BenR

It's based on the assumption that there is minimal rope in the system and that the piece is not let run. The numbers are basically there to illustrate a worst case scenario and encourage people to be aware of the potentially high forces that could occur if operations go badly.. eg, f-all rope in the system low to the ground and operator does not let pieces budge an inch (excluding the rope stretch) results in mega high peak load at the high point.

Showa 380! But it is a horrible rope to grip!

Not really haha

Although it claims to be 11.5mm it seems smaller than that. As Rich said, may work better when it has broken in and fluffed up a bit..

I've been using the Gleistein Cougar 12mm off and on for about a month now.. It's not bad at all. It's rope! It knots well, is a wee bit bouncy but not like bungee, and fairly easy to grip, being a 16 strand. Can't complain really 🙃

Hello gents, I think without the context of what you are trying to achieve it would be very hard to say what’s ok and what’s not. That said, I don’t see what’s wrong with a cambium saver knotblocked for pruning and a simple running bowline for dismantling. That’s all I ever use.

And you know I agree with you Marc, but the post was to help those who perhaps feel the need to comply.. Brocky, it looks different to me, but i'll take your word for it. Also very similar to a helical.

Just smoosh a bowline and VT together Rich! Surely even you can get that?! hah hope you are well amigo

This may help someone hopefully, in light of the whole "backup" talk... The hitches are a strange mix of the bowline and the Vt.. i'm going with 'BT'. They can be used single leg or the systems split apart and utilised in a more conventional two leg hitch. I find when they are joined together on the one carabiner I can operate both one handed easily enough.

Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height WWW.TREES.ORG.UK <h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2> <h1 class= blue bold display ><span class= blue display >INDUSTRY... this may be helpful to someone..

FTC

Well thats my two cents.. with all due respect to everyone there is nothing more to say. It is what it is.. some of us may not like it. But that's how it's supposedly got to be. Thanks for the heads up on the corgi thing. Looks like I need to update my analogies.

I'm afraid I was not party to the discussion Tim. What I would say though is whether the lines are set to 60ft on DDRT or SRT there is no difference.. If it's one rope, it's one rope. And I think that was made clear to them. As I see it, the main issue for them is that we have more accidents than any other rope climbing sector in the UK and as such climbing on two ropes regardless of the technique used seems safer to them.. Where we go from here will be interesting

Hey Paul, Yes of course IRATA is a more obvious comparison but the point I am trying to make is that until we have a proper scheme that clearly identifies proper tree work professionals (and the public have a better understanding of this too) then it's pretty hard for the guys doing to job to go out and work on two ropes whilst competing with big garry who gets up on the ladders and hacks the shite out of the trees with a 181 back handle one handed.. Hope you're well amigo!

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are trying to say...

or destroy your house when they fell a tree across it.. Regardless of what analogy you choose to use, the point still stands. We need something to separate the professionals from the cowboys.

This is the main issue... definitions. I would argue, as you have, that all rope work is work positioning. By the simple fact that we use ropes to get us into a position to perform work. Therefore, if conventional DDRT climbing is work positioning and only requires one rope then SRT should be classed as work positioning and only require one rope too. After all, what difference does it make whether the rope moves or not. It is still one rope or two no matter what the technique.

Hello ladies and gents of Arbtalk.. I'm not going to claim to have read everything in this thread but what I will do is explain my involvement in the process. I was asked by the AA to attend said meeting to demonstrate SRT climbing techniques on one rope and two ropes, which I did and I had hoped that some sort of middle ground might have been found whereby people were advised to climb on two rope when reasonably practicable and otherwise continue as before. Alas the decision making process is nothing to do with me and we are now looking down the barrel of two ropes at all times. Whilst this isn't always practical I don't think anyone can argue that it will make us a safer industry... Trying to find some positive out of this: I can only hope that this new legislation helps to make the difference between professionals and people on the ladders with the poly pro rope and pole saw all the more clear. What would be great is if we could get outselves organised to the stage where as tree workers we need to be accredited to do the work and those that are not accredited simply cannot practise the job. You wouldn't get a gas engineer that's not corgi registered would you?

Yes mostly mate.. It really doesn't like sap. But there are a few other issues that still need sorting too. Such as the side plate drag and the bottom roller sleeve and the top cam flip locking sometimes. Basically it's just not getting used so I'm passing it on to someone keen to try it. Can't wait for the finished version as there is amazing potential from it.

Don't blame you Matty.. I'm selling mine too! And before anyone asks it's already spoken for. Sorry.

Just the same old stuff mate. All good and very busy

maybe Treekit hope you're well mate!