Towertalk
[Top] [All Lists]

[Towertalk] RE: Double protection - climbing

To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Subject: [Towertalk] RE: Double protection - climbing
From: n4zr@contesting.com (Pete Smith)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 19:23:48 -0500
Hi Dick -- I don't think either one of us really knows.  To me, the single 
point impact of falling (on your hip, for example) from 4 feet onto 
concrete is a lot more potentially damaging than falling on a lanyard 
attached to a D-ring, attached to a wide padded belt, attached to a 
full-body harness.  If the lanyard was attached to the hip opposite the 
attachment point, then it's possible to visulaize a scenario where you 
would fall and roll away from the tower as you did so, such that any impact 
on the tower would fall on your back.  I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant in 
either scenario.

That being said, I agree that the best solution is probably two fall-arrest 
lanyards.  Where it should be attached is, I think, literally "up in the 
air."  I can see Mark's logic in suggesting that both should be attached to 
a FRONT D-ring -- that way, as you fall you will tend to fall away from the 
tower, giving you maximum change to cushion your swing back toward the 
tower and prevent second-derivative damage.  The traditional D-ring in the 
center of the back, it could be argued, is intended more for a 
roof/structure situation.  My harness has only the back D-ring.

At some point, I think these various alternatives become so far above any 
typical ham scenario that we may be arguing on the margins.  The important 
thing, I stress, is ALWAYS to be attached to the tower -- no exceptions, no 
sliding lanyards.

73, Pete N4ZR
Happy Holidays 


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>