people not doing Treeworks and hurting people - those stats won’t likely appear in any discussion. Then you have possible unforeseen injuries using the new systems that may not be appropriate.

And then you have the crowd that use the current safety systems we have properly without incident - and here are people with a host of reasons for the change, for people that don’t get taught properly or use current systems appropriately, and no provision for those that use current systems properly and able to assess need as the individual case demands...
 
Good points pertaining to use of systems. Licensing to require minimum industry standards and compliance when enforced is one way to address some of the issues. Mandatory training on effective use of current systems that demonstrate consistent safety. Then we could better assess the statistics and identify further improvements.

I don’t agree with the cost argument. Again that is a matter of selling. The sales process needs to be driven by the seller not the client. Understanding the benefits of the work for the client is their job and communicating that. Where money is truly a barrier then there are ways to do what’s necessary and not extraneous activities that add to the cost, eg., clean up.

Every industry has found a Solution to cost issues. How about getting out of the clean up business. How does it make sense to
be paying the costs of climbers and other skilled workers to grab a rake or run a blower? Look at the medical field, there is a division of tasks based on specific skills to better manage cost and efficiency. I’ve always felt that the climber and a specialized rope management person should operate as an independent team moving ahead of the ground management crew to focus on the tree work itself. Equipment that will improve productivity is another way. Leveraging the byproduct of tree work into a raw material that can generate revenue instead of being seen as waste with its incumbent cost.

Times change and so must we.
 
Last edited:
Last time I went to the Emerg Dept they did xrays and misread them - said I was all clear and instead had fractures and dislocations and had to call me back next day to get treated.

Time before that waited three hours for them to take splinter out of my eye - ended up pulling it out by myself with fingernails.

Not good case examples for the efficient and good treatment expected...
 
Chaplain242 said:
Last time I went to the Emerg Dept they did xrays and misread them - said I was all clear and instead had fractures and dislocations and had to call me back next day to get treated.

Time before that waited three hours for them to take splinter out of my eye - ended up pulling it out by myself with fingernails.

Not good case examples for the efficient and good treatment expected...
Click to expand...
It’s the division of labor I’m talking about not competency.
 
Understand what you are taking about. But sometimes requires a well worked team to manage jobs and keep it safe. The approach has its merits but again is it a universal solution for anyone? Case specific according to work list that day...
 
There is a very good pod cast with Jeff Inman from climbing arborist and their discussion is mostly based on the 2 rope system. He is definitely an advocate of 2 ropes, however, he even states that it is situational and that it does not work 100% of the time....Either way it is a good pod cast and Dan does a great job asking all the right questions.

 
Chaplain242 said:
Understand what you are taking about. But sometimes requires a well worked team to manage jobs and keep it safe. The approach has its merits but again is it a universal solution for anyone? Case specific according to work list that day...
Click to expand...
Nothing is a universal tool but it becomes mainstream when it leads to a competitive advantage. When you have the right tools then you work your list to take advantage of them.
 
COtreerat said:
Man I’m torn on the subject. I’ve used two lines in many applications in trees and it’s been very useful. I do however see how redundant it can be also. The tree gear sites are gonna looove selling double of everything used for life support too haha!
Click to expand...
I think pretty much everyone appreciates drt(double rope tecnique) and enjoys the benefits of the system, some more often than others. This thread addresses weather ddrt(doubled rope technique)or mrs( moving rope system) or srt should be outlawed in the US as it has been in UK.I don’t know of anyone thats opposed to drt or efforts to steamline it. Some people are opposed to abandoning mrs or srt.
 
I would also encourage anyone using drt to self rescue with one hand. Its very easy if circumstance is right, not so much when tails are over limbs and tangled or pinching somewhere. I had to self rescue with a broken shoulder from a bad swing, it was easy,I feel i could have done it drt also but im pretty sure it would have taken much longer and been more complicated.
 
Wrangler said:
I would also encourage anyone using drt to self rescue with one hand. Its very easy if circumstance is right, not so much when tails are over limbs and tangled or pinching somewhere. I had to self rescue with a broken shoulder from a bad swing, it was easy,I feel i could have done it drt also but im pretty sure it would have taken much longer and been more complicated.
Click to expand...
“Practice” self rescue i meant to say
 
Thank you for your explanation of this concept! I’d be very curious on the data behind this U.K. decision to change. Near misses, hits and the fatalities of using one rope and a safety lanyard vs. 2 fucking separate lines. Convince us. Btw I want the safest BPMs we can come up with!!
 
Wrangler's post #304 is a great picture illustrating getting out to tippy tips, illustrative of when you're near the top of a tree or there's no longer any beefy central leader to tie in to.

short cut link to page https://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/uk-two-ropes-at-all-times-usa-next.41331/page-16

don't know how to re-link picture itself

I think it illustrates the upside of more than one line be it long lanyard or bonafide 2nd line in expanding access to the tree and/or upping the safety margin to allow that access that would otherwise be fool hardy on a single (isolated typically!) tip.

I talked briefly with a fellow the other day about rigging line support style placement of climb lines and he said something along the lines of "if you break out the top of the tree" implying breaking out your normal single isolated tip. I countered with you're not going to break out the whole top, only the point or region your rope contacts and that's the other core beauty of a typical NON-isolated SRT tip, spreading the load and having another catch opportunity for the rope if the first tip should fail.

A comment was made about multi ropes and a knife to cut a rope should that tip/portion of tree fail and start dragging you/your rope down. That's a fair assessment but I figure in a spindly multi leader scenario the size of piece ought to be limited and ought to get tangled or caught before it got very far. It might lock your hitch and force you to handsaw or knife cut the rope to let the tree chunk down.

Don't know if it's just me or in a removal scenario you'd never need to be out in the spindly's, you'd just stay inboard in larger wood, mooting pushing the boundaries of safe access and just using simple big margin of safety access parameters. But for pruning or obstacle avoidance I think spindly/safe access boundaries comes into play.

I'm not a fan of enforced full duplicate climb systems but agree with many here who note the comfort of security knowing your local support tip is not your eggs (life) in one basket stressor, to get right or else.

Been a while since I read the UK regs, do they say the second system has to be full direct bail out all the way to the ground capable at all times? Ie does this rule out long lanyards?
 
Bart_ said:
Wrangler's post #304 is a great picture illustrating getting out to tippy tips, illustrative of when you're near the top of a tree or there's no longer any beefy central leader to tie in to.

short cut link to page https://www.treebuzz.com/forum/threads/uk-two-ropes-at-all-times-usa-next.41331/page-16

don't know how to re-link picture itself

I think it illustrates the upside of more than one line be it long lanyard or bonafide 2nd line in expanding access to the tree and/or upping the safety margin to allow that access that would otherwise be fool hardy on a single (isolated typically!) tip.

I talked briefly with a fellow the other day about rigging line support style placement of climb lines and he said something along the lines of "if you break out the top of the tree" implying breaking out your normal single isolated tip. I countered with you're not going to break out the whole top, only the point or region your rope contacts and that's the other core beauty of a typical NON-isolated SRT tip, spreading the load and having another catch opportunity for the rope if the first tip should fail.

A comment was made about multi ropes and a knife to cut a rope should that tip/portion of tree fail and start dragging you/your rope down. That's a fair assessment but I figure in a spindly multi leader scenario the size of piece ought to be limited and ought to get tangled or caught before it got very far. It might lock your hitch and force you to handsaw or knife cut the rope to let the tree chunk down.

Don't know if it's just me or in a removal scenario you'd never need to be out in the spindly's, you'd just stay inboard in larger wood, mooting pushing the boundaries of safe access and just using simple big margin of safety access parameters. But for pruning or obstacle avoidance I think spindly/safe access boundaries comes into play.

I'm not a fan of enforced full duplicate climb systems but agree with many here who note the comfort of security knowing your local support tip is not your eggs (life) in one basket stressor, to get right or else.

Been a while since I read the UK regs, do they say the second system has to be full direct bail out all the way to the ground capable at all times? Ie does this rule out long lanyards?
Click to expand...

Great summary. Currently UK specifies a full twinned system...
 
The knife comment was from someone else's earlier post in this thread. I'd figure on using a handsaw, always with me, even when I'm in rec mode. Although it might roll the rope instead of biting into it depending on how much tension was on the rope. That may be the reason for their (possible) use of a knife.

So it's twinned right to the ground, long lanyard not ok. Because even if the lanyard can get you down it can't get another climber up?
 
Bart_ said:
The knife comment was from someone else's earlier post in this thread. I'd figure on using a handsaw, always with me, even when I'm in rec mode. Although it might roll the rope instead of biting into it depending on how much tension was on the rope. That may be the reason for their (possible) use of a knife.

So it's twinned right to the ground, long lanyard not ok. Because even if the lanyard can get you down it can't get another climber up?
Click to expand...
Im not sure but I would think a long lanyard would count for one system if both ends reached ground, It’s essentially a doubled rope system
 
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