Saw techniques and cutting/felling safety

[clearance]

SWE#Kip:

Those stats would not be available on the West Coast for Conventional/Humboldt versus Open Face.

Open Face, as far as I know is not used here by any pro cutters.

I do think that in one respect the GOL sponsored training and certification is almost certainly of great benefit in reducing fatalities.

Just having any program that is serious about safety will pay rewards.

I think what is going on in British Columbia is spot on and it will be interesting to review in a few years.

Scenario: Lots of fatalities with a 'cheap' production system.
Step 1: Widows complain, justifiably.
Step 2: Book / classroom / written testing.
Step 3: Pass a field test.
Step 4: Have to prove yourself on the grade in some level of journeyman-apprentice program.

There is a reason that we do this for electricians. I think it is warranted in the Falling Profession and for my nickels worth, I strongly support those Canadians. (Did I just loose my AS privileges?)

The BC program, I think, will cut the fatality thing in half or better if accompanied by a level of fines that gets the owners 'attention'.

In the Forest Service, we actually require retesting/certification yearly for our lower level cutters and ever other year for our C Fallers. {I was first C Cert'd in 1978 and it's been every other year since. Think of this as step 5.}

http://www.bcforestsafe.org/content-program-fallers/fallers-06-03-01-field_evaluation. This is the B.C. test. It is a fact that logging fatalities have dropped considerably since this program was introduced. It should be pointed out that the fatalities include all logging deaths, truck driver, yarder operators, riggingslingers, landing buckers, and so on. There is another program about trucking logs as well, another high fatality field. The "cheap production system" is not entirely accurate, investigations and inquiries concluding there were many factors involved. Now some are just training to be fallers, instead of working thier way up. Some things are not allowed, like back barring fallling cuts, dutchmen, one handing. But yes, its step in the right direction.

 

[smokechase II]

small faces and wedging

Tzed250:

Here are some drawings that I took from a powerpoint I was working on awhile back. I need to upgrade this with photos to match and video even better. Doubt that I'll get that done so here are these thoughts in two posts.

 

[smokechase II]

more drawings

The next four pics.

Hope this helps. I should point out that this only covers a portion of a fairly complex set of physical forces and this must be used as a supplement to a set of books by Dent, Beranek and Ard. I'm just trying to explain some of the physics to consider with simple drawings.

All the Best.

 

[joesawer]

I have been away for a few days.
This is a very good thread. It is never to late to learn.
I was working on a Cal Trans project a while back and part of it was cleaning up behind CDF fallers, They were cutting the trees high and then cutting the stumps low. This left a lot of loose rounds on steep ground above a busy highway. When I asked their captain if he could get them to cut them low the first time he told me no that it was a safety issue so that they wouldn't hurt their back. That made no sense to me. Now with the previous posts I understand completely.

Smokechase, those are very good illustrations. I personally use a shallow face in small trees very often. Moving the hinge close to the middle only moves the center of gravity a few inches while leaving less room for the bar and wedges, it also reduces the mechanical advantage.

PA Plumber, Your stumps look great, better than many posted by experts for instructional purposes. You have taken the information and applied it well.

As for brushing trees when falling. It is very dangerous. In the eastern US were the trees are younger and smaller it is easier to get away with. But a very good friend of mine in Alabama, gave me a bad scare and himself a badly scarred face when the top of a smaller oak that he slid a larger oak past broke off on the rebound and landed on him. I saw the whole thing happen and when I got to him all I could see was his hard hat and saw. I had to cut the top off of him. He had no idea what hit him or where it came from. It peeled the side of his face like an onion. There are many other horror stories connected to this practice.
That being said I think that the safest way to do this is to decide when is the best time for your hinge to break and adjust the face and hinge accordingly. It helps the tree to roll out if the tree is already swinging when it hits. Some times when thinning trees for the forest service, the marked trees have no clear path and I will try to move them straight ahead a few feet then move left then move back right. They usually don't turn twice but it is interesting to try.

I don't understand how not looking up can be safer. Not only is death above you but you can see movement in the top of the tree long before the backcut shows movement.

FS Burt, do you work in the San Bernadino area regularly. I have been in and out for the past three years. I have done a private job just below Cucamunga in Lytle Creek and a cal trans job above Wrightwood on hwy 2 and jobs all over the San Bernadino mtns.
Would it be possible for a contract faller to sit in on some of your classes if they promised to sit down and shut up.

 

[Tzed250]

Clearance, a deep face cut only helps if you can get the hinge under the center of gravity. The deeper the face cut, the shorter the distance to the point where the wedge is applying the force. This shorter lever arm makes it harder to wedge the tree. Maybe some work with vectors will help you out.

 

[Tzed250]

Smoke II, your drawings are good, but they dont take everthing into acct. The short face does leave more wood to lift, but it gives you a longer lever to work with. The drawings show more liability to a deep face cut than gain.

 

[John Ellison]

Look at the first pic in the last group and the last pic in the next to the last group.

 

[smokechase II]

Quick review

Tzed:

I stated:
"I should point out that this only covers a portion of a fairly complex set of physical forces and this must be used as a supplement to a set of books by Dent, Beranek and Ard. I'm just trying to explain some of the physics to consider with simple drawings."
I believe that covered your, "but they don’t take everything into acct." concern.
The best way to deal with those concerns would be for us to actually list and explain those to the AS readership. Referencing Dent, Beranek and Ard or others as often as possible.

The slides also did point out the caveat of the shorter lever arm with reduced distance between wedge and hinge.

I do not have the math abilities that could show what length of lever arm, (wedge to hinge), is needed with some of the following variables:
1) Wedge length,
2) Wedge height, angle of lift stuff,
3) Wedge material, metal versus plastic etc,
4) Tree lean, multiple leans, limb weight and its location,
5) Tree weight,
6) Wood strength; species and drought stressed and dead and rotten portions of the stem etc.,
7) Size of falling axe head and strength of swampers arms,
And so forth.

But I will say, just flat not making this up, that my 29 seasons as a C Faller for the USFS in the following places: South Carolina (9 trips to the Marion), 2 Fire Trips to the five state area around Kentucky/Tennessee, East Texas, 10 Western States extensively, Alaska (8 times) and Alberta Canada once have given me the right to speculate that - A deeper face is an important tool on bigger trees.

I do need to add a couple slides here that show the problem of deeper faces and inadequate space for wedging on smaller trees. This is the scenario where making a smaller face is generally preferred as it both allows for wedge placement and the longer lever for the wedge to lift.
There are ways to get around this problem with center face bores that make for neat wedging of 7"-12" trees with 12" wedges. (Hinge width is the key on those guys).

 

[smokechase II]

More powerpoint thoughts

With 100+ authors we'd never get agreement.
That is a good thing.
Freedom of thought.
A Democracy sponsored freedom of speech cake with the icing of the internet.

Would it be possible for arboristsite.com to no-host a series of web pages that have powerpoint slides of multiple falling and pruning suggestions? One where any instructor could just grab a powerpoint slide and modify it if needed for local issues ......
Perhaps more instructors would open up to ideas from outside their normal scope and birds would flourish in forests filled with ferns. You get the idea.

Submitted anonymously as "considerations".

Defined clearly as a Wikipedia of chain saw knowledge. Viewer beware and please buy Dent, Beranek and Ard or take these _______ courses.

Probably not a possibility. With a few folks already cutting themselves and a surplus of lawyers in the US.

There are a lot of bright knowledgeable posters here. I'm getting over my embarrassment over how much I've learned here. (If I told an Industry Pro cutter in the NW that I had learned off the net. Dead meat, I'd be strictly dead meat.)
The current method of searching and reading threads that wander from back-cutting technique to what a pig Clinton was is fairly inefficient.

Kind of a nice thought though. I think.

 

[smokechase II]

Slide upgrades

Along the lines of improving these particular slides.

I would be particularly good if any of the AS viewers could forward to me real world photos illustrating any of those points or what I've omitted.

I would promptly edit those, send them back to you for critique and artistic control, then if approved post a new thread with improved slides.

Either you could on your own or direct me how you'd like to show a different point of view. I don't have to agree with it to do that. You'd still have control.

Just a constant clarification on each post this is consideration that is pointed out by others. Please treat it as that and nothing more.

(I know lawyers, not my fault).

 

[rbtree]

Nope. I make my gunning cut first. Whole lot easier to get your face pointed where you want it.

Ditto that.

If doing open face/conventional cut, the only reason for making the down cut first, is that it's easier to look through the kerf and observe the bar as it comes around.
Same goes for a Humboldt though. Smokechase started an excellent thread (including photos) showing how and why it's far easier to check your gun when the saw is level.

 

[rbtree]

Actually... I think an "open face" cut is slightly wider than a true Conventional face cut... say 45 degrees or more... but I could be wrong. (say it ain't so!)
Gary

open face cuts are defined as 60-90 degrees...or more

I also rarely bother with anything more open than 50 degrees or so....unless I'm in the tree, and want a section to come over smoothly with little or no pull/push as the hinge breaks. Or if I want the section to land closer to the trunk, or rotate more or faster. If I want a section to jump or land flat, I'll use a 15 to 35 degree face, and up to 55% depth, which is fine if the wood fibers are clean and straight with no knots nearby. corner relief cuts a few inches down become more important with this technique....which Ken Palmer of Arbormaster Training felt was dangerous when I told him of it. I disagree....seldom do it with anything but straight conifer trunk sections.

 

[rbtree]

Great idea, smokechase!!

 

[tek9tim]

I was working on a Cal Trans project a while back and part of it was cleaning up behind CDF fallers, They were cutting the trees high and then cutting the stumps low. This left a lot of loose rounds on steep ground above a busy highway. When I asked their captain if he could get them to cut them low the first time he told me no that it was a safety issue so that they wouldn't hurt their back. That made no sense to me. Now with the previous posts I understand completely.

Sounds more like his excuse was directed toward long term effects of cutting low. Odds are he himself was not an expert faller, or he didn't really understand why we do it that way.

I don't understand how not looking up can be safer. Not only is death above you but you can see movement in the top of the tree long before the backcut shows movement.

You ain't whistlin' Dixie. Let's take the GOL "units" system and apply it. How's that go? For every inch the kerf opens, the top moves several feet. You'll see a sitback coming a lot sooner too.

I have done a private job just below Cucamunga in Lytle Creek

Lytle Creek... that's a weird place. Did some rehab up there after the Grand Prix fire. The locals were strange. Luckily, we were only up there for a day.

 

[Tzed250]

Smoke II,

I will agree that on a larger tree that the deeper face is an advantage. I assume that most of the folks looking for felling technique will not be working with larger trees. For the less experienced the shallow face is the safer move. I think your idea of a visual training aid is great, but as you say getting many to agree on what is the correct way could prove to be difficult. My experience is primarily with eastern hardwoods, so like you say, maybe different sections could be made with subsets for regions and species. BTW, your NW pro cutter that you speak of is more likely to become real dead meat if he refuses to learn. Knowledge is power, and with the potential energy in standing timber that we chose to make kinetic, power is a good thing.

 

[SRT-Tech]

ya'll remember those plastic science models form high school? the ones with removable heart, guts, stomach, lungs etc, different colors for each organ to help id it? well someone should make one similar, of a tree trunk and canopy, with removable facewedge, removable backcut etc etc , to demonstrate proper face cutting, backcutt etc....

 

[Tzed250]

...used a cat cadaver in biology...blue rubber in the veins...red rubber in the arteries...:jester:

 

[joesawer]

Smokechase, Your idea is an excellent one. AS is kind of sponsoring it already by hosting this thread. I completely agree that a better source of more diverse tree cutting technology is needed. Most sources available are driven by profit and regulated by lawyers. The sad thing is that most of the instructors I have seen are very unqualified. They look like they read a book, got up from their desk went to a tree and awkwardly tried to demonstrate what they read in a book.
I have a few pics that I will be glad to e mail to you. The problem I have is that when I am working I really can't carry a camera and it is hard to have some one close to take pictures safely. I have just recently started taking any pics of my work. If there is a reason to, such as the collection you are talking about assembling, I will try to get more. And emphasize the tech pics.

Tech9tim, You aren't joking about Lytle Creek being a weird place. I have been doing some rehab on Fraizer Mtn. for the Day Fire but the weather is not cooperating.

 

[smokechase II]

Safer Face

I don't think that a shallow face is the safer face.

I think it can be.
Perhaps most of the time it doesn't make much difference,
Some of the time it can be more dangerous.

Yes, the tendency is for the shallow face often to be a good choice in smaller timber. A deeper face in larger timber. But I wouldn't want to limit options in either group.

*******************************

I actually think that disagreement, if civil, could be a positive in a falling discussion. If in any given area, if two, three or four techniques are demonstrated, there might be a greater purpose to this little idea.

Perhaps supporters of one technique or system could use a particular background to their slides.
Maybe Pro and Cons should be a common analysis to each falling segment. That might be a civil way of any group emphasizing what they think is important, without going into attack mode.

Let's agree that disagreeing is one thing that we should agree on.

We're an odd small group at the end of this thread. I'm the guy throwing out this entirely questionable idea. Maybe this is I where to come up with two series of slides to put before AS mentors, readers and contributors.
I'm going to see if I can come up with 20 slides that form a 'positive' discussion of shallow versus deep faces. Not the final word, but a vehicle to purpose this idea.

Should anyone here want to suggest, contribute or do a critique prior to an AS thread purposing this? Feel free to email me and let’s see what we can do.

 

[Gologit]

Smokechase...I think your idea is a good one. I don't know how much help I could be but if I can help I will. Bob