Tree entry risk management

Hello all,

Here is the picture that I have been thinking I should post to get a little discussion going!

The set was about 120' in a big pine near Cave Junction OR.

I knew I was over a stub...had three big branches just below...bounced on it with two people....once I got closer I began to back myself up with my 70' short rope that has a tie in at each end.

So...my query is...how much risk do you take when climbing? Would you climb on this? The first picture is what it looked like to me...the next one is a bit more disconcerting!

Scott

Here is the second picture.

The VTA of this stub did give me pause once I got this view of it!!

Where? If it s easier you can post them at the Flickr.com site were Moss has a lot of the Tree climbing Pictures. It probably saves space in TCI server site also.
Just curious to see your pictures.

picture 1

Another try
Picture 1

Picture 2

These are small images and not taking up much space

Scottdb,
After reading your post I’m not sure if you were at 70’ or 120’ but either way,
I stand in awe!
Risk management indeed.

Standing-by for input on these photos from fellow climbers here.
Electrojake

Great photos!

OH My! My guess is that your guts kinda sucked inward at the first site of your anchor.

I think that it looks worse than it is.

I am no expert but I know physics. The rope is bent over way too small of a radius and lacks a rope sleeve.

Setting the sleeve or a false crotch may have helped but my guess is that the stub left on the trunk was the weakest spot on the limb.

The force required to snap off a limb of that size shows me that the stub is one tuff piece of wood. Hanging your life on that stub only happen if you are sure of lower limbs abruptly stopping your fall. The shock load on even a three feet fall could snap something else; like your neck or the lower limb etc. Arborist ropes will not be of any aid in reduceing the shock because they do not stretch.



It could probably lift a Buick or just as easy snap out of the rotten trunk flare. Even at 50/50 chance of strenght I want better odds.

TreeTramp

Safe to say you were climbing SRT on a 120 ft. TIP? If so then of course there was double the load on that cracked lower section of the stub. That would scare the !@#$% out of me. No one's forcing you to climb on something like that (the stub), I'm curious as to why you did.

To answer your question, I'm way more cautious than that, absolutely wouldn't climb a 120 ft TIP on a stub in any condition. If you have real branches available, why hang your life on a stub?

Wow! I am pretty new to climbing, but just looking at the picture scares me. I am pretty cautious and loose heart pretty easily when I get up to my anchor and it is smaller than it looked 60' below. I would probably avoid that stub on my next climb.

Rick

Sorry if I was being a little reactive in my post on this thread, the photos kind of dinged my brain Obviously you have the experience to know when you can climb on a stub. I guess the lesson is that a high stub (or branch) viewed from the ground can have some surprises when you get close. I am curious to know, will this experience cause you to revise your practice of hanging on stubs? I figure you'll take it on a case-by-case basis.
-moss

Sorry but you were crazy to climb on that.

Later

Bakes

For the heck of discussion, If your branch was at 120 why used DRT? It would be more time consuming trying to isolate a clear route. SRT would be safer, faster and no chance if tying to a flimsy stump like that one on the picture. There were lower branches available were you could have been properly and safely tied in.

Next question how in the heck do you managed to throw to 120 feet up in to the canopy and not target a better lower branch that you can actually see and inspect from the ground with binoculars or something like it?

It is the climbers responsibility (and his companions) to verify each others decisions and approve the safety of the climb . We do not want to read about you in the "Close Calls and Fatalities Section" of the TCI board. Better luck next time..... umh, You already got lucky on that climb as a matter of fact.

I will admit to having climbed (SRT, even) on tie in points that I could not see. Whenever I do this I make sure to get a couple people to do a "bounce test" with me first. It is not uncommon for me to have to climb a tree so choked with vines that you cannot see any of the limbs. The bounce test is the best I can do in these situations.

That being said, I would definitely pucker up a little bit if I climbed up and found my rope on the end of a stub like that one!

Originally posted by Oldtimer
For the heck of discussion, If your branch was at 120 why used DRT?...

I don't think Scott mentioned anywhere that he was climbing DRT. For a 120 ft. TIP you have to assume SRT unless he specified otherwise. For strictly vertical SRT climbing you can see how this TIP would work (and did) since there would be no rope movement to work it off the stub. THere is a post on Arboristsite that reports a climber falling after a false crotch popped off the end of a stub. In that case the climber was DdRT climbing at an angle to the stub.

As Leon says, big tree climbers expect to sometimes not see the TIP. To recap, the climber can't see the TIP, does a good bounce test, everything is solid, climb on. Reach TIP, heart attack! It's more visually provocative then actually dangerous since the bounce test proved it would support the climber.

I think the underlying question is this: In SRT climbing, if you can't see the TIP, and the TIP passes the bounce test, is it OK to climb?