Tree rescue video - WAY too complicated

This video shows a typical high angle crew performing a rescue using way too many steps. Keep in mind that this is from a company that sells gear, so they wanted to showcase as many toys as possible.
Enjoy:

Interesting. I guess if the harness he was in was inspected they could've lowered him in that. More simple MA rig could be done I assume. I like the redirect at the base of the tree, could be done more simply as well. And most simple of all the rescue climber could've done the MA and pick-off without all the ground help and rigging. Fair enough though that principles demonstrated could apply to many different situations.

Guessing the most common cause of falling out a hunting stand is falling asleep, but that wouldn't make for an exciting training/demo video.
-moss

Why some regulatory agency can't make such harnesses illegal is what I can't understand.

The regulatory agency of which you speak is OSHA. They REQUIRE harnesses like this as fall protection.

1926.502(d)(17)

The attachment point of the body belt shall be located in the center of the wearer's back. The attachment point of the body harness shall be located in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head.

The issue with this video is far too familiar though. OSHA also states that "The attachment device/lanyard shall not allow a fall of more than 2 feet." Obviously, this "climber" hadn't read that paragraph prior to attaching the lanyard.

Baker wrote:

1926.502(d)(17)

The attachment point of the body belt shall be located in the center of the wearer's back. The attachment point of the body harness shall be located in the center of the wearer's back near shoulder level, or above the wearer's head.

How about adding this requirement;
"...The body belt will include a wide strap across the buttocks which a suspended person will be able to sit on to prevent restriction of blood flow to the legs due to being supported by the thigh straps."

You're talking about OSHA here. Govt. agencies, fire departments, tower crews, window washers, roofers, and every other profession that requires a person to work above a height of 5 feet is required to do it this way. It's been like that for MANY years.
Also, very. very few of these people would actually do that kind of work aloft - ALONE. Hunters are the exception and know the risks. Still, I'm sure very few of them seek the safety training to learn how to self-rescue.

Baker wrote:

Hunters are the exception and know the risks. Still, I'm sure very few of them seek the safety training to learn how to self-rescue.

I wonder if a significant number of treestand deaths are due to suspension trauma? Or are 99% of them due to hitting the ground?

I would imagine that a significant number of the deaths from hitting the ground would be in direct correlation to to the number of those who fall while not wearing a harness. As far as the number of deaths attributed to suspension trauma - that could probably be matched very closely to the number of people who have died while wearing one.