# Three point climbing



## Burnham (Jan 23, 2004)

I wanted to focus on a subject that was touched on by some of you when commenting on some photos that Carl posted recently. Specifically, to define three point climbing. I noted in those comments that it seemed that placement of a lanyard was considered to provide one point of contact. In my training program we have considered a lanyard, placed on a life support grade limb or bole, and with both ends clipped to your harness, to provide two points of contact. What say you to this?

Do any of you attempt to always maintain three points when in the tree, or consider two points, or even one point satisfactory? What exactly do you define as a "point of contact"? Under what conditions do the need for contact points vary? For the sake of simplifying the argument, let's remove saw use from the equation, at least for a part of your replies.

I'm asking about this to help inform my input in an upcoming policy discussion I will be participating in regarding USFS climbing standards. I serve as a technical advisor on the FS national climbing program steering group.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 23, 2004)

Is that 3 points counted from person side, or anchor side?

Is it different if both of the ends of the lanyard connect to the same center D's point? Or just spread/independant points of contact to body count as 2 points?


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 23, 2004)

When refering to "three point contact" I'm usually talking about the old idea that it is safe to climb w/o tie-in.

John Balls work in accident statistics is showing that most falls are due to not having a tie-in while doing some work, wether changing a TIP something else.

IMO the lanyard is one POC your climbing line another, and each foot/hand a separate POC. If you unclip ons side of the lanyard it is useless, so it cannot be 2 points. So the thought prosess is secure contact to the tree. The lanyard in it's entirety is the contact point, not the connection points of the lanyard.

I differentiate between mechanical and manual contact (I know feet cannot be manual...), at all times while in the tree the climber should have at least 1 point of mechanical contact incase something does happen to canus a laoss of control.

When working it is allways good to have 2 tie-ins, especailly when there is a chainsaw. using handsaws, I on occasion work with 2 POC, but there are action/reaction problems there. 1 POC, such as hanging from the rope alone, you end up fighting the work.


----------



## NeTree (Jan 23, 2004)

I carry my flipline and an adjustable lanyard while ascending. For example, I can clip my lanyard in, unclip my flipline, and re-clip my lanyard over a branch. this way here, I'm always tied in with both my climbing line and a flipline/lanyard.


----------



## Tom Dunlap (Jan 23, 2004)

To me, a lanyard is one-point since it is part of a system. If any part of that system fails, the point of contact is gone. Just because it connects to two points doesn't get it double duty.

Tom


----------



## NeTree (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Tom Dunlap _
> *To me, a lanyard is one-point since it is part of a system. If any part of that system fails, the point of contact is gone. Just because it connects to two points doesn't get it double duty.
> 
> Tom *




Correct. By carrying both a flipline and a lanyard, you can maintain that one point when you come to a branch or other obstruction you can't flip over.


----------



## Kneejerk Bombas (Jan 23, 2004)

Isn't a flipline a lanyard?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 23, 2004)

I would think that a flipline implied a wire core.


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> *I carry my flipline and an adjustable lanyard while ascending. For example, I can clip my lanyard in, unclip my flipline, and re-clip my lanyard over a branch. this way here, I'm always tied in with both my climbing line and a flipline/lanyard. *



Erik, do you consider using your climbing line, with a split tail, a lanyard? Or do you climb tied in overhead and use 2 lanyards/fliplines?


----------



## NeTree (Jan 23, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Rich Hoffman _
> *Erik, do you consider using your climbing line, with a split tail, a lanyard?*



Rich- no.

Mike - I use the term "flipline" to denote a wire-cored line (or a stiff non-cored line intendted for the same purpose), and a lanyard as a line, either adjustable or not, that is used as a close-proximity tie-in.

I climb tied in overhead when possible/practical; using a 10' wire-core flipline AND a 3'-6' prussic lanyard so I can use the lanyard to maintain a tie-in while I unclip my flipline around a branch.


----------



## RescueMan (Jan 23, 2004)

It's the same with rock climbing. Stability requires three points of contact (like a tripod - bar stool is not as good an analogy because the beer makes it seem like there's only two legs under you). You move either one hand or one foot at a time. 

In aid climbing, in which a mechanical connection to the rock (aiders or etriers, daisy chain, sky hook, etc.) gives the third point, both hands can be freed for work (such as drilling bolt holes).

I'm sure the same principle holds true for tree climbing: 3 points of contact means 3 direct or indirect connections between body and tree.

- Robert


----------



## BigJohn (Jan 24, 2004)

I can't imagine what it must be like to be so dependent on a lanyard. I use my lanyard once I reach my tie in point and when I want to change my tie in point. The rest of the time in the tree its just hassle, some else to get tangled or in your way. I do however like haveing the lanyard when working down a spar. Balance is much more usefull than a lanyard. Everyone is so set on learning and becomeing better climbers. I believe to be a better climber we need get in better shape and learn to climb without these crutches. For me three points of contact are my own body parts, hands, knees, feet, elbow, head, butt, shoulder. You climbing line is just there in case you fall or want to swing to the other side and supporting your weight when working the tips and not with pole saw.


----------



## B.Secord (Jan 24, 2004)

Just hought I would add my 2 Cents worth,

I believe that a person must look after themselves from the moment their second foot leaves the ground. I doesn't matter which type of climbing system you use, if your climbing line anchor point fails, you are in trouble. Like one of the other fellows I use ALT. The climber has everthing to lose if he comes out of the tree, however, if you only rely on the climbing line the tree has the last say if the anchor point of the climbing line fails. Secondly how many climbers (no matter how good of pre-climb inspection of the tree) have gotten to the crown and discovered some sort of defect in the tree.
Just a thought


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 24, 2004)

i think as far as stability is concerned, 1 point of contact; is like 1 dimensional and can go any direction from there. 2 points is like securing in 2 dimensions, like an axle can flip over this side or that of the axis of the connections. A 3rd point of contact should be out a lil from that axis between the other 2, thus giving 3d support.

a lanyard hitched from hip to hip in this analisys would give 2 seperate body points of control, 2 points to draw an axis through; then 1 more point of contact not on that axis between those points would give stability more than using front D's as 1 single point of conection that both ends of the lanyard hooked to; giving one point, less stable? Even with each end of the lanyard to each of the front D's; might be considered as 1 point for they can flex around to be as one, and are not very far apart at about any, save spread apart loading?

Just as so, from the tree side of the lanyard support system; i think going around a wider trunk would give more "spread out" 3 point contact on that side of the equal and opposite reaction; to be examined also. If all 3 points on the support side eminated from one point, the effect will be different than spread 3 points on the support side of the lanyard; aliken the different stability factors on the person's side of the lanyard. IMLHO

Orrrrrrrr somet'in like that!
:alien:


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Jan 24, 2004)

I always tie in with a lanyard along with my overhead climbing line whenever I fire up a chainsaw. Along with this I make sure that I have a good solid position. Granted this may take longer but my life is worth it. Especially for my wife and 2 kids!


----------



## rahtreelimbs (Jan 24, 2004)

I have to say that Brian's points are based in the realities of climbing. It is nice to be able to move freely in a tree with only your lifeline. Having said that I reinterate that a 2 point tie-in and solid footing are a must before the saw ever gets started.


----------



## NeTree (Jan 24, 2004)

But... knowing the rules makes 'em that much more fun to break, eh?

As a climber, no, i don't necessarily follow ANSI 100 percent of the time.

But as an employer I have to, and enforce the same.

I end up on both sides of the fence.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 24, 2004)

Another PC blunder! I routinely have my saw in my right hand, my rope in my left(or vice-versa), and NO LANYARD.

I only lanyard off when my saw and my rope are NOT opposite from each other.

Again, no recomendations, just how I do it.

:angel:


----------



## B.Secord (Jan 25, 2004)

Burnham,

After re-reading your original post and having a good sleep, I am ready to offer that a lanyard is only one point of contact, and the reason being is that a lanyard ends at a common unit. An arm or a leg (or two of each-I hope) can operate independantly of each other. The tie in points (snap to D) terminate at the saddle, and we know that if we lose this point of mechanical contact it is gone until it can be fixed by the climber.
I believe that you were wanting input to help out our industry, and I think that this is a great place to get it (minus some of the BS). Your original post got me to thinking about all the What-Ifs.
The one question I would have asked is how does a climber with no permanant ground crew (schooled in ariel rescue) plan to get down in the event of a mishap?
Just my 2 cents worth!!

Brent


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jan 25, 2004)

Lanyard very useful to me, two lanyards even more so. climbed a 7' dbh oak up to 80' yesterday using double lanyard system most of the way. (Gorgeous tree; early stages of decline, owners ready to fund life extension efforts--an arborist's dream job.) BS would've worked but branches close together enough above the ladder that imo not worth fussing with.

3 points of contact the old guideline for free climbing, still enough to be secure most of the time. But hey being secure ALL of the time is what it's all about, so now lantard-flipping is habit and I'm happy to have it.

Now if I can just learn to remember that seat belt when I drive...


----------



## RescueMan (Jan 25, 2004)

I'm a rock climbing instructor and I've never heard of anyone doing the "whistle test" on climbers, though I usually try to get new climbers to let go at least once and learn to trust the belay rope. 

The whistle test, however, is commonly described for rescue scenarios in which the entire system (typically a mainline and a belay line with their independent anchors) must be able to catch the live load in the event that all rope handlers let go at once.

I think that some of the confusion in this thread is due to there being two subjects mixed up. The original question by Burnham was the definition of three point climbing, though he also asked "do you always maintain three points when in the tree?"

It seemed that his original question was about safety standards. The responses have been more about maintaining balance while working in the tree rather than about climbing or avoiding falls.

For climbing, three points of contact are necessary for balance and to avoid falls.

For fall protection, using two seperate elements provides safety - such as a rope and a lanyard, or two fliplines for passing leads - so that either element can prevent a fall. 

For work positioning, in addition to fall protection, there is a need for maintaining balance and that's where three points of contact offers the necessary stability.

So, for fall protection, a lanyard is a single element which requires another element so that the lanyard can be moved as required. 
Feet, hands, or spikes are NOT an element of fall protection.

For work positioning, a lanyard clipped to side D-rings provides two points of contact to build the "tripod" necessary for stability.
Feet, hands, or spikes DO provide additional contact points for balance.

Is the mud any clearer?

- Robert


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 25, 2004)

i think it depends on how you set it; surely it only counts as 1 tie in; but spread can give more stability (hips form axis in between). 

Best if spread on both the climber's side and the support side of the system's line (lanyard). Any non parallel loading of the lanyard to support connection would leverage that line, pulling harder on you etc.

i think the term 3 point climbing started out originally in free climbing like JP said, but anything like in army manuals, rock etc.; some confusion to terms as set to ropes as Rescue says.

i think that 3 can be good, 4 pulls, a definite lock. The differance being that body lean against the other lines can secure 4 way, with 3 points of contact; or a 4th line. Different angles and positions on each the support and the climber can make a lot of differance, allowing the things too muddy once more.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 25, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RescueMan _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



It still seems to me that it is one point of contact in both points of veiw because even thogu it connects to the body in two places it conects the body to the tree in one place. Just as five fingers does not constitue multiple POC's.


----------



## Curtis James (Jan 28, 2004)

It was one of the first things I learned from my old boss. Points of contact.
Now I try to follow the rules set before my to keep me safe, if my mind should wander or those moments when no one knows what happened. Bad Luck? I wear my helmet.
I tie in and I climb with two positioning lanyards. One of them is also a two in one. so in some ways there are three. Habit! if using a tool, regardless of hands and feet. tie in + lanyard=life. Lanyard + lanyard= life. Regardless of tool type. and yes I bend the rules. But this is what I strive for. Because $#it always happens to me!!! Climb safe!


----------



## ProfessorPlum (Jan 28, 2004)

A lanyard is only one point of contact for sure, at best. We all do it, but if you're hanging on only your climbing line and lanyard at the same time while making a chainsaw cut, being completely stable is a physical impossibility. This is true simply because the lanyard offers zero resistance in one direction (compression), whereas a hand gripping a limb or a foot crammed into a crotch can offer resistance in all directions.

I can't count the number of times my only option for setting up on an overhung cut was to hang only on climbing line and lanyard (or worse, climbing line only), knowing that the second my chain began to bite, I was going to begin to spin towards the outside of the chainsaw. It happens enough that you just plan to be in that position, but by no stretch of the imagination could you claim to be fully in control of the situation when the position of your body is being determined moment to moment by the angular momentum transferred to you by a running chainsaw. Being able to so much as hook a toe on a branch or the stem (third point of contact) completely alleviates that situation.


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by ProfessorPlum _
> *the lanyard offers zero resistance in one direction (compression), whereas a hand gripping a limb or a foot crammed into a crotch can offer resistance in all directions.
> *
> Good point, Professor. Body contact always gives more security than rope contact, for this reason.
> ...


Well, at least partially. Being closer to the center of the tree where you can make multiple body contact allows you to put a lot of force into a polesaw cut. Hooking a toe or knee around a branch is a great way to gain stability; even away form the tree's center you can be stable enough to reach out and make faraway cuts..


----------



## Guy Meilleur (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *The two terms are not interchangeable.
> *


Not interchangeable, no, but both important to consider. Can you clarify the source of your ? we don't want you reaching for the meds when a little clarity would do ya!


----------



## ProfessorPlum (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *It's sad to see so many climbers that don't know the difference between a tie in point and a point of contact used for balance. The two terms are not interchangeable.
> 
> Dan
> Atlanta *



They aren't the same thing, but under the right circumstances, they can serve identical purposes. It seems like most of the activity on this thread revolves around lanyard use because of exactly this. Sometimes your lanyard is there as a tie in, sometimes it's there as a point of contact. If you're on a standard removal, standing on spikes, leaning back against a tight lanyard around a spar, your lanyard is not there just to keep you from falling; it's there to hold you in place. That makes it a point of contact used for balance.

That is a radically different use for a lanyard then when I secure mine around the stem as an added tie-in when making a cut while standing on both feet and hanging on my climbing line. 

So, while the terms aren't interchangeable, some of the equipment is.


----------



## ProfessorPlum (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *===================
> A lanyard often serves both as a tie in point and a point of contact but....................
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that whether or not balancing would be 'difficult' serves as the litmus test for whether or not you currently have 3 points of contact. 

The physics of the situation still dictate that even using both hip D's, the points of contact aren't independent of each other. If you lose your balance a bit and start to swing to your left, your right D-ring is the only one of those two "points of contact" acting upon you; the left side isn't going to exert any force on you at all, for two reasons: 1) because it's connected to the right side, so that your mass pulling on the right side can only result in the left side cinching in, and 2) because ropes don't exert any force under compression.

The way you're actually connected to the tree in that one-footed, side -D lanyarded situation is a straight axis that runs between your one foot spike and the point of contact between your lanyard and the backside of the tree, around which your mass is capable of revolving. This is actually no different than when you were standing on one foot with both ends of the lanyard connected to your center ring. The only reason it feels more stable is that the two D-rings are giving you torsional stability; you're less likely to begin to twist in the first place. Once you're a little off-center though, the physics of your fall around the tree are going to be identical.

My point is merely this... the point of contact for a lanyard is not where the ends meet your saddle.... it's where the rope centers on the limb/stem.


----------



## Burnham (Jan 28, 2004)

Thank you all for giving my questions some thought and taking the time to weigh in. Many things for me to chew on. Clearly some confusion gets going in defining the phrase "point of contact".

So I'll try to be specific: consider tie in point.

I think I hear some of you saying that you strive for two tie in points at all times...can this be so? How does one ascend or descend, either DdRT or SRT, before next week doing this? Or when one speaks of using a second lanyard to allow one to pass a limb, considering this as working with two tie in points doesn't make sense to me...it's two only long enough to disconnect the lower one to proceed. You are just maintaining one tie in point continuously. 

If I am tied in with a lanyard OR a lifeline (Ddrt or SRT), I am secured...period. True?

For me, the only time a climber would need to use two seperate tie ins would be when using a cutting tool.

Now, consider point of contact.

I believe ANSI Z133 allows for unsecured three point climbing if dense limbs prohibit placement of a lanyard, or some words to that effect. If a climber accepts the hazard of climbing unsecured in such a scenario, what actually would qualify as a point of contact? I think JPS spoke of differenciating between manual and mechanical points of contact...this is a good point. For manual contact, hands work well, an armpit grips strongly, as does the back side of a bent knee. If the stem is small enough in cross section, a forearm can grip against the chest. Straddle a limb with both feet on a limb below it and your thighs grab well. Feet don't do much but resist slippage, no grip there. Same with front of knee, outside of elbow, or butt. And when the deminsions of the piece to be gripped get too large for the gripper (hand, for example) to achieve opposibilty, one would fail to have a secure point of contact, too.

It begins to look like unsecured three point climbing is difficult to perform or justify, and clearly most of you reject the practice as hazardous.

Consider, though, a particular type of climbing. Here in the western US forests are dominated by conifer species, many of which display extremely uniform limb structure, evenly spaced whorls of limbs on a single straight stem. Double lanyard use, while usually possible, is inhibited by the density of limbs at each whorl. Could one justify electing to climb such trees unsecured, while strictly observing the practice of maintaining three points of contact, defined as one hand and two feet, or two hands and one foot, per the required technique for climbing a ladder?Substitute any of the opposible body parts I mentioned earlier into the three point definition. Of course, a lanyard or two would need to be carried to tie in whenever one was unable to maintain the three points of contact while climbing, or stopped to do any work.

I would especially like to hear from some of you who work regularly in these types of trees, but all input is welcomed.


----------



## RescueMan (Jan 28, 2004)

*You're both right!*

TreeCo and Professor Plum are both right, except the good professor is talking theory and the treeman is talking practice.

If one was lanyarded to a smooth metal spar, the professor's points would hold true. But he ignores the considerable friction of rope/strap on bark. While leaning back on the lanyard, the lanyard is effectively "nailed" to the backside of the tree and the points of contact are the two side D-rings. 

Once the climber becomes sufficiently unbalanced to overcome that friction, then the three points of contact become effectively two and the climber will rotate.

- Robert


----------



## ProfessorPlum (Jan 28, 2004)

> _Originally posted by TreeCo _
> *=======================
> 
> Professor,
> ...



While I completely agree with you that feeling balanced in a tree resides in the climber themselves, when we're talking about stability from a purely objective standpoint (and from the standpoint of safety), we're not only talking about feeling balanced, but how resistant you are to outside forces working on you. Give each of the climbers in your example above a good shove, and note the way they fall. You'll see that the mechanics of the fall are exactly the same; in each case, they pivot around that axis that runs between the foot spike and the point where the lanyard meets the tree.

Now, instead, let that same climber sink both gaffs, and draw lines between the points of contact. Each gaff and the point where the rope meets the tree now together form a triangle. A fall by the climber would now need to rotate around that plane, instead of around a single line, which is obviously much more stable. 

If the side-D-rings were really acting as two points of contact, being lanyarded in that way would provide exactly the same stability as placing both hands on the trunk, at which point the lines drawn between each point of contact now form a rectangle. Rotating a rectangle takes a huge amount of angular momentum. 

Now have that climber reach around the back of the tree, and lock their fingers together. Give them a shove. They will be easier to spin then they were when their hands were independent. This is exactly analagous to the lanyard situation; they have traded having two upper points of contact for having a single one on the back of the tree.


----------



## ProfessorPlum (Jan 28, 2004)

*Re: You're both right!*



> _Originally posted by RescueMan _
> *TreeCo and Professor Plum are both right, except the good professor is talking theory and the treeman is talking practice.
> 
> If one was lanyarded to a smooth metal spar, the professor's points would hold true. But he ignores the considerable friction of rope/strap on bark. While leaning back on the lanyard, the lanyard is effectively "nailed" to the backside of the tree and the points of contact are the two side D-rings.
> ...



The friction is important, for sure. When we're talking about pure safety, though, you have to imagine the worst conditions possible. The trunk is icy; the trunk is covered with slime flux; the trunk is only a little wet but it's a beech tree.

I hope I don't come across as being on my high horse here. Like anyone, I do what I need to in order to get something done, and sometimes that's hanging upside down on only my climbing line cutting a limb below me. But when we're talking about something like ANSI standards, "the arborist shall use their best judgement for the situation" doesn't cut it, because frankly, some arborists' judgement sucks (you know the ones, they post on other boards). What cuts it are rules based on sound physics.


----------



## Burnham (Jan 30, 2004)

I slid the following message in a few posts before traffic stalled on this thread, and it seems no one wants to pick up on my clarifications/additional questions. If that is so, just let it die. If some missed this post, and would care to jump in now, thanks.

Here is the text I posted last:

"Thank you all for giving my questions some thought and taking the time to weigh in. Many things for me to chew on. Clearly some confusion gets going in defining the phrase "point of contact".

So I'll try to be specific: consider tie in point.

I think I hear some of you saying that you strive for two tie in points at all times...can this be so? How does one ascend or descend, either DdRT or SRT, before next week doing this? Or when one speaks of using a second lanyard to allow one to pass a limb, considering this as working with two tie in points doesn't make sense to me...it's two only long enough to disconnect the lower one to proceed. You are just maintaining one tie in point continuously. 

If I am tied in with a lanyard OR a lifeline (Ddrt or SRT), I am secured...period. True?

For me, the only time a climber would need to use two seperate tie ins would be when using a cutting tool.

Now, consider point of contact.

I believe ANSI Z133 allows for unsecured three point climbing if dense limbs prohibit placement of a lanyard, or some words to that effect. If a climber accepts the hazard of climbing unsecured in such a scenario, what actually would qualify as a point of contact? I think JPS spoke of differenciating between manual and mechanical points of contact...this is a good point. For manual contact, hands work well, an armpit grips strongly, as does the back side of a bent knee. If the stem is small enough in cross section, a forearm can grip against the chest. Straddle a limb with both feet on a limb below it and your thighs grab well. Feet don't do much but resist slippage, no grip there. Same with front of knee, outside of elbow, or butt. And when the deminsions of the piece to be gripped get too large for the gripper (hand, for example) to achieve opposibilty, one would fail to have a secure point of contact, too.

It begins to look like unsecured three point climbing is difficult to perform or justify, and clearly most of you reject the practice as hazardous.

Consider, though, a particular type of climbing. Here in the western US, forests are dominated by conifer species, many of which display extremely uniform limb structure: evenly spaced whorls of limbs on a single straight stem. Double lanyard use, while usually possible, is inhibited by the density of limbs at each whorl. Could one justify electing to climb such trees unsecured, while strictly observing the practice of maintaining three points of contact, defined as one hand and two feet, or two hands and one foot, per the required technique for climbing a ladder? Substitute any of the opposible body parts I mentioned earlier into the three point definition. Of course, a lanyard or two would need to be carried to tie in whenever one was unable to maintain the three points of contact while climbing, or stopped to do any work.

I would especially like to hear from some of you who work regularly in these types of trees, but all input is welcomed."


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 30, 2004)

> For me, the only time a climber would need to use two seperate tie ins would be when using a cutting tool.



Yes, or when one needs hands free operation, such as changing TIP.

Ascending with sigle point of mechanical contact seems to me to be a good rule of thumb. Double flipline to get through is good, I like to use long ones so that they are more fall protection then body positioning.

We do not have many big conifers here, a 60 ft Norway spruce is big to me.

I would say that there are some occasions were one can climb solely with manual contact, but it should be the exception to the rule. 

How much of free climbing is macho hubris?

What is the gain in the trade off of risk/reward?

If you have that single TIP and you slip at 30, 60, or how ever many feet, then you just catch your breath and keep on going. 

How many of us play the lottery on far longer odds then we have to slip while climbing day in and day out?


----------



## rbtree (Jan 30, 2004)

burnham,

You're right, ANSI does allow for three point climbing, otherwise unsecured, in a dense canopied tree. In such a tree, it may be hard to set a line up high, and moving a lanyard or tossing a lifeline is awkward. 

Many here may castigate us/me for doing this occasionally, but that won't stop me. I used to free climb all the time, now only if it's hard to set a line, or the tree is bombproof as in a young conifer with symmetric branch spacing. Such a climb is kind of like a third class rock climb, and I have been known to free solo mid 5th class.


----------



## RescueMan (Jan 30, 2004)

> Such a climb is kind of like a third class rock climb



Come on, Rbtree, unsecured 3-point tree climbing's gotta be at least a 5-1.

Another (occassional) free solo climber,
- Robert


----------



## Burnham (Jan 30, 2004)

JPS, you quoted me

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me, the only time a climber would need to use two seperate tie ins would be when using a cutting tool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the replied:

"Yes, or when one needs hands free operation, such as changing TIP."



So, you would place TWO lanyards before you would change your TIP? This seems excessive to me...is this what you meant to say...what am I missing?

Note that I also said: 

"Of course, a lanyard or two would need to be carried to tie in whenever one was unable to maintain the three points of contact while climbing, or stopped to do any work."

I would consider work to include resetting ones' TIP...in fact, just stopping to rest or enjoy the view would require placement of a lanyard, in my book.

Thanks very much.


----------



## tjk (Jan 30, 2004)

Hey, Rocky I do have a problem with 2 tie ins while operating a chain saw. I do alot of removals and some times I feel I need an escape route. Their is a clause in the standard that lets you do this. On the two rope thing. When I am prunning larger trees I often use 2 ropes. One to ascend on and one two work on. I ascent SRT but have a doubled rope connected to it. This way I can work my way up one side of the tree. Once I get to the top of the rope half of the tree is already done. This also gets debis to the ground keeping everyone busy. On the way down I prune the rest of the tree. This system has made my more productive and safer. I do not have to go all the way to the top just to come back down. Managing 2 ropes has not been an issue. You may want to give it a shot I have seen several top production climbers use some form of this technique. Then again I have a very productive climber who is a minialmist.


----------



## jamie (Jan 30, 2004)

*aerial rescue*

on the aerial rescue front i was taught by my examiner, if the climbers rope reaches the ground and it is safe and intact and the TIP is ok, climb the rope.....right up to the climber immediatly. another i was told was to have a throwline set at a good central anchor point with all the kit ready......rescue climber in harness and waiting to resuce someone......cos thats practical

jamie


----------



## tjk (Jan 30, 2004)

I disagree with climbing a casulties rope. I feel there are too many variables invloved. It may be too difficult to inspect the person their gear and the tree. With out knowing what happended to the person should we be putting stress on their rope posiably moving the person around.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 30, 2004)

Outstanding post up there, Brian.

I cracked up over the 'cut my rope, that many ropes' comment. Ha! Me too!


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 30, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Burnham _
> *
> "Yes, or when one needs hands free operation, such as changing TIP."
> 
> So, you would place TWO lanyards before you would change your TIP? *



I guess I was not paying close enough attention.

Rushing to get my thoughts down before getting out of the house.

One TIP is all i use when not running a saw.

It seems we are all mostly in agreement here.

Some from of mechanical contact should be the norm for climbing. Though there are some times when there will be the exception to the rule.


----------



## jamie (Jan 31, 2004)

*climbing their rope*

i should have added that we were to check with the casualty that their rope was ok...... and on the way up you can constantly reassure the casualty telling them that they will be moved around a bit and what not.....but its ok

in that resue i was meant to have cut a leg off (?!??!?!) so i was made to scream my lungs out by the examiner.....his thought, might as well make it as real as possible, with out saws cuts etc


jamie


----------



## NeTree (Jan 31, 2004)

> _Originally posted by RockyJSquirrel _
> *I was taught that ANSI requires two tie-ins when operating a chainsaw, period. The rest of the time, one tie-in is required with the exceptions noted by Rog and others.
> *



What's wrong with that? For the most part, that's all I use, unless I'm doing storm work on ice covered stuff.

I've never seen anyone leave an "extra rope" in a tree for aerial rescue. If you're THAT unsure on yourself or the tree, maybe you shouldn't be up there...

As far as climbing the "victims" line, it's a judgement call. If the TIP will handle it, go fer it. The whole idea is to get there ASAP, isn't it?

I use two lanyards on gaffs so I can maintain the 1 tie-in while going up. Unclipping a flipline around a branch means I have to have a handhold while I toss the line over the obstacle and re-clip it.


----------



## John Paul Sanborn (Jan 31, 2004)

> _Originally posted by netree _
> *
> I've never seen anyone leave an "extra rope" in a tree for aerial rescue. If you're THAT unsure on yourself or the tree, maybe you shouldn't be up there...
> *



The rope left in the tree is the SRT mantra that it can be used for entry
 multiple climber
 getting back up in the tree after lunch
 re-entry in a tree were it is easier to exit after finnishin one section.
 and can be ther incase of an accident and rescue is needed
[/list=1] 

It's not the sole reason, but an added bennefit.


----------

