competent climbers

[Gollum]

I know there has been a few threads on this line in the past.

I am just interested in the general opinion of this suggestion.

 

In the rope access industry you can qualify as a climber and then after one year and a 1000 recorded hours, I believe, you can then go for qualification as a rescue climber - this shows competents.

Should we not be doing the same in our industry?

 

At the moment if a candidate puts themselves on a weeks training course, with no previous experience, then they take an assessment where they are assessed on the same trees they have been trained on, the assessor can only judge them on those trees and if all ok pass them, are they actually competent climbers for aerial rescue?

 

Is the apprenticeship scheme one alternative?

[Mark Bolam]

Good point Mark.

 

I can certainly say that when I passed my 38 I was not a competent climber, and anyone relying on me back then for aerial rescue would have died of boredom.

[VEG]

Same thing can be said for driving etc... They teach you enough to pass the course its only through regular climbing that you gain in confidence.

[Gollum]

Same thing can be said for driving etc... They teach you enough to pass the course its only through regular climbing that you gain in confidence.

 

Good comparison.

But do you think we should gain confidence/ experience be for we become rescue climbers ?

[Steve Bullman]

Good comparison.

But do you think we should gain confidence/ experience be for we become rescue climbers ?

 

it costs companies enough money as it is to put groundies through aerial rescue. if the next stipulation was that they had to be competent(fast enough) also...well for most small companies that would be financially unobtainable in my opinion.

 

i dont personally think many groundsman(if any) would be able to get in to a tree to perform a rescue quick enough in a time dependant situation

[Tom D]

I think you are right, however it will never happen it would be impossible to assess a climbers "hours".

 

I have long thought that it is crazy to have supposed "rescue" climbers who can barely climb a tree. Cs38 is FAR to easy to be of any real worth. Candidates are given 40 minutes to perform a rescue, 15 would be a more useful test of a climbers ability.

 

You can't learn to drive by reading a book, and it takes a little time to become a good driver, climbing is no different.

[Steve Bullman]

Candidates are given 40 minutes to perform a rescue, 15 would be a more useful test of a climbers ability.

 

5 minutes

[Tom D]

5 minutes

 

give em a chance..

 

when I was doing cs41 I acted as the injured climber for a guy re-sitting 38, he took 35 mins to get me down and passed, that was with my surupticious help too.... its a joke really. 15 mins would weed out the totally useless.

[Gollum]

it costs companies enough money as it is to put groundies through aerial rescue. if the next stipulation was that they had to be competent(fast enough) also...well for most small companies that would be financially unobtainable in my opinion.

 

i dont personally think many groundsman(if any) would be able to get in to a tree to perform a rescue quick enough in a time dependant situation

 

I was waiting for that one.

is it in your opinion to just have the relevant certification to satisfy the HSE,

Would you for example ask a newbie cs31 to fell a tree in private garden with the obvious sheds and green houses scattered about,

[Steve Bullman]

well the way i see it...if i was unable to get myself down from a tree and needed rescuing it would be for 1 of 3 reasons

 

 

• I've cut my arm off and am spewing blood out like a waterfall
  
• im physically crushed between 2 sizable lumps of wood
  
• i've knocked myself unconscious and am likely hanging upside down
  

 

i think in all those cases, 5 minutes would be the max id want to be waiting!