Three point climbing

[RescueMan]

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]

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]

Originally posted by RescueMan





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.


- Robert

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]

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]

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]

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.

the second my chain began to bite, I was going to begin to spin towards the outside of the chainsaw. 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.
True again. There are excellent reasons for making medium-sized (<10") cuts with a stout telescoping polesaw: safety, convenience, time, energy.

Being able to so much as hook a toe on a branch or the stem (third point of contact) completely alleviates that situation.

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by TreeCo
===================
A lanyard often serves both as a tie in point and a point of contact but....................

Points of contact and tie in points do not serve the same purpose.

To show that a lanyard can have two contact points try this.......

1)While spiking a spar.......put both lanyard snaps on your center d-ring......and stand on one spiked foot. I bet you can't do it.

2)Now put your lanyard around the spar and on your two hip d-rings....and stand on one spiked foot. You can do it.

The difference in these two examples is that in example two the lanyard is serving as two contact points and therefore the climber can balance. In example one balance would be difficult.

Dan

Atlanta

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by TreeCo
=======================

Professor,

I don't agree with your assertion that the lanyards' point of contact is where the rope centers on the limb/stem.

A point of contact does not have to have both tension and compression strengths to be a point of contact. Hardly ever does a contact point have both properties.

Where the lanyard attaches to the saddle is where the lanyard provides stability to the climber. Your statement that two D's give torsional stability is exactly my point. To acheive stability in a three dimensional space it takes three contact points unless glue is used.

Three points do make for stability in three dimesional space as long as the three points aren't in a line. Hence a lanyard around a spar attached to a climbers two side D's will allow the climber to be stable while the same lanyard and set up with the lanyard attached to the center D will not.

Dan
Atlanta

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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