Video: Quarter cut for Jedi warriors

[ QUOTE ]

Eric, hows the old blood pressure doing? /forum/images/graemlins/pirate.gif /forum/images/graemlins/avid.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for asking Ed.

Actually my blood pressure is fine and pretty much has been for quite some time.

I made a switch about a year ago to low alcohol, lower sugar beer ... a special brew now that we configured and other beer lovers are now brewing as well.

We managed to keep the taste traditional the the Becks beer but lower the "bad guys" in the beer.

I did make some reference to a "health problem" some time ago but never elaborated. There was some speculation entered by people that I had a blood pressure problem but that was not it. I recently read somewhere that I also needed a check up from the neck up, hmmm, interesting concept, nbut that was on the same thread as some-one asking me to put vids back on a site (hardly encouragement) ... perhaps a hearing test is in order for all industry workers on a frequent basis.

I would describe my health problem as a condition where you have low tolerance of rhetoric and incompetance especially by so called experts. It's been abundant lately both in the streets, workplace and occasionally on the boards. You know I'm sure, when things happen you roll your eyes and think with a deep sigh ... "another genius, here we go again"

So, I'm physically healthy as, strong, fighting fit but perhaps emotionally a little well .... Ground Hog Dayed out, you know .... here we go again, another snide remark, another two bob bit of useless rhetoric, another cheap shot, etc.

I hope this information helps you, makes no difference to me, I have a lot to do these days and reports to write, websites to build, vids to make, forums to write on etc ... I hoped to allocate considerable resources this year to education but unfortunately the formal side of that event has fallen thru so I need to do a lot of other stuff to compensate.
 
i use a wedge sometimes as help, and as backup system to rope pull especially on backleaners. To me by itself, a wedge is jsut a push, rather than a rope pull; but fordce is force....

i think more important is the direction of the force flow (as all ways). Direction is so important to force, it can be another multiplier, or indeed a force all it's own! As Joe oncet teld me "without direction, there is no force; the force must persist in a direction to exist" (or sometin like dat).

This brings me to a common oversight of equipment push that a simple wedge doesn't have. A wedge pushes up to go forward, the hinge changing it's upward force to rotational. i think an equipment push should be not just across (as to shear hinge), but across up, to rotate on hinge. The rotation taking the same force,a nd giving it longer distance to same target than linear push, thus more leveraged return from this input; and not trying to shear across hinge but p[reserve hinge by this rotation on it!

A rope can give more leverage than wedge; but then a wedge will stop pushing at first folding, leaving hinge at maximum strength. Whereby a rope can be pulled after first folding movemeant. If this is done, it takes the same hinge moving slow/powerful and changes it into faster/weaker; for the hinge strength/ power maid at first folding; like anything else can either be fast or powerful, not both!

In tree, blocking out; i sometimes carry a semi-truck tire spoon that fits into the kerf; i'll use this lever instead of wedge to push load over earlier on stronger hinge. Especially on short pieces that a rope pull wouldn't have the leverage of spar height as a multiplier; or just to keep groundies freed up or out of tight kill zones.
 
I always have wedges at the base of the tree.
I roped two down today, 30" dbh oak over a power service and a gnarly old beat and battered 30" dbh yellow birch that was twisted every way but towards the intended lay.
The wedges weren't needed on the oak but were required on the birch to lift it.
The mid section was so bad I thought there was a good chance of pulling the top out of it with the rope but it held together and split down the trunk when it piled up on the ground.
I wouldn't be without wedges.
 
Wedges are cool, but like I said, Ive cut many a tree down with out ever using them. my backup was always a rope I'd use the ocasional wedge for holding the stump cut up or bucking big logs. Surely could of used them on lots of floppers /forum/images/graemlins/ahhhhh.gif just never was trained with them.

Back to EKKA's video, this old Dog learned a new little trick. Thanks for your video work Eric.

Grahme, You guys have a wedge rule? Numbers has a top handle saw rule? Man and I want Minnesota State wide License . . . is that where this over regulation /forum/images/graemlins/flag_bs.gif starts?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Man and I want Minnesota State wide License . . . is that where this over regulation /forum/images/graemlins/flag_bs.gif starts?

[/ QUOTE ]
That is absolutely where it starts. All big brother needs is a suggestion it thinks will have some traction and they'll have their foot right in the door. Can you think of any government encroachment on personal/private rights where they have later reversed their direction? If so, what's the percentage/likelihood of it happening again?

Whether I have a hydraulic jack in the back cut (extremely rarely) or a rope on the tree (rarely to just occasionally) I still have wedges deployed. Most times just wedges are all that's needed. They're very reliable, extremely easy to implement, and are about the most sure and safe way to regulate what needs to be done. I cannot recall ever being part of a heavy-equipment-as-pusher felling operation and don't particularly think I'd even want to be.
 
"Wedge Rule"? I'm not sure, but a precident has begun. It will be difficult to swing back the pendulum of common sense. As an ex timber industry assessor for fallers, there were four methods of falling trees to be assessed, only two of them required the use of a wedge.

When I was falling in high production regrowth, if the excavator or dozer was sent down to help with the boundary, I didn't wast time with a "wedge ceramony".

Many tree lengths from the public and on a large development site was where the accident took place. The machine operator and faller were quite ok, it was a third party that was killed, and was not in the falling area at the start of that tree.

This does not relate to the legitmate use of wedges in tight falling zones but rather the use of wedges in the middle of a paddock with a 25 ton excavator up its back.

Should we as an industry be able to direct prosecuting authorities to a suitable bank of "experts", or should it be that there bottomless pockets of money buy our justice.

Maybe only persons who are experienced in that type of work should be "expert" wittnesses for it. /forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif
 
Greame,
My opinion of so called 'experts', is very low.

In my experience, the top guys who advise HSE in the UK, and stand up as expert wittneses are the guys that have not made it or failed as true treemen.
these are the kind of guys that have decided treework is to hard, so go into training and consultancy.
So their knowledge tends to be book learned rather than experience of the real world.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Many tree lengths from the public and on a large development site was where the accident took place. The machine operator and faller were quite ok, it was a third party that was killed, and was not in the falling area at the start of that tree.

This does not relate to the legitmate use of wedges in tight falling zones but rather the use of wedges in the middle of a paddock with a 25 ton excavator up its back.


[/ QUOTE ]

For a wedge to be blamed (or lack of)in this incident I can only think that the tree went backwards.

Did the third party get too close or something ... perhaps behind the tree thinking "yep, no worries, that ones going down that way and I'll waltz thru here" meanwhile no-one spots him as he's behind everyone.

Thing is that personal accountability (responsibility) is near void these days and it's always the bosses fault.

On issues similar to this I have written extensively to the QLD OHS and they wont reply. I have taken their cases where they fined the corporations and questioned the methodology ... no answer. I asked when the individual is responsible why does the company/boss cop the fine ... no answer.

Sounds like typical BS from witch hunters. The big umbrella it all falls under is "failing to provide a safe workplace". Now that's from tripping on rocks or branches to going thru a chipper. Apparently from what I have learnt and been told by people who have had the traumatic experience of investigation and prosecution you are guilty ... period, just to what degree ($'s).

The most recent case was where a senior and junior were removing a 6' chain wire fence with the old 3 strands of barbed wire ontop (common stuff everywhere). The senior ensured that they had gloves, helmet and safety glasses on. Senior had to go to the dunny so left junior to cut the strands and so on ... no rocket science here.

In seniors absense junior decides that he's superman and takes his glasses off. Junior cuts the barbed wire and it pings and carries on as it was tensined but cops him in the eye ... he loses an eye, blind in one eye.

That company got fined $20,000 for failing to provide a safe workplace! WTF, it was junior that didn't do as told but they also said it was unacceptable to leave him unsupervised! So you have to be there and watch all day long.

The BS is thick in those OHS walls, out of control, and those sorts of decisions are killers on small business. It's like buying car insurance for say $500 a year and when you have a prang and make a claim they fine you 20x more than the premium. You must have Workcover but if you use it you'll get a fine and busted .... we need to turn this around and shove it down the line to the individual to become responsible for their own actions. If you dont want to wear your helmet and get clocked well you should be fined not the boss ... he provided you with one and insisted it be worn.
 
Mr. Ed, you have summed up my thoughts well, and is generally consistent with my experience here. I am concerned that in the future that anyone of the practicle people we know(including myself), may have an accident and be unfairly convicted by information supplied by a "failed treeman". As in this case, money buys justice.

In Victoria, Australia the arborist assessors fell short of the logging assessor standards, so they customised the tickets and produced 3-4 different falling standards. None of these are recognised by the timber industry to my knowledge. The textbook learnt, and improved arborist falling ticket is the source of the deviation from reality.

Are other countries arborist falling tickets, recognised by their respctive logging industries? Discrepencies between the tickets may lead to conflict in court. However long it would take to argue these points in court, the real winners would be the lawyers.
 
So a person assessed as competant as a faller by an arborist or logging assessor, would be recognised as competant to fall in either industry? The logging industry here regards the falling "ticket" as an entry level ticket rather than the indusry standard. There is too much variation in the arborist "tickets" to be that general.
 
theres 3 standard felling assessments, small medium and large trees. then a host of other assessments from winching to multiple windblown then on the climbing tickets.
 
Are these assessments logging or arborist based? In the logging industry our basic difference is soft and hardwood. From there it is divided up into small, medium and large softwoods. Hardwoods are prety much mixed species or alpine. Alpine was always the ticket to get because it allowed you to work most anywhere.

For the arborist falling assessments the courses were customised by non indusry persons, and are a hybrib mix of skills and outcomes and are not recognised by the logging industry.

An example of this would be the "Fall Large trees" competancy in the national competancy standard(aboriculture). Rather than assess an applicants ability to assess the lean and apply a variety of cutting methods. The unit is confused with climbing and cutting off some pieces, and no real changes to the standard falling practices.

I see the many different training outcomes to be very devisive to our industry, and lead to confusion in regard to OH&S matters.
 
Interesting stuff Graeme.
And you hit the nail on the head. The UK certificates of competancy are arborist based.
The problem is, there is very little large hardwood logging anymore. 99% of UK logging is mechanised softwood harvesting.
I was lucky enough to start with my father at 15, and learn the hard (best?) way.
We had extensive oak and beech cutting contracts, but that kind of work is nearly all gone now.
So there is next to nothing to train or assess new guys on.

thats why I see so many guys dismantling trees I'd happily fell.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2253576826393477333
 
i really like the wood type assessmeants / divisions ya mention. i like kerfing under lean side for push as still open side pulls, but that strategy doesn't work well in heavier weights on softer woods. But in our tough Live Oaks works very well, except when compromised/ softened. for the tension side needs elasticity, but compression side needs stiffness! Sometimes in dead wood that is tough/stiff, i can also use this strategy to help make up for loss of elasticity on the tension side (from dead/dry wood), by virtue of the higher stiffness in dead dry wood. But decay is different issue. Another reason to inspect wood thru face for final assessmeant before backcut. The push from compression side (closed) while pulling from tension side (open) especially helpful upstairs (lighter loads) and especially on horizontal sweeps by kerfing under side facing.

i call it a Dutch Push in 1 Side of Face. This does lend some of the force that could go towards a barberchair; except instead of a full face of back pressure to barberchair, provides releif in side you want spar to go to prevent barberchair.
 
In court it becomes a challenge to have 'our' expert present a better case than 'their' expert. It is also the job of 'our' attorney to discredit 'their' expert. It sounds like this didn't happen in the Aus. wedge case.
 
Hey man, I thought you were living in Australia but it sounds like you're describing (general) conditions here in the good old U. S. of A.!
 
The other problem is you may have variances between states.

When we did our felling tickets we used the forestry guides and notes for some of it. Some of the guys in the class who had obtained some of the felling tickets were taught in the pine forests of Beerwah on the sunshine coast.

Here we only have a few radiata forests and we did our small tree felling assessments on them ... they were about 12" DBH and 20m to 30m tall.

For the other we went to an acre-age where the owner was clearing for development. We had a huge supply of big, tall, hazardous, leaning etc trees ... it was a great spot actually and we were assessed on leaners etc. we did assisted falls with 4 wd's wedges etc. In fact, it was bloody great fun.

Well, the world turns in weird ways, experts with insufficient industry hands on skills abound in places of authority .... the whole system needs to be overhauled.

Meanwhile, you need to hope like heck that nothing happens on your jobsite, more like running the gauntlet than running a tree business.

By the way, who funds your lawyers? You have the govt with no limits on one side and on the other you have ????

Oh, and Glens, outside of the USA Australia is the second most litigous nation per head of capita ... in fact most visitors say other than driving on the wrong side of the road it's just like America here. we follow the USA closely.
 
The felling cetificates in the UK are supposed to be forestry based. Currently this is variable however dependant on training provider and there particular route into the training aspect of the industry. The majority of which seem to come from the arb side.
I do agree with mr ed's opinion. The majority of people i have encountered climbing in the industry have little experiance or expertise of felling anything other than the remaining stem of the tree. This is turning a basic skill in tree work into a dying art, which cannot be a good indication for the future health of the skill base the industry requires to fuction safely and efficiently.
 
Angus

You have just verified what i have heard and thought. My above post questioned this and I'm not surprised ... the fine is cheaper than defending yourself.

If a great defense and discreditation would only lower your liability not negate it ... so the legal cost would always be a burden.

THE SYSTEM STINKS! Time to push responsibility down the line the to the individual and time to have your legals covered somehow for a decent defense. Screw the government and their fat cats.

Here in QLD the govt run Workcover, and if you have a bad claim the govt fine you ... go figure, especially if it wasn't your fault.

You watch, the tide will turn.

10 to 15 Years ago some govt came out with unfair dismissal laws ... PITA, now under a 100 employees ... fire away.

Things change, but only if you push them.
 
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