Aerial Rescue Practice

[5thelement]

1 hour ago, krummholz said:

This is a public forum where people who work with trees (and some who don't) come together to exchange opinions and experiences. It's not a tribunal, no one is submitting evidence to you and you're not entitled to see anyone's "data" (though if you show me yours I'll show you mine).

By now though we've established that you're such a boss climber with loads of experience who's never had to do an aerial rescue, or even ever heard of one happening, and you only work with super competent and similarly experienced people, so you definitely never need to practice AR.

Can you leave the folk who do want to discuss it to get on with it and stop drowning the thread in your piffle?

So basically your bigging up aerial rescue practice as mandatory, claiming your doing it, yet haven’t got any timings/data/images that might be useful for others to look at to offer discussion on how they might be improved, how one mechanical device reduced rescue time over friction hitches etc.

Ive already said how long the Aerial Rescues we practiced would take, between 6 minutes up to double that, in most cases of severe bleeds, we deemed that to be too long.

It’s a public forum but as I don’t agree with your view so I shouldn’t comment or have any further discussion, is that right?

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by 5thelement

[5thelement]

8 hours ago, gand said:

I started out 23 years ago. I've worked with quite a few with their aerial rescue and apparently being able to climb. Unfortunately it's not been the case. I've got epilepsy, and this has reminded me of having to be rescued and I believe it took 30 minutes. I'd totally forgotten about it to be honest as when I wake up from a fit, I'm usually confused and very angry not able to function properly. Luckily I wasn't using the saw at the time. I think with regular training and a pre installed access line this sort of stuff would be alot quicker. 

In this situation, knowing the climber had epilepsy, you would always have a safety line and recovery plan in place, 30 minutes is an unbelievable time to be suspended in a harness, glad you even got down safely.

[Mr. Squirrel]

2 hours ago, 5thelement said:

… I don’t agree with your view so I shouldn’t comment or have any further discussion, is that right?

 

What is it, specifically, that you don’t agree with? 

[5thelement]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

What is it, specifically, that you don’t agree with? 

If you actually read my posts my position is pretty obvious.

[Haironyourchest]

Enjoyable thread. Comparing arial tree work to rope access is apples to oranges. Industrial rope work is big building projects, orders of magnitude more money involved than arb. The investor money at stake, insurances, public profile, company reputation, company size, etc... thousands of times greater than a four man arm team. The sheer amount of money involved allows for top notch safety and skill progression.

[krummholz]

4 hours ago, 5thelement said:

So basically your bigging up aerial rescue practice as mandatory, claiming your doing it, yet haven’t got any timings/data/images that might be useful for others to look at to offer discussion on how they might be improved, how one mechanical device reduced rescue time over friction hitches etc.

I'm not "bigging up" aerial rescue practice as mandatory, it IS mandatory according to the TG1. I've never claimed I'm doing it.

Look back at my opening post, my original questions were around whether or not people were doing it, how they were structuring it, and their experiences of it. As I stated, I am glad that there's now a requirement to practice it because I've thought that it's sorely lacking in UK arb.

4 hours ago, 5thelement said:

Ive already said how long the Aerial Rescues we practiced would take, between 6 minutes up to double that, in most cases of severe bleeds, we deemed that to be too long.

So you've risked assessed out all aerial rescues - good luck with that, I won't be queuing up to get the chance to work with you.

4 hours ago, 5thelement said:

It’s a public forum but as I don’t agree with your view so I shouldn’t comment or have any further discussion, is that right?

 

No - you have disagreed with me and many others already, that's fine. It's just that your obtuseness is swamping other stuff that folk might have to say. Plus as the OP I feel obligated to engage with posters and I've got other stuff to get on with. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and I'm totally fine with that.

 

I just don't really understand why you need to convince folk that aerial rescue itself is useless. Maybe you could just start another thread where we can discuss the merits and demerits of Aerial Rescue itself?

[Mr. Squirrel]

3 hours ago, 5thelement said:

If you actually read my posts my position is pretty obvious.

 

I have and honestly they aren’t particularly cohesive.
 

I just poked my head in here as it seemed a number of people were extremely critical of the value of AR. I gave a few examples of AR’s that actually happened and you yammered on about self rescue. The point you seem to be missing is that if a casualty can’t self rescue then someone will have to go up and get them. Training for that situation is clearly going to improve the odds. I don’t see how you can debate that? Particularly as an nptc assessor.

And all this flapping your meat about wanting to see rescue practice data… what utter nonsense. 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Mr. Squirrel

[5thelement]

2 hours ago, krummholz said:

I just don't really understand why you need to convince folk that aerial rescue itself is useless.

I have not claimed that at any point in this thread.

Neither have I ‘Risked Assessed’ out the option of aerial rescue for myself or others on my job, If I can’t  self rescue there will always be a competent climber on site to get me down.

If TG1 states that Aerial rescue is mandatory, what reasons can you give for why you are not complying with it?

Edited July 13, 2023 by 5thelement

[5thelement]

2 hours ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

 

I have and honestly they aren’t particularly cohesive.
 

I just poked my head in here as it seemed a number of people were extremely critical of the value of AR. I gave a few examples of AR’s that actually happened and you yammered on about self rescue. The point you seem to be missing is that if a casualty can’t self rescue then someone will have to go up and get them. Training for that situation is clearly going to improve the odds. I don’t see how you can debate that? Particularly as an nptc assessor.

And all this flapping your meat about wanting to see rescue practice data… what utter nonsense. 

I questioned why the 4 aerial rescue cases you mentioned couldn’t self rescue, apart from being unconscious, as it would be the quickest and safest way down.

Having a competent climber on the ground to perform a rescue, then allowing the main climber to climb and cut without ppe and then need rescuing is utter madness, no matter how much rescue practice has been done.

I have never claimed that rescuing a casualty isn’t an option, it is and always will be on all of my jobs, I obviously put more thought and provision on self rescue and less weight on being rescued, this comes from previous practice and the luxury of experienced ground staff who have my back.

Do you comply with TG1 in performing mandatory aerial rescue or not?

The OP has stated he doesn’t.
If not, what valid reason do you have for this?

[krummholz]

23 minutes ago, 5thelement said:

Do you comply with TG1 in performing mandatory aerial rescue or not?

The OP has stated he doesn’t.

(Assuming you meant to say "mandatory Aerial Rescue Practice")

No I never. I didn't say that I do and I didn't say that I don't.

Again, I asked a question about how other folk were doing it and how they were finding compliance with the requirement as laid out in TG1.