# A Safer More Efficient Tree Industry Future?



## jomoco (Nov 26, 2013)

It has long been my contention that today's tree industry leaders, or powers that be, are an old boys club that does not represent the best interests of the average tree worker.

A glaring proof of this grisly reality dealing with life and death issues for average treeworkers is the rising numbers of modern whole tree chipper fatalities, and the stance taken on this issue by the current leaders of our industry today. Which is only conducive to the interests of WTC manufacturers, not the life and well being of literally thousands and thousands of treeworkers operating WTC's in the field every work day. Essentially exposing thousands to the hazard of suffering a slow medieval form torturous death unthinkable to inflict on the most evil mass murderers in today's modern society.

How many WTC operators have suffered this medieval form of death since WTC's were introduced onto the market in 1989? Over 60 and rising.

What do our industry leaders recommend to prevent and lessen the numbers of such grisly death and dismemberment? Better training and chipper feeding protocols enforcement measures.

What do both federal and state OSHA, NIOSH and FACE officials recommend to lessen the numbers of WTC fatalities? A two man minimum WTC operator policy being established in the tree industry.

Which begs the question of why our current industry leaders have chosen to back the practice letting a single operator feed WTC's. If they make a mistake? Too bad.

The discriminatory hypocrisy on full display here is glaring. Our leaders would never dream of actively recommending a hazardous tree be climbed and worked on by a single climber alone. Indeed they've created best practices and policies require a qualified second climber be present on the jobsite. Even sometimes going so far as setting a secondary rescue climbing line in the tree being worked just in case.

Clear objective proof that the leaders at the helm of this industry today put a far higher value on the climber's life and well being, than that of a lowly chipper operator feeding a huge 200 horsepower WTC alone. So much so that they've chosen to ignore the number one recommendation
Of state and federal officials to prevent these gruesome tragedies.

My bringing this matter up for discussion and debate among my peers in this biz seems to invariably lead to thread lock downs and censorship. Even on some ostensibly professional tree industry forums. It's been many years since I've posted anything at AS.

Should be interesting whether opposing points of view to this industry's status quo will be allowed at AS today?

jomoco


----------



## MarquisTree (Nov 26, 2013)

Oh god time to start beating the horse again


----------



## Toddppm (Nov 26, 2013)

jomoco said:


> It's been many years since I've posted anything at AS.jomoco


Why is that? Why now?

Anyway, I can agree with most of what you've written. I think that 60 deaths number is probably way low. Every seen that show How it's Made? Some pretty cool stuff on there showing manufacturing processes. In a couple of those they have these huge machines that are stamping pieces of steel into forms or cutting metal and the machine won't operate unless both hands on depressing a handle on either side so you can't have 1 in the way. But that's a pretty controlled environment compared to treework. Having 2 guys , 1 holding a safety or something might not be a bad idea. Think it'd be better than all of the goofy bars like on the vermeers that you have to lean against- towards the inlet actually!

Haven't seen this horse before, where was it beat on? the buzz or something?


----------



## MarquisTree (Nov 26, 2013)

http://www.************/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=366345&Main=364399#Post366345

Before anyone wastes the time trying to have a meaning full two way constructive discussion on this topic, check this thread out,

Oh yeah I can't link stuff from tb to as, whatever. JO just likes to use this topic to accuse everyone else as having no regard for human life...


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 26, 2013)

I don't have time right now to read the 16 pages on the other forum right now, but I will.

I've never run a big chipper, but I've been working with farm machinery for my whole life, and spent the last 20 years working in a metal fab shop running and setting the presses Todd mentions, so I have a pretty good idea of what industrial safety is.

Not gonna lock this down just yet, but no promises if there's no intelligent conversation.

From a devils advocate point of view, maybe we should require two drivers in all cars, in case the main driver is busy texting and fails to notice the red light?


----------



## jomoco (Nov 26, 2013)

Toddppm said:


> Why is that? Why now?
> 
> Anyway, I can agree with most of what you've written. I think that 60 deaths number is probably way low. Every seen that show How it's Made? Some pretty cool stuff on there showing manufacturing processes. In a couple of those they have these huge machines that are stamping pieces of steel into forms or cutting metal and the machine won't operate unless both hands on depressing a handle on either side so you can't have 1 in the way. But that's a pretty controlled environment compared to treework. Having 2 guys , 1 holding a safety or something might not be a bad idea. Think it'd be better than all of the goofy bars like on the vermeers that you have to lean against- towards the inlet actually!
> 
> Haven't seen this horse before, where was it beat on? the buzz or something?



Actually the Vermeer feed chute bump bars are such a pita to get any true production out of without a second operator leaning on the bypass button? They pretty much require two operators to get a decent production rate out of. Making the big Vermeer chippers considerably safer to operate providing two operators are used to feed them.

Kinda ironic, but nonetheless true in my experience

jomoco


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

So, what models are you considering "whole tree"? Vermeer labels one machine, the WC2300XL, as whole tree on their site. That's a 440HP machine. I can't imagine any one, two, or however many guys feeding that thing by hand being close to efficient. Something that size has to be mechanically fed to keep it productive.

You mean to tell me there's tree services out there running a machine this size to chip BRUSH? That's like mowing my lawn with one of these:


----------



## sgreanbeans (Nov 27, 2013)

JOMOCO, Is that you in that Dr Sillette vid of the redwoods?


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

I consider any hydraulically fed chipper with over a 12 inch wood eating capacity a WTC Steve.

I'd love to hear some objective discussion on the industry coddling of us precious climbers via aerial rescue training seminars and regulations requiring a qualified second climber on the job. Whereas the poor stalwart humble groundie gets the shaft, or err mandrel, all alone, in increments if the auto feed is engaged.

No SGB. Not me in the Dr. S vid.

jomoco


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

It comes with experience , some experience has to be much worse then others for some people to get the picture . Guys running Chippers need to know the boundaries , you get lazy or complacent then your chipper meat . You will never be able to build a truly safe chipper when you have a human feeding it , no matter how many eyes are watching .


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

How can we have a safer more efficient industry when Joe blow can buy a WTC, drive over to the nearest WalMart parking lot, hire some poor schmuck, spend 10-15 minutes teaching them the dos and don'ts of feeding a WTC, and legally avoid any responsibility for that operator's death when he gets spit into the back of a chiptruck?

All the big outfits I've subbed for have an in company two man minimum rule for WTC operation that they voluntarily established as a strict company policy.

Yet TCIA, Peter Gerstenberger specicifically, gets away with insisting that it's ok to have a solo operator hand feed a BC1800? This despite the fact that BC1800's have eaten about a dozen experienced chipper operators? And he's this industry's safety leader? What a joke!

We're supposed to ignore the fact that Vermeer, Morbark, Bandit etc, are some of TCIA's biggest sources of income? Meanwhile the slaughter continues, aided and abetted by TCIA saying it's cool to ignore the state and Feds number one recommendation to help prevent these on the job fatalities!

jomoco


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

I don't know anyone who hires guys and lets them run. 80K machines just saying .


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

I think that there is alot of other more important issues that should be fixxed first in the tree industry. Not saying this isnt important but there is alot more dangerous things that should come first. Common sense goes a long way in the tree industry. 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

How many climbers have been killed tying onto cranes during crane assisted removals? 50? A dozen? Six? Any?

Yet TCIA has bent over backwards establishing rules and regulations for climbers tying onto cranes in this biz.

What gives with this active discrimination against WTC operators in this industry?

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

Just about everything in this industry can or will kill you. Whats your agenda?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

I don't discriminate ..... I just feel like although in happyville no one would ever get hurt . But like a said a Chippers sole purpose is to destroy trees. The human body is shaped like a tree and much easier to process . Chippers need to be fast and effective bottom line it's not the manufacturer that wants that it's the buyer ! Start with changing the thoughts of the owner . No one likes laws that replace common sense . Just saying


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

What's my agenda?

A safer more efficient tree industry for all treeworkers.

Speaking out for those unrepresented in this biz.

Raising the standards of professionalism in this industry.

It can and does happen.

There are literally tens of thousands of living trees that don't bear the scars of climbing lines since I introduced cambium savers onto the market back in 92.

jomoco


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

I have super cheap really safe solution ! For real it would be awesome . Just gotta have someone to support my thought . Basically my system would be a eye scanner that is common In stores to prevent theft installed on the infeed chute of the machine , the operator would simply use tape either on there sleeves or pant legs that when passes the scanner instantly stops the infeed wheels by using a simple selenoid that could be retrofitted for any age machine with hydraulic infeed , for drum chuck and ducks a shut off selenoid that instantly kills the motor hopefully that would slow the machine enough to prevent death. The system I believe could be sold for less then 1000.00 dollars


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Wanna go a step further make a glove with the the the reflective material built in or pants that have it around the cuffs , I mean you could even go as far as putting on a hard hat full proof and cheap


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Jared my idea was so bad it stopped him dead in his tracks ! LOL kill it with stupidity I guess


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

Your idea is not bad TC101. Just unoriginal since an Australian bloke name of Mather was granted a patent on the idea back in 01.

A WTC two man minimum operating rule is a modest very doable improvement on the current status quo that can lessen the numbers of WTC fatalities in this biz.

A very modest goal that TCIA should get on board with before the state and fed officials force them to.

jomoco


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Your very muddy water when you start telling employers that they need a specific amount of employees to do a certain job , at best you may get a "recommendation " you would never see a law saying that a employer has too have 2 people doing the job that can be done safely by a single person and demonstrated as such


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Then you will have other occupations lining up to follow suit who simply feel that there specific job is just too hard and they need assistance . You cannot pick and choose .


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

How bout we get rid of chippers and climbers and bucket trucks and we just use high power laser beams to vaporize the trees.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> How bout we get rid of chippers and climbers and bucket trucks and you just use high power laser beams to vaporize the trees.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


It appears your making a mockery of this now !


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

treeclimber101 said:


> It appears your making a mockery of this now !


Oh was it that apparent.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> Oh was it that apparent.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


Apparently this guy invented the false crotch ....... Show diche some respect !


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

So, Whores invented the dirty crotch.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> So, Whores invented the dirty crotch.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


What did you ever invent !?!?!?


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Me !!!!! I invented the 14 hour work week !


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

I love the way some of you guys ignore the fact that many industries, say crane companies, are required by laws both state and federal, to have two qualified operators on the job site to legally operate any crane over 100 ton capacity.

jomoco


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> I love the way some of you guys ignore the fact that many industries, say crane companies, are required by laws both state and federal, to have two qualified operators on the job site to legally operate any crane over 100 ton capacity.
> 
> jomoco


It's not to operate the machine in tandem , and that was put in place by the worker state and federal after request by the worker . I don't see too many supporters of what you are selling.


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

Why do you think the qualified two man minimum large crane operating rule was established TC101?

Safety first company policies get lots of advertising space and lip service. Right up to the point it costs the companies a second man's daily wage.

Reputable crane companies take on the job safety seriously enough to pony up the coin. The same is true in this biz, but truly reputable tree companies are a distinct minority.

I'm trying to change that sad fact.

jomoco


----------



## tree MDS (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> I consider any hydraulically fed chipper with over a 12 inch wood eating capacity a WTC Steve.
> 
> I'd love to hear some objective discussion on the industry coddling of us precious climbers via aerial rescue training seminars and regulations requiring a qualified second climber on the job. Whereas the poor stalwart humble groundie gets the shaft, or err mandrel, all alone, in increments if the auto feed is engaged.
> 
> ...



I think I mentioned this the last time this was brought up here, but my chipper is something like 12x24". I'm fairly certain it would swallow me up in a hearbeat. So the next step should be including 12" chippers too. I mean it's not hard enough for the little guys to make a living as it is.. next we're gonna have the chipper police hiding in the bushes, making sure there's two men at the machine at all times. The whole thing just doesn't seem very realistic to me. Hey, at least getting chipped seems like it would be a quick way to go. You do make a good point about the autofeed though, that could be a real PITA (literally).


----------



## tree MDS (Nov 27, 2013)

Maybe you need to change the thread title to "a safer tree industry future", because I'm just not seeing the efficiency part.


----------



## stltreedr (Nov 27, 2013)

I once saw a tablesaw that stopped instantly when the blade touched human flesh... something to do with an electrical current that faulted when it touched a more conductive surface than wood. The thought of a chipped up coworker (or me) is often in the back of my head. We never work alone, but I can't say that we always have an extra guy to stand right next to the chipper to hit the reverse wheels.


----------



## chief116 (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> I love the way some of you guys ignore the fact that many industries, say crane companies, are required by laws both state and federal, to have two qualified operators on the job site to legally operate any crane over 100 ton capacity.
> 
> jomoco



You lost me with this argument. Your logic on that one is asinine. Running a 100+ton crane is the equivalent of running a woodchuck hyroller? Is your next thread going to be making apple pickers wear OSHA approved hard hats?

60 deaths in 24 years and you are pushing for what? a law that requires an extra guy to watch me work? and then I get to take a break and watch him work? How do you propose to regulate common sense? Is the Vermeer 1800 really the biggest, baddest, most dangerous chipper you can imagine? That's what the line clearance crews drag around.

And yes, I've seen an experienced chipper "operator" pulled in. His baggy clothes got caught and the feedwheel was gnawing on his helmet when the panic bar was hit. A very unfortunate accident that didn't have a tragic ending.

I don't want to see anyone in this industry hurt, but I don't see the need for any rules like this.


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

tree MDS said:


> Maybe you need to change the thread title to "a safer tree industry future", because I'm just not seeing the efficiency part.



I gather you believe having one man feeding a WTC is more efficient than having two men feed it?

jomoco


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

Jomoco, I took a 10 hour OSHA course at work a while back. While some of that knowledge wandered off, there's still a bit roaming around in here. I'm going to refer you to this page so you get what I'm saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_control

Of the control types, your 2 man idea is an administrative control. Way down the preference list. TC101's sensor idea is an engineered control, although it depends on PPE to work, better would be a sonic sensor that could differentiate between wood and flesh... Made to work, it would be preferred over your idea, but still not foolproof. Substitution, probably requires using a mechanical feed on machines of this size, or going with a tub grinder over a feed chipper. Removing the hazard, would probably mean hauling the brush in bulk to an off site mechanical processing facility.

Basically, what I'm saying is that in the safety world, your two man theory is one of the least preferred methods of improving safety, as it doesn't take the human potential out of it. Like we say at work, make something idiot proof, and they'll invent a better idiot.

You guys that run chippers feel free to tell me if I'm full of ####, like I said before, I don't run one, just have a lot of mechanical experience.


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

I bet there has been more tree workers killed in the last 24 years by auto accidents where they didnt wear there seat belts.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

chief116 said:


> And yes, I've seen an experienced chipper "operator" pulled in. His baggy clothes got caught and the feedwheel was gnawing on his helmet when the panic bar was hit. A very unfortunate accident that didn't have a tragic ending.
> 
> I don't want to see anyone in this industry hurt, but I don't see the need for any rules like this.



Did it occur to you that having a second man in proximity to your chipper is the only reason the situation you've described did not end tragically Chief?

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> Did it occur to you that having a second man in proximity to your chipper is the only reason the situation you've described did not end tragically Chief?
> 
> jomoco


He never said a second person hit the panic bar. You assumed and you know what happens when you assume dont you?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

There's a very good reason that all the officials whose job is investigating wood chipper fatalities on the job have come to the same conclusion. Hence their number one recommendation for preventing these fatalities is having two men working together in close proximity to the chipper.

IMO, the over-riding reason TCIA will be forced to change their tune on safe WTC operations quite soon.

jomoco


----------



## tree MDS (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> I gather you believe having one man feeding a WTC is more efficient than having two men feed it?
> 
> jomoco


Financially speaking, at times, yes.


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

Often I do tree work with myself and a groundie. So when I am in the tree or bucket, he is chipping alone. 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> Often I do tree work with myself and a groundie. So when I am in the tree or bucket, he is chipping alone.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk



Me too. But my groundie invariably feeds a BC1000 when chipping solo.

jomoco


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

Del_ said:


> Don't you have a patent or two on devices concerning this subject?



Yes Del. But I let the patent expire on purpose in the late 90's.

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> Yes Del. But I let the patent expire on purpose in the late 90's.
> 
> jomoco


Sounds like you have been fighting a losing battle for a long time. Maybe its time to give it ar est?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## Pelorus (Nov 27, 2013)

Implement a two person 12" chipper rule, and 11" chippers will start selling like hotcakes!
Ever wonder why 9.9hp outboard motors get sold?


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

Pelorus said:


> Implement a two person 12" chipper rule, and 11" chippers will start selling like hotcakes!
> Ever wonder why 9.9hp outboard motors get sold?


Let me guess because ther under 10 hp. Lol

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> I consider any hydraulically fed chipper with over a 12 inch wood eating capacity a WTC Steve.
> 
> I'd love to hear some objective discussion on the industry coddling of us precious climbers via aerial rescue training seminars and regulations requiring a qualified second climber on the job. Whereas the poor stalwart humble groundie gets the shaft, or err mandrel, all alone, in increments if the auto feed is engaged.
> 
> ...



Note that I said over a 12inch capacity guys.

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

I would have to believe that a 8" chipper would pull you in even as easy as a 18" chipper would.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco, what part of the design of say, a 14" chipper makes it more inherently dangerous than a 12" chipper? Educate me, or I might lose interest. If I lose interest, I might just lock this MFer down.


----------



## tree MDS (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> Note that I said over a 12inch capacity guys.
> 
> jomoco



That was my point. Plenty of 12" chippers out there that could swallow a guy up no problem (well, maybe not some members here, but you get my point). Actually, I'm pretty sure with the bandits, the 12" machines have a faster feed rate (120' per minute, vs. 100) than the larger machines. Maybe that's the answer, jusy make them painfully slow.. lol, no pun intended.


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> I would have to believe that a 8" chipper would pull you in even as easy as a 18" chipper would.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk



How many documented 8-10 inch capacity wood chipper fatalities can you provide a link to? One?

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> How many documented 8-10 inch capacity wood chipper fatalities can you provide a link to? One?
> 
> jomoco


How many fatalities can you provide a link to for chippers over 10". Post them up I wanna see them

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> jomoco, what part of the design of say, a 14" chipper makes it more inherently dangerous than a 12" chipper? Educate me, or I might lose interest. If I lose interest, I might just lock this MFer down.



It's the hydraulic feed wheel mechanism combined with rated horse power above 90 or so that seems to be the tipping point in terms of fatalities.

The old 16 inch capacity chuck n ducks took lots of fingers, hands and arms, along with missing teeth, concussions etc. But I never heard tale of them eating a groundie whole and spitting them into the back of a chiptruck.

jomoco


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2013)

the obvious answer is the larger the branch being thrown in the larger the risk of being caught and pulled in. 3" branches aren't going to do it unless your a midget


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> It's the hydraulic feed wheel mechanism combined with rated horse power above 90 or so that seems to be the tipping point in terms of fatalities.
> 
> The old 16 inch capacity chuck n ducks took lots of fingers, hands and arms, along with missing teeth, concussions etc. But I never heard tale of them eating a groundie whole and spitting them into the back of a chiptruck.
> 
> jomoco



Not buying that for a second. "Small" machines, like the Vermeer 1000 you mentioned, have the same feed system (which I'm pretty familiar with, it's the same system used on forage harvesters), and 90hp is an arbritrary number you've picked out for your purposes, whatever they are. There's PROBABLY (due to me not having done any scientific research) no way that you could stop yourself from being pulled into a system powered by a 10hp Briggs without a stop system.

Back to school, if you're going to spout here, get some hard facts out, and soon.


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

NCTREE said:


> the obvious answer is the larger the branch being thrown in the larger the risk of being caught and pulled in. 3" branches aren't going to do it unless your a midget


Thats not true. A small branch could snag you and pull you in just as easy as a big one.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## tree MDS (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> Thats not true. A small branch could snag you and pull you in just as easy as a big one.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk



Yeah, but I'd love to see you try and fit inside a 10" machine. lol


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

tree MDS said:


> Yeah, but I'd love to see you try and fit inside a 10" machine. lol


It would just rip your arm off. Maybe thats the answer. You need to hire really fat groundies

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> How many fatalities can you provide a link to for chippers over 10". Post them up I wanna see them
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk



https://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib041608.html

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> https://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib041608.html
> 
> jomoco


Where is the numbers broke down by machine size and hp

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2013)

2treeornot2tree said:


> Thats not true. A small branch could snag you and pull you in just as easy as a big one.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


my experience working with chippers it certainly is


tree MDS said:


> Yeah, but I'd love to see you try and fit inside a 10" machine. lol


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

NCTREE said:


> my experience working with chippers it certainly is


You must not have much experience then.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> https://www.osha.gov/dts/shib/shib041608.html
> 
> jomoco



That incident didn't mention size of machine, it also shows me that it's an OSHA "recommended practice" (not required, however), to:

"Designate one or more employees as a safety watch to be stationed near emergency shut-off devices while other employees feed material into the chipper."

So now, I question the need for this thread at all, since what you're asking for is already an OSHA recommendation, and it really doesn't matter one bit what TCIA says about it.

Edited for punctuation.


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2013)

Feeding a WTC with one man just leave the door open for more things to go wrong. Bigger machine with more power and one person struggling to feed it with a huge piece, it easier to be caught off balance or feed it from the wrong position. I seen close calls happen with just a 12" machine.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Does anyone else feel there being punked right now ?


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

treeclimber101 said:


> Does anyone else feel there being punked right now ?



Won't last much longer without the OP putting facts on the table. Of that much, I'm certain.


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2013)

Steve NW WI said:


> Won't last much longer without the OP putting facts on the table. Of that much, I'm certain.


Why's that? Is it breaking a forum rule or just annoying you? It's a conversation amoungst professionals, this is the commercial tree care isn't it?


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 27, 2013)

NCTREE said:


> Why's that? Is it breaking a forum rule or just annoying you? It's a conversation amoungst professionals, this is the commercial tree care isn't it?



The rules seem to be generic with the new software - I'll have Darin look into that. However, he has posted stuff that's defamatory without evidence to back it up. That's enough for me, heck, if I wanted to go with spam-like, I could just delete most of the threads on most of the forums here.



> You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.


----------



## Pelorus (Nov 27, 2013)

If you're gonna use a big chipper don't be feeding it by hand! (I think that was my doomed rationale on your buzz thread, Jomoco). My wee 6" Bandit can tire me out (me being a dissipated wreck and all). I just can't imagine the strength innate to some of you brutes (not naming names, Jared) if you can drag and lift monster limbs (whole trees!) onto the infeed table....by hand. Don't be feeding carnivores at the zoo by hand either.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

My issue is I have answered a few specific questions and the response is a broad sweep of the same over and over like a robot .


----------



## Pelorus (Nov 27, 2013)

Your patience and understanding is admirable, Eddie.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

Pelorus said:


> If you're gonna use a big chipper don't be feeding it by hand! (I think that was my doomed rationale on your buzz thread, Jomoco). My wee 6" Bandit can tire me out (me being a dissipated wreck and all). I just can't imagine the strength innate to some of you brutes (not naming names, Jared) if you can drag and lift monster limbs (whole trees!) onto the infeed table....by hand. Don't be feeding carnivores at the zoo by hand either.


I have ran 20 " hand fed machines . And even if you winch it up you still need to work the tree and the machine at times to be efficient . Bottom line don't go in or your not coming out with all your parts ! Simple if we keep watering down experience we will just be a group of apes . I don't need someone telling me common sense . And if I gotta explain to someone common sense well then they lack it ..... Hence whatever they do is dangerous


----------



## NCTREE (Nov 27, 2013)

treeclimber101 said:


> I have ran 20 " hand fed machines . And even if you winch it up you still need to work the tree and the machine at times to be efficient . Bottom line don't go in or your not coming out with all your parts ! Simple if we keep watering down experience we will just be a group of apes . I don't need someone telling me common sense . And if I gotta explain to someone common sense well then they lack it ..... Hence whatever they do is dangerous


Inexperience is a big factor probably the biggest when it comes too injury


----------



## Blakesmaster (Nov 27, 2013)

When do we get to the "dragon-tail" effect bit? That's always been a favorite of mine. The solution is far simpler than most of you realize. Follow the manufacturers guidelines printed in BOLD ****ING LETTERS ON THE SIDE OF THE MACHINE and you won't get sucked in.


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

We should go ol school and incinerate the trees ! That'll work until someone tries to warm there hands and gets burned


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

treeclimber101 said:


> We should go ol school and incinerate the trees ! That'll work until someone tries to warm there hands and gets burned


I like my laser idea better. 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

Why is it acceptable for this industry to establish a two man minimum rule to help protect the well being of climbers on the job, but not do the same for WTC operators on the job?

How is that not discrimination that puts a higher value on climbers lives?

jomoco


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

jomoco said:


> Why is it acceptable for this industry to establish a two man minimum rule to help protect the well being of climbers on the job, but not do the same for WTC operators on the job?
> 
> How is that not discrimination that puts a higher value on climbers lives?
> 
> jomoco


Its not a rule it's a recommendation

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jefflovstrom (Nov 27, 2013)

I came upon this well know thread, This debate could go on forever. I have never commented on it because I think Jons' passion is his reality, as it should be.
Anyway, I have an answer that may work.
Instead of having panic bars, do the opposite. 
Make it where the one man must move a lever to be able to pull in the material.
Jeff


----------



## 2treeornot2tree (Nov 27, 2013)

jefflovstrom said:


> I came upon this well know thread, This debate could go on forever. I have never commented on it because I think Jons' passion is his reality, as it should be.
> Anyway, I have an answer that may work.
> Instead of having panic bars, do the opposite.
> Make it where the one man must move a lever to be able to pull in the material.
> Jeff


You can tell you're from California

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk


----------



## jomoco (Nov 27, 2013)

6.1.1.
A second tree care worker or other worker trained in emergency procedures shall be within visual or voice communication when a tree care worker is working above 12 feet.

http://tools.niehs.nih.gov/WETP/Doc...Safety_Training_Handout[1]1.doc#_Toc125189567

jomoco


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

jefflovstrom said:


> I came upon this well know thread, This debate could go on forever. I have never commented on it because I think Jons' passion is his reality, as it should be.
> Anyway, I have an answer that may work.
> Instead of having panic bars, do the opposite.
> Make it where the one man must move a lever to be able to pull in the material.
> Jeff


I had to read that 3xs to make sure I wasn't an idiot !


----------



## jefflovstrom (Nov 27, 2013)

treeclimber101 said:


> I had to read that 3xs to make sure I wasn't an idiot !



Let me spell it out for ya,,
the hydraulic roller feed wheels do not move unless you make them,,
opposite of the case where they pull until a safety bar is hit.
If one man can put the butt of a big butt in there while the roller feeds are rolling,
why not raise the rollers to the top and lock them in and then control of the feed?
Jeff


----------



## jefflovstrom (Nov 27, 2013)

BTW,,,We almost never have one guy chipping.
Jeff


----------



## treeclimber101 (Nov 27, 2013)

jefflovstrom said:


> Let me spell it out for ya,,
> the hydraulic roller feed wheels do not move unless you make them,,
> opposite of the case where they pull until a safety bar is hit.
> If one man can put the butt of a big butt in there while the roller feeds are rolling,
> ...


Thank you .... I am an idiot


----------



## jefflovstrom (Nov 27, 2013)

treeclimber101 said:


> I had to read that 3xs to make sure I wasn't an idiot !



You are not an Idiot. 
Jeff


----------



## Blakesmaster (Nov 27, 2013)

jefflovstrom said:


> You are not an Idiot.
> Jeff


Let's not argue semantics here...


----------



## Stayalert (Nov 28, 2013)

I've only run three or four sizes and types of chippers but by far the most dangerous was a top loading chipper shredder that had about 8 HP......and trees come in many sizes so whole trees did fit through this


----------



## Stayalert (Nov 28, 2013)

If OSHA had teeth - Employers, manufacturers etc. would make work/equipment safer. The lack of enforcement of existing regulations + the ridiculously low fines associated with non compliance + shields for personal liability (what does LLC stand for Hmmmm?) all add up to a work environment that isn't that far ahead of where it was when the empire state building or Brooklyn bridge were built......Constructuon costs include calculated loss of life. If you make the CEO/owner of "we cut tree, Inc." or Personally liable....he/she may take a different view of prevention/safety.....Does the manufacturer of these big machines skate because they have operating instructions that just aren't followed?


----------



## dbl612 (Nov 28, 2013)

Stayalert said:


> If OSHA had teeth - Employers, manufacturers etc. would make work/equipment safer. The lack of enforcement of existing regulations + the ridiculously low fines associated with non compliance + shields for personal liability (what does LLC stand for Hmmmm?) all add up to a work environment that isn't that far ahead of where it was when the empire state building or Brooklyn bridge were built......Constructuon costs include calculated loss of life. If you make the CEO/owner of "we cut tree, Inc." or Personally liable....he/she may take a different view of prevention/safety.....Does the manufacturer of these big machines skate because they have operating instructions that just aren't followed?


remove all the warning labels on everything, the problems will take care of themselves after a while.


----------



## Steve NW WI (Nov 28, 2013)

Alright, jomoco, you've had your chance to present facts. You choose to just post more innuendo. This thread's getting locked.


----------

