Why catching falls on a dynamic rope in tree climbing is a terrible idea ;-)

Do commercial recreational climbing (tree or rock) operations use screw gate or do they use ANSI compliant for insurance reasons?
 
Again that's a business and it would be in their best interest to use industry standard equipment for legal reasons, not because it's any better. When the rock gym in Sooke BC started business, there were no triple action biners, I'm not aware of any legal actions against them regarding a failure of a screw gate biner. At some point they were likely forced by bureaucracy to change equipment? Frankly, I like the triple action biners and wouldn't normally use any other kind in my life support system. However, I do use screw gates back to back in certain circumstances. And to be honest, I don't know what the entire world does regarding biners in rock gyms? I'm sure it varies around the globe? I do know some of the gyms are pretty militaristic on what they allow a climber to use.
ANSI standards are not law, they are voluntary! A business is not legally required to use ANSI recommendations.
 
ANSI cannot enforce anything, they are policy makers and testers and such. They are not OSHA or Workers Comp. ANSI approval is industries stamp of approval not unlike Organic is to agriculture.
 
Stephen Moore said:
Only in industry does that matter, you wont find a Workers comp guy checking a recreational climbers biner! And if it was the case, every sport climber doing super exposed climbs 1000 feet off the deck should be using triple action biners? As well, all the sport biner manufacturers would be getting sued for every instance that a rope unclipped itself due to bad design? Screw gates have been effectively used for years! heck many of you guys use quick links on your TIPs that's a screw gate. I don't I use 2 lockers flipped both ways.
Click to expand...
The importance of my life support doesn't have subcategories for work, play, insurance, ANSI or anything else. Dead is dead and there's usually some logic behind the concepts that keeps me from dead. Quick links have a torque specification that will keep them closed under normal use and don't have the same side load restrictions as carabiners, so yes, they do work great for anchors whereas a carabiner has knurling on the gate that may make it more susceptible to being unscrewed unintentionally with all of the movement a tree climber makes and have no specifications for making them a semi-permanent connection.
 
yoyoman said:
The importance of my life support doesn't have subcategories for work, play, insurance, ANSI or anything else. Dead is dead and there's usually some logic behind the concepts that keeps me from dead. Quick links have a torque specification that will keep them closed under normal use and don't have the same side load restrictions as carabiners, so yes, they do work great for anchors whereas a carabiner has knurling on the gate that may make it more susceptible to being unscrewed unintentionally with all of the movement a tree climber makes and have no specifications for making them a semi-permanent connection.
Click to expand...
Yep I get that, in all my years of using a screw gate I have never had one come open on me, nor has one failed during normal use. Yes the quick link is more bomber for sure and really a wrench should be used to snug them which is not quite as convenient as a auto or screw gate.
 
ATH said:
Do commercial recreational climbing (tree or rock) operations use screw gate or do they use ANSI compliant for insurance reasons?
Click to expand...

Screw lock gates are standard in rock gyms, ropes course etc. Most recreational tree climbing instructors teach auto-lockers, a few don't. Tree climbers are constantly opening and closing locking carabiners during a climb, rock or gym climbers are not. Practicality is a huge factor beyond safety concerns. I really don't want to be spinning a gate lock every time I move my lanyard.
-AJ
 
yoyoman said:
Click to expand...
Seriously though, during normal use have you ever broken a biner? Sure, I’ve pulled them apart with a truck, flipped out of non lockers and broke a gate, but I have yet to break a biner by side loading during normal use. Not using winches or trucks or mechanical advantage that is.
 
Mika Marcondes de Freitas said:
QUESTION: are you worried about falling one or two feet on your semi-static or arborist rope? How do you deal with that? You mentioned you sometimes "safely do moves up the tree not relying on rope tension." (I'm paraphrasing it a bit.) Could you please clarify what you meant by that?

This article talks a bit about the dangers of short, static falls. emphasis on 'short' --- they're really talking about 1 or 2 feet falls, not 10' falls. (See also this video.)

Are you concerned about this as tree climbers? If not, why not? Is semi-static or arborist rope dynamic enough to absorb the shock from a couple feet fall? Is the tree dynamic enough? I think it was @Stephen Moore who mentioned the tree is a dynamic anchor.


Apologies in advance for the potential misuse or confusing use of terminology. I will be glad to clarify anything i've written to anybody who asks ;-) I'm just here to learn and have fun!

Thank you all once again for the help --- this is the best tree-climbing forum i've come across :)
Click to expand...

By the way can you send me a check? This is serious instructor work answering your detailed questions ;-)

The climber in the video above is essentially showing that when you're advancing you always remain tied in. His lanyard provides that protection as he resets his main rope. The fundamental principle is always tied in when you're in the tree.

Beginner climbers are more likely to stay under rope tension when they're doing a "switchover" or re-pitching. More advanced climbers have the skill and confidence to have a slight amount of slack in a lanyard or main climbing line when they're advancing. The amount of slack the climber had in his lanyard (in the video) would only cause scratches if he somehow fell. At no time was he free climbing although he was using free climbing technique, ie: climbing with hands and feet.

Again we're talking about individual tree climber style. An experienced tree climber would set their rope much higher from the ground, the climber in the video was demonstrating technique that would be normally used much higher in the crown of the tree.

I understand that you're not a rock climber, I've been comparing tree climbing and rock climbing because you're talking about dynamic rope and other gear and technique more commonly used by rock/alpine climbers.
-AJ
 
Last edited:
To continue my reply...

Yes trees are "dynamic" anchors except when they're not. If you fall any distance on a static rope on any kind of substantial oak limb close to the trunk, there will be zero or inconsequential flex. In fact there will be zero flex in most species if your anchor is at the union of a limb and the trunk. That's what I mean when I say trees are a highly variable environment, your technique and gear must work for climbing in all parts of a tree and in many different types and species of trees.

Tree strength and flex are not quantifiable in real time by a tree climber. The tree climber is constantly assessing and judging these qualities as they go based on their experience and skill level. This does not even cover skills required to detect defects. A beginner climber should be more conservative in anchor choices, it takes time in trees to learn about these qualities including knowledge per species in your locale.

In regard to your link about the dangers of short static falls, tree climbers are not falling that far, even as short as what is described in the linked material. So no, not worried about that, a tree climber does not climb above their anchor without protection from a lanyard.

On the far other end you'll see experienced climbers doing huge swings, this really is a controlled kind of fall. The climber is building dynamic flex into the system based on anchor choice, rope length etc., a completely different paradigm, advanced stuff not relevant in a discussion of tree climbing fundamentals.

Based on what I've been saying does it now make more sense that a dynamic rope (20-30% stretch) offers no advantage for a tree climber's life support connection to a tree?
-AJ
 
Last edited:
moss said:
To continue my reply...

Yes trees are "dynamic" anchors except when they're not. If you fall any distance on a static rope on any kind of substantial oak limb close to the trunk, there will be zero or inconsequential flex. In fact there will be zero flex in most species if your anchor is at the union of a limb and the trunk. That's what I mean when I say trees are a highly variable environment, your technique and gear must work for climbing in all parts of a tree and in many different types and species of trees.

Tree strength and flex are not quantifiable in real time by a tree climber. The tree climber is constantly assessing and judging these qualities as they go based on their experience and skill level. This does not even cover skills required to detect defects. A beginner climber should be more conservative in anchor choices, it takes time in trees to learn about these qualities including knowledge per species in your locale.

In regard to your link about the dangers of short static falls, tree climbers are not falling that far, even as short as what is described in the linked material. So no, not worried about that, a tree climber does not climb above their anchor without protection from a lanyard.

On the far other end you'll see experienced climbers doing huge swings, this really is a controlled kind of fall. The climber is building dynamic flex into the system based on anchor choice, rope length etc., a completely different paradigm, advanced stuff not relevant in a discussion of tree climbing fundamentals.

Based on what I've been saying does it now make more sense that a dynamic rope (20-30% stretch) offers no advantage for a tree climber's life support connection to a tree?
-AJ
Click to expand...
Sure does and you have taken the time to make very valid points. It must be hard for stone climbers to think they have to give all of that up and start all over again. Kind of like a fixed wing pilot thinking a helicopter is the same up and down. I will use my rock climbing harness to make my ascent to the hammock for a good nights sleep though.
 
yoyoman said:
Sure does and you have taken the time to make very valid points. It must be hard for stone climbers to think they have to give all of that up and start all over again. Kind of like a fixed wing pilot thinking a helicopter is the same up and down. I will use my rock climbing harness to make my ascent to the hammock for a good nights sleep though.
Click to expand...

The right tool for a nap!
 
yoyoman said:
Sure does and you have taken the time to make very valid points. It must be hard for stone climbers to think they have to give all of that up and start all over again. Kind of like a fixed wing pilot thinking a helicopter is the same up and down. I will use my rock climbing harness to make my ascent to the hammock for a good nights sleep though.
Click to expand...
Except the point he made was stone and trees are the same? No mercy, no cushion either way you slice it. The gear chain eats the impact and if it doesn't, your body eats it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom