takedown
- Thread starter mquinn
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Treeman14
Addicted to ArboristSite
Interesting photos. Just a few questions. What is the second rope leading back away from the direction of fall? Perhaps something to keep the trunk from falling too fast?????
And how did the trunk end up turned perpendicular to the fall line?
And why couldn't the truck be moved?
And how did the trunk end up turned perpendicular to the fall line?
And why couldn't the truck be moved?
Treeman14
Addicted to ArboristSite
That's what I was afraid of. Now the question is, Was someone holding it? (He may still be up in the crotch of that other tree.) Or was it tied off? Couple of wraps maybe?
Its easy to criticize from behind a keyboard, but it appears to be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
thanks, but you two are not being helpful in any way. since i can't delete the whole thread, i've just deleted my posts. do what you want with yours.
i'm trying to get information to help these guys do the best and safest job they can. they're learning.
we don't pay much. we don't hire professionals, we 'train' whoever we can.
i'm not in charge. i don't do the hiring. i don't do the paying. i work in pest management and have some interaction with the arborists.
i answered your questions and asked for further explanations and advice. you've provided criticism and sarcasm, and nothing i could take away that could serve to help these guys in the future.
i was hoping for something helpful when i posted.
i'll find another forum.
thanks anyway.
i'm trying to get information to help these guys do the best and safest job they can. they're learning.
we don't pay much. we don't hire professionals, we 'train' whoever we can.
i'm not in charge. i don't do the hiring. i don't do the paying. i work in pest management and have some interaction with the arborists.
i answered your questions and asked for further explanations and advice. you've provided criticism and sarcasm, and nothing i could take away that could serve to help these guys in the future.
i was hoping for something helpful when i posted.
i'll find another forum.
thanks anyway.
Last edited:
Acer
ArboristSite Operative
And this is the problem with the industry; too many people are not prepared to pay the going rate for trained and competent personnel. We need more cases like this, where the people who hire incompetents get brought to book..
Builder fined for hiring incompetent arborist
i agree with you, acer.
perhaps i should quit saying "we" in this post. i'm just the hired help. and maybe not for too much longer. i tend to rub the bosses the wrong way. and state budget cuts are forcing some personnel cuts - come july, i may be out of a job. i look like a pretty obvious target to the management.
i'm working at a facilities department on a major campus. i've tried for five years to get them to increase the budget for the arborist team, and what has happened instead is that they keep cutting it. i've also tried to locate training courses and bring trainers onto the campus and had little more success.
i just found out yesterday that the aborirst's groundsman can't read well enough to pass the pesticide licensing exam, so he can't be promoted to the next step up - he's topped out in his wage-earning ability within the system. when i found that out, i offered my services off the clock to help him improve his reading abilties. they said they'll talk to him. probably won't. i'll probably have to do that myself.
i've pushed this issue so much they run when they see me coming. we had an excellent arborist right after i started working here, but they couldn't appreciate the need to keep him by doing right by him in his job. i pushed that one so much they finally started trying to sabotage my work in order to get rid of me. it didn't work, obviously, but the arborist did quit and found something much better. i'm very happy for him, but from there things here only went down hill. the young man who's doing the work now was on the tree planting crew. he's been doing the arborist work now for two years, and he has a lot of talent, regardless of what the posts above seem to be saying. and i've been trying to get him more training. with the budget cuts now, they don't see that as much of a priority.
so now i just try to find other ways of getting information and getting it to these guys. they don't get paid much - in fact, i think their wages are categorized as poverty by the federal government. they don't own computers, and they're not allowed to use the computers at work. that's why i started making use of arborist forums myself. and whereever i can find information that might be helpful to them, i pass it on.
it's a lousy system.
as for this particular incident, i've just sent emails to four competent arborists whose abilities i appreciate and who've always been willing to help. that's probably what i should have done in the first place. i had thought perhaps by posting here some helpful suggestions might be garnered, and furthermore that other people might be able to learn something from it as well.
perhaps i should quit saying "we" in this post. i'm just the hired help. and maybe not for too much longer. i tend to rub the bosses the wrong way. and state budget cuts are forcing some personnel cuts - come july, i may be out of a job. i look like a pretty obvious target to the management.
i'm working at a facilities department on a major campus. i've tried for five years to get them to increase the budget for the arborist team, and what has happened instead is that they keep cutting it. i've also tried to locate training courses and bring trainers onto the campus and had little more success.
i just found out yesterday that the aborirst's groundsman can't read well enough to pass the pesticide licensing exam, so he can't be promoted to the next step up - he's topped out in his wage-earning ability within the system. when i found that out, i offered my services off the clock to help him improve his reading abilties. they said they'll talk to him. probably won't. i'll probably have to do that myself.
i've pushed this issue so much they run when they see me coming. we had an excellent arborist right after i started working here, but they couldn't appreciate the need to keep him by doing right by him in his job. i pushed that one so much they finally started trying to sabotage my work in order to get rid of me. it didn't work, obviously, but the arborist did quit and found something much better. i'm very happy for him, but from there things here only went down hill. the young man who's doing the work now was on the tree planting crew. he's been doing the arborist work now for two years, and he has a lot of talent, regardless of what the posts above seem to be saying. and i've been trying to get him more training. with the budget cuts now, they don't see that as much of a priority.
so now i just try to find other ways of getting information and getting it to these guys. they don't get paid much - in fact, i think their wages are categorized as poverty by the federal government. they don't own computers, and they're not allowed to use the computers at work. that's why i started making use of arborist forums myself. and whereever i can find information that might be helpful to them, i pass it on.
it's a lousy system.
as for this particular incident, i've just sent emails to four competent arborists whose abilities i appreciate and who've always been willing to help. that's probably what i should have done in the first place. i had thought perhaps by posting here some helpful suggestions might be garnered, and furthermore that other people might be able to learn something from it as well.
Last edited:
Stumper
One Man Band
mquinn, I didn't see the pics, but from what has been posted I would suggest that the guys bluntness( that I am sure seemed harsh since this is about people you know) contain some helpful imformation if it is reformatted into "kinder "suggestions.
Basic rules:
1. Remove all potential obstacles which can be removed.
2. If a tree can safely be removed entire do so. If obstacles/targets preclude felling the entire tree, piece it down until there is zero possibility of hitting a potential 'target'.
3. Professional Timber Falling by D. Douglas Dent explains the techniques for directional fellling of trees. Arboricultural practices supplement those techniques with ropes for increased control and security but everyone felling trees needs to understand how the wood itself can be made to control the fall of the tree.
4. When in doubt cut smaller pieces. or, better said,-When in doubt- DON'T cut! Make only cuts that you are A. absolutely sure about or B. could not possibly matter even if things surprise you.
Basic rules:
1. Remove all potential obstacles which can be removed.
2. If a tree can safely be removed entire do so. If obstacles/targets preclude felling the entire tree, piece it down until there is zero possibility of hitting a potential 'target'.
3. Professional Timber Falling by D. Douglas Dent explains the techniques for directional fellling of trees. Arboricultural practices supplement those techniques with ropes for increased control and security but everyone felling trees needs to understand how the wood itself can be made to control the fall of the tree.
4. When in doubt cut smaller pieces. or, better said,-When in doubt- DON'T cut! Make only cuts that you are A. absolutely sure about or B. could not possibly matter even if things surprise you.
thanks stumper. if you would like to see the pictures and offer any comments, i can send you a link.
the arborist wanted to drop the tree onto the lawn, which would have been absolutely the simplest and best solution, but the politicos vetoed it and set up a series of conditions under which he had to work.
some of the things i thought were illogical, but it doesn't matter - he had to work within certain restrictions, and he had to make choices that maybe he wasn't as informed about as he could have been. he's still learning, and a lot of learning is by doing. he has read a lot of material, and i don't know why he came up with the rigging idea he did, but he did.
i also don't know that it was a bad idea. i'm not an arborist. one of the comments was that the second rope was the problem, and i asked the question whether the second rope would have been a problem if the cut had been better made. what i got instead of a response was more sarcasm.
so my question remains - i do have it out now to other arborists who i know will give me an answer.
my concern is that i get the answer to this question before they take down the second tree next tuesday, because if he wrongly believes that it was just his cut that was the problem (which is what he's thinking now), then he may be plannning the same rigging and a more cautious cut. (he said he believed his error was cutting too far into his hinge.)
thanks again for being reasonable and helpful.
the arborist wanted to drop the tree onto the lawn, which would have been absolutely the simplest and best solution, but the politicos vetoed it and set up a series of conditions under which he had to work.
some of the things i thought were illogical, but it doesn't matter - he had to work within certain restrictions, and he had to make choices that maybe he wasn't as informed about as he could have been. he's still learning, and a lot of learning is by doing. he has read a lot of material, and i don't know why he came up with the rigging idea he did, but he did.
i also don't know that it was a bad idea. i'm not an arborist. one of the comments was that the second rope was the problem, and i asked the question whether the second rope would have been a problem if the cut had been better made. what i got instead of a response was more sarcasm.
so my question remains - i do have it out now to other arborists who i know will give me an answer.
my concern is that i get the answer to this question before they take down the second tree next tuesday, because if he wrongly believes that it was just his cut that was the problem (which is what he's thinking now), then he may be plannning the same rigging and a more cautious cut. (he said he believed his error was cutting too far into his hinge.)
thanks again for being reasonable and helpful.
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
Here is my take on the situation.
The second rope was set up on the port-a-wrap to for controlling the rate of fall. let's call that rope the break rope, since it is on a friction break.
Since i cannot see the full picture, I will say that it could have benn a factor in the direction of fall, along with the hinge problem.
The hinge has been touched on, having one side fatter can cause it to swing as the small side fails first. Same as if one side were cut out, the log can spin on the remaining hinge wood.
If the break rope id set up at an angle that is not perpendicular to the hinge, then it can cause a torquing movment that will add to the poor hinge formation.
Another thought is a poorly formed face cut, the angles are not equal so one side closed before the otherr, causing it to throw to one side. A dutchman, or curf in the face apex will do the same thing.
Many of us tree guys do not refine our art of felling, or study the physics behind it becuase we can do it fast and quick on most jobs. Which is why many of us will just pile a bung of old tires on the concreate and drop the stick onto that cushion.
The second rope was set up on the port-a-wrap to for controlling the rate of fall. let's call that rope the break rope, since it is on a friction break.
Since i cannot see the full picture, I will say that it could have benn a factor in the direction of fall, along with the hinge problem.
The hinge has been touched on, having one side fatter can cause it to swing as the small side fails first. Same as if one side were cut out, the log can spin on the remaining hinge wood.
If the break rope id set up at an angle that is not perpendicular to the hinge, then it can cause a torquing movment that will add to the poor hinge formation.
Another thought is a poorly formed face cut, the angles are not equal so one side closed before the otherr, causing it to throw to one side. A dutchman, or curf in the face apex will do the same thing.
Many of us tree guys do not refine our art of felling, or study the physics behind it becuase we can do it fast and quick on most jobs. Which is why many of us will just pile a bung of old tires on the concreate and drop the stick onto that cushion.
thank you jps.
you obviously saw some of the original postings (or maybe you have access to the deleted stuff).
the points you are making are exactly the points i was making - but since i am not educated in the art and science of felling trees, i didn't know if my analysis of the situation was right.
i appreciate your comments greatly.
and the final conclusion on that would be....
that the added line is okay if the angle of attachment is direct (or if that can be compensated for in some way) and the cuts are made properly.
yes? no?
p.s.
here's the first response i've gotten from my emails if you want to comment on it (from m. oxman):
you obviously saw some of the original postings (or maybe you have access to the deleted stuff).
the points you are making are exactly the points i was making - but since i am not educated in the art and science of felling trees, i didn't know if my analysis of the situation was right.
i appreciate your comments greatly.
and the final conclusion on that would be....
that the added line is okay if the angle of attachment is direct (or if that can be compensated for in some way) and the cuts are made properly.
yes? no?
p.s.
here's the first response i've gotten from my emails if you want to comment on it (from m. oxman):
Last edited:
John Paul Sanborn
Above average climber
If the break rope is perpendicular and the hing is good and the face is proper then I think it would work as planed. I think the bclock would have to be at a pretty high angle too, but I'm only thinking this out.
Another thing would be the break man knowing enoigh to finess the operation and not putting too much load on it.
So it seems to me that, with all the variables in there, you would really need 2 lines 30-40* off perpendicular for reliable control, if you intend to ease the load down.
One thing that I touched on, but did not define, is the quality of the face cut. if one side is 40 and the othe 50 then the short side will close first. This could be just a little bump from moving th bar around. This is why I like a face that will not close till the log is all the way down, or not close at all.
Another thing would be the break man knowing enoigh to finess the operation and not putting too much load on it.
So it seems to me that, with all the variables in there, you would really need 2 lines 30-40* off perpendicular for reliable control, if you intend to ease the load down.
One thing that I touched on, but did not define, is the quality of the face cut. if one side is 40 and the othe 50 then the short side will close first. This could be just a little bump from moving th bar around. This is why I like a face that will not close till the log is all the way down, or not close at all.
Stumper
One Man Band
mquinn, I would be happy to look at the pics and give my opinion. It sounds like JPS has given a pretty good analysis as did your respondent.Based on their comments I have a mental picture of things-I'm curious to see if that matches the photos.
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
There were a couple problems I was thinking about. The first thing to consider is that as soon as the face of the notch closes, the hinge tears apart. Once the hinge tears apart, it falls the way the forces pull it. Even if a very open faced notch is made, it still weakens the farther the wood bends, and in this situation, it needs the strongest holding when it is bent the farthest.
Second, the holding rope is holding more than just the weight of the tree spar, because of leverage, the force is multiplied (see my drawing below).
I think the idea is sound if all the loads are correctly calculated and safety factors are maintaned. Here in lies the problem, doesn't the load reach infinity as the line becomes parallel to the spar?
Second, the holding rope is holding more than just the weight of the tree spar, because of leverage, the force is multiplied (see my drawing below).
I think the idea is sound if all the loads are correctly calculated and safety factors are maintaned. Here in lies the problem, doesn't the load reach infinity as the line becomes parallel to the spar?
Stumper
One Man Band
Errrr, Not infinity Mike. At the point in which the rope tied TO the spar becomes parallel to the spar its ability to provide any upward pull drops to nearly zero. (Nearly zero instead of absolutely zero because the rope would still lie slightly above the center of mass.). As the parallel condition occurs any movement forward off the stump is still curtailed but the tendency for the spar to travel that way has already pretty much ended.
Your drawing does illustrate things very well-the further the spar moves toward the ground the less leverage that the control line has and the more difficult control becomes.(Which I think is what you meant. Right?)
Your drawing does illustrate things very well-the further the spar moves toward the ground the less leverage that the control line has and the more difficult control becomes.(Which I think is what you meant. Right?)
Kneejerk Bombas
ArboristSite King
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2001
- Messages
- 36,971
- Reaction score
- 9,980
Yeah, thanks for helping me through that stumpy.
Doesn't the load on the rope also increase as the leverage increases with the dropping spar? If so by how much?
Doesn't the load on the rope also increase as the leverage increases with the dropping spar? If so by how much?
Stumper
One Man Band
You are right about the rope load increasing as the spar drops, but I don"t know the formula for calculating it. (for that matter I don't know the figures for actual weight, length and beginning rope angle). Back pressure at the hinge rises dramatically if the rope is in fact braking the spar's descent. A very tricky control method. I've used it with 2 lines on very short spars but as the spar passes 45* control becomes pretty iffy/wishful unless the rope is high angle.
Stumper
One Man Band
I've had an oportunity to see the original pictures and mquinn suggested that I post my 2 cents worth here. It appears to me based upon the things that I can see in the pics that a combination of factors led to the tree spinning on the stump.
1. The Face cut was not as open as it should have been. This led to premature notch closure-encouraging breakoff.
2. The hinge was cut too far through (this is the faller's own analysis).Again this would contribute to premature tear off.
3. The braking line. This is actually the critical factor-not because it is a completely unworkable concept but because it provided the needed elements to cause the spar to spin when the hinge failed.
The narrow face and thin hinge are things that could cause a premature loss of control. An unintended kerf dutchman or an uneven/tilted face cut could also cause a change in fall in some situations. In this instance the tree was following the intended direction of fall.(Things looked fine at approx. 50* on the way down) Had hinge failure occurred early without the brake line then tree MIGHT have been shifted a few degrees but it was essentially committed at this point. However when the hinge failed gravity was insisting that the spar get down and the brake line prevented it falling forward soooo.... it fell sideways. As Mike and I were talking about, a rear brake line exerts less and less control as the spar approaches horizontal even in the best of situations. For it to work at all it is essential that control of the butt not be lost. In one sense the faller's analysis that his hinge was too thin is probably correct. On the other hand if the brake line had not been present things would probably have been fine!
It is unfortunate that te faller was not permitted to fell the tree into the open area-that would have been the simplest and safest removal method. Blocking down the entire tree with the bucket would have been harder on the lawn but unlikely to cause any serious damage. Felling the spar parrallel to the side walk could have been accomplished best (IMHO) by cutting a wide face, leaving a thick hinge, and easing the tree into the fall with tension on the tag (pull) line. Ideally the tree's fall would have been very slow. If the hinge were to fail at some point in the tree's descent a few dents/gouges in the lawn would have been the only resulting "damage". :angel:
1. The Face cut was not as open as it should have been. This led to premature notch closure-encouraging breakoff.
2. The hinge was cut too far through (this is the faller's own analysis).Again this would contribute to premature tear off.
3. The braking line. This is actually the critical factor-not because it is a completely unworkable concept but because it provided the needed elements to cause the spar to spin when the hinge failed.
The narrow face and thin hinge are things that could cause a premature loss of control. An unintended kerf dutchman or an uneven/tilted face cut could also cause a change in fall in some situations. In this instance the tree was following the intended direction of fall.(Things looked fine at approx. 50* on the way down) Had hinge failure occurred early without the brake line then tree MIGHT have been shifted a few degrees but it was essentially committed at this point. However when the hinge failed gravity was insisting that the spar get down and the brake line prevented it falling forward soooo.... it fell sideways. As Mike and I were talking about, a rear brake line exerts less and less control as the spar approaches horizontal even in the best of situations. For it to work at all it is essential that control of the butt not be lost. In one sense the faller's analysis that his hinge was too thin is probably correct. On the other hand if the brake line had not been present things would probably have been fine!
It is unfortunate that te faller was not permitted to fell the tree into the open area-that would have been the simplest and safest removal method. Blocking down the entire tree with the bucket would have been harder on the lawn but unlikely to cause any serious damage. Felling the spar parrallel to the side walk could have been accomplished best (IMHO) by cutting a wide face, leaving a thick hinge, and easing the tree into the fall with tension on the tag (pull) line. Ideally the tree's fall would have been very slow. If the hinge were to fail at some point in the tree's descent a few dents/gouges in the lawn would have been the only resulting "damage". :angel:
no pics now
Would have liked to seen this on the commercial fourm where more would have had an oppurtunity to see and discuss it. Has the potential to be a very good thread. Can you put the pics back up?
Would have liked to seen this on the commercial fourm where more would have had an oppurtunity to see and discuss it. Has the potential to be a very good thread. Can you put the pics back up?
Stumper
One Man Band
It is mquinn's call, but I agree Geofore. FWIW there was no serious damage-just a close call when the tree wound up 90* from where it was intended.
