Loler UK

If stored correctly and wear low enough the lifespan can exceed 5 years but many people choose the control of 5 year fibre replacement. I have a number of clients that have replaced their straps, usually after snagging. look out for stiffening, fading, brittleness and 'dusting' (if small fibres break off and form a dusty cloud when the strap is rubbed firmly by your thumb)

Happy to have switched you on to it thanks for taking the time to make the video, don't know where my time goes these days! would love to get making some vids but priorities keep taking over.

i'll always remember my customer that came down to pay the bill in corset, suspenders and killer heels (que the transvestite jokes, so to clarify:) She was an absolute stunner and she still paid the bill in full!

one of the securest buckle designs as even with a sizeable spare tyre the flab is no-where near the buttons, do make sure that both clip in to place when you put it on, seen a few people forget/ not realise that both haven't located If in doubt Lyon will gladly give it the once over for you, the retailer you bought it from will be able to sort out a lyon inspection for you

free wheel efficiency doesn't always correlate to loaded efficiency buddy, for typical climbing operations the difference wont be noticeable tbh. A bushed wheel might hold up better in a dirty & damp environment (ie your kit bag!

standard level 3's may wish to avoid you like the plague, others will be VERY restrictive in what they let your guys do with regards to line deflection, pendulum swing etc, ring me on my mobile if you'd like to chat it over, 07835029923

You are highly unlikely to find a level 3 that's qualified let alone current in arb work, and yes you can expect to pay upwards of £300/day. Many rope access industries are, however, moving away from the IRATA qualification, you can train guys to a higher level & quicker by training them 'task specific/ from the off, what's the point in training wind turbine technicians to traverse rsj's??? what type of work is it you're looking at? maybe i can help

correct! so in less than 40,000 words: place leading point of attachment point below but only just below (id suggest 5-30cm with 30 allowing for a slight underestimation/ miscalculation) the height of the centroid, this will minimise the peak force, period. If you mess it up and tie 10cm higher than the centroid then you will increase the fall distance, if unsure of the centroids height then its better to tie a little lower than it is overcook it. The location of this leading point will not mean that neither the but, centroid or tip will be in ANY, ANY, ANYYYY!!!!!!!!! different position a resting position providing you tie below the centroid (in fact if you want to get super anal and into microns the higher point will actually lead to a higher resting point wtf?? but that really is getting super technical and anal so disregard these brackets all together) placement of the block in relation to cut and vica-versa is the more crucial element, block 1ft below the cut is an extra 2ft of fall (plus a little) which on a 200kg lump is an extra unnecessary 400kgf (plus a little) If your still not with it give me LolerUK, tree partner or treevolution a ring and book your-self on some training (please note other providers may be available )

in wilts next week doing lolers, 07835029923

Its quite sad that our industry training falls flat at the first hurdle, one of our industries veterans and i were talking about this just the other day. Training courses teaching people this, actually quite basic, level of understanding are few and far between with cs 41 falling WAAAAY short. Even when 10's of thousands of pounds are spent on producing & peer reviewing rr668 you have people on AT disagreeing with its findings, sigh. I really feel for the students and professionals that come on AT to help further their understanding having to try and decipher who's posts are correct. Id love to post a load of green-screen annotated photos from my training literature to help illustrate and explain these forces. A great amount of time and resources that went into producing them and my clients have paid accordingly to benefit from them and would quite rightly feel pretty miffed if I plastered the original literature up here for all to access for free. Hopefully the new guide to good rigging practice will illustrate the theory well enough for all 'on the ground' to understand that the forces DO NOT increase relative to the attachment point unless that attachment point causes the centroid to fall further. Length of active & semi-active rope, recovery time between sections, holding power of the hinge, absorption properties of the rope & anchor, wind resistance of the section etc are all factors but the most basic to understand and most important to quantify is the distance of the fall (that means distance of the CENTROID'S fall) we can reduce this in a number of ways: 1 tie the impact block as high (close to the cut) as possible 2 place the attachment point no higher than the centroid 3 cut shorter sections 4 take as much slack out of the system as possible without significantly loading the rope/s (never pre tension lines that will then be dynamically loaded as the split second in which they become unloaded does not allow the rope sufficient time to recover!!!) as we work down the stem everything starts to work against us, the active rope is less, the sections become wider making it harder to reduce them in length for fear of the AP slipping off and we have less distance to 'let it run' A few years ago i was discussing with Chris Cowell the potential for 'more dynamic' ropes (more dynamic ropes than we currently use in arb) to absorb the forces when snatching, he scowled and said he believed that instead of looking for bigger, stronger/ more dynamic ropes to solve this problem we should look to other solutions, crash matts, cranes, air bags maybe? that way we can eliminate the need to 'torture' (as he put it) our ropes & rigging systems. It was a welcome angle but occasionally rope is the only/ most practical solution and with a good understanding of the physics we can rig more productively, safely. The age old rule of thumb of original mass x distance of fall (OF CENTROID) in ft + the original mass was found in rr668 to be pretty bob on as field calculations go, this is the start point, until we understand this we're fish out of water and when we do get it we're in the water but not yet swimming. if you've read this far then thanks for taking the time to read my poorly constructed, rushed response (typed rapidly whilst i should be working) better get back to some paid work now, peace out xxx

its great to see someone finding the time to share all they've been experimenting with to try and progress our working practices and for FREE!! i experiment with all sorts of things and carry out lots of little research projects but finding the time to share these bits letting alone having the inclination to do so for free in most cases is quite a struggle. paralysis by analysis? i'm not so sure, if anything we tend to lack analysis when it comes to innovating systems in arb to be honest, looking closely at your avatar your traverse set-up is not in fact an English reeve but comprises of two traverse lines, 2 controls and the package is attached via a double rope system (Ddrt), why was it you choose to rig 2 traverse lines? what effect does that have on your anchors? increase or decrease? it was simple to set up, it is simple to understand but only if you choose to understand it. I think that what's covered in the article has some great applications not only to improve safety but, more importantly for me, productivity! even if i have to spend hours or days learning something if that something improves productivity its likely that it'll pay dividends. Sometimes a little extra set up time is way outweighed by the what it saves me in climbing time, I don't think Paul is suggesting we spend ages setting things up just for the crack but on those jobs that warrant it having the tools in the tool bag and more importantly the tools in the old noggin is where it's at for me, a practice one day for the crack is defiantly advisable if only to ensure its quick and safe to utilise when called upon. I know that there's a great deal more that paul experiments with that he's decided wasn't worth sharing as it had limited application or that there's defiantly better/ less gear intensive ways of achieving the same outcome, furthermore i know that Paul goes to the lengths to understand the forces at work in these systems, something we should all do when innovating. Thanks for sharing a clear, concise, and easy to digest article Paul San, id like to think a write up on the forces would get a warm response but, then again........

providing you don't tie that hitch higher than the centroid then in fact the higher it is the lower the force as there is more active rope in the system, if you're truly interested then here's the link to the full paper: RR668: Evaluation of current rigging and dismantling practices used in arboriculture

Some bed tine reading for some people perhaps?: http://dealgas-treeconsultancy.co.uk/dealga/files/resources/Tree%20Related%20Subsidence%20Pruning%20is%20not%20the%20answer.pdf

ISC iron wizard will have the same mbs as the pulley, as per the instructions don't attach fibre directly to the pulley, you should be able to find & work out the strength/ knotted/ spliced strength of your rigging line & attachment sling to work out the weakest link your self, like Kevin said perhaps some formal training is in order, AT is a great resource but them chaps (or chapettes) with the white wigs might not view it as such a definative one....?

Contact Lyon/ the retailer you bought it from if your springs broken, they'll replace it within 48 hours. i know climbers on their pantin 7 hours a day every day on srt with no problems at all, you must have been unlucky, some people dont like the fact that the petzl didnt have a clip/hole to stop it popping off but its never bothered me

I'll be examining in Essex on the 26th, can collect on the 26th, examine onsite into the evening or collect, examine and return on the 27th before you start work as early as you like

The AA keep a list in their office i'm sure, maybe they could start a public directory, problem is what standard would they hold the examiners on their books to? anyone can start an advertising register i'm called by at least 3 companies a week promising loads much work they can get me/ people they can reach, they're a penny to the dozen such advertising registers incidently i'm in lincs in a couple of weeks if you need an examination

the wear on that mallion looks like a 'classic' defect that dose not involve a grillon but maybe it is, it would be great to see the grillon/ harness D to which it was attached I examine many grillion/mallion combos where the grillon is mounted via mallion strait to the harnesses side D and the wear that i observe tends to be to the Grillon unsurprisingly as the mallion is made of steel and the grillon aluminium. I've only ever found 2 grillons worn to the point that they failed and they were rather old anyway, there is no way that the combo could get to that state within 6 months in my opinion, not in arb anyways, circus rigging sure those flaming strap artists and trapeze can be a nightmare!

some good points guys a mallion done up with a spanner is a perfectly acceptable attachment and in some ways/ applications a preferable one it doesnt matter that its not 3-way but must be done up with a spanner. The thinner mallions although plenty strong enough can lead to increased wear of metal devices and their small diameter creates a more acute bend radius on rope but i'm not sure this would be significant on a lanyard's friction cord though

it's been covered before so a cheeky copy & paste: the examiner has to assess whether the item is Fit For Purpose the application in this case is arboricultural climbing operations so lets set rigging aside. the examiner has many resources at his disposal to form a decision on whether or not the item is FFP for this application, many of which nod has noted. this decision can certainly be described as an opinion and ultimately the responsibility of the decision on the record lies with competent person. My decision relating to 2-way HOOKS for this application differs to my decision in relation to 2-way 'twistlock' karabiners. in certain theatre & circus rigging applications these 2-way hooks are regarded as a far safer method of attachment than a 3-way karabiner as it requires two synchronized, opposite opposing motions to open it as opposed to the single diagonal motion on a 3-way krab, i'm sure many of us have had one 'roll open' against a branch? Many of these hooks are designed to click onto 'end bolts' of a set diameter which have a double nut stopper on the end to prevent them from sliding off naturally earning them the name 'clickers' in some industries Ultimately the decision rests with the individual examiner if he/she is satisfied that the design of the connector is FFP they may 'Pass' it if not then they are entitled to 'Fail' it. The fact that a 2-way hook is 2-way would certainly not lead me to fail it, i know of a firm that had every rope failed because it did not have a manufacturers marking on the outside of the rope, that company decided to some to us whom did not deem this necessary, perhaps you should look to change your examiner if your not happy?

Betel, you should have said! Do you work out of manna farm then? quite a unique company set up that Betel have, one of my most hospitable clients for sure! love to all the guys, M it's good to hear that your colleague cross checks your kit, id suggest that it's clearly documented on the record that he did yours & you did his as it were, you know where i am if you want anything expanded on.

interesting post ti, i assume when you say co-run the business it is owned by someone else? do you & your colleague examine each others personal kits at TE or examine your own? there's no hard & fast rules per-see but interpreting fear of favour & competency can only go so far id suggest that no matter ho competent and without fear of favour you may consider one they be best not an owner/ major share holder or on performance linked pay that would be effected by the resulting costs of items failing and certainly not TE'ing their OWN kit, even if its provided by the company not just on fof grounds but out of concern for cumulative familiarisation and the possibility of sentimental attachment etc. pro-active replacement is great and if an examiner was happy to pass an item that you decided to replace that's great but in some firms in house examiners get a bit 'fail happy' out of being either over cautious or in some cases wishing to force the firm into a more pro-active replacement schedule than they may wish, it's not uncommon for me to be handed a bin or 7 of gear that was failed by an in house/ other examiner only to find nothing significantly wrong with it

aeris is a thin line with a smooth cover, very light, tightly braided, slightly stiff, not the most knot-able of ropes, a PITA to splice so its factory splice or nothing. many people find it hard to grip, its relatively tight & stiff and pretty much as thin as it gets, if you use your pantin allot then its less of an issue. Some people take a while to dial in a hitch on aeris & describe it as little slick/slippy but i know allot of SJ users love it, it really flies through mechanical devices! doubles up as a pretty good access line, unsurprisingly being that it's basically LSK with a smoother cover, very popular choice for a lanyard line, is good SRT or Ddrt if your preference fits, but its just that preference.

Refreshing to hear on AT James, thank you TE by an independent, this typically means someone external to your business, i get several PM's per month from AT members concerned about the in-house loler examinations done on their kit, it's a tough boat to be in as employee not wishing to rock the boat, perhaps not sure if the in house guy is competent or without fear of favour. Who on here thinks its acceptable for the owner/ proprietor to carry out the thorough examination? and what is your position in your organisation? IE no i don't think its acceptable and i'm a proprietor

Many of my clients care for their equipment exceptionally well, they have a good understanding of their equipment and are always learning/ eager to learn more, they remove items from service if they are unsure of their condition, repairing items if required and asking me for advice between their thorough examinations by phone MMS and email. Most of them replace equipment 'pro actively' ie they don't wait for it to fail a TE. That said their are many things that are spotted in a TE that are not spotted by the end user, I wouldn't consider those users 'lacking' or brand them as not giving their kit the attention and care it need Thorough examination is intended to spot that that the end user does not, id not expect them to accumulate the uber geeky detailed knowledge of equipment that i've been committed/sad enough to acquire; cumulative familiarisation can be a powerful factor with daily checks, no matter how stringent my clients attention it'll never negate their need for periodic thorough examination, that's besides the fact that its a requirement of course