Selection of SRT kit and risk assessment etc.

[David Dobedoe]

I'm writing a risk assessment and method statement to support the use of SRT. I am not aware of any national (FISA/AFAG type) guidelines for this. If there are any please point me in that direction.

 

Non CE marked equipment eg the rope runner causes me some concern. As its not CE marked it can't be supplied/sold for the work we do in Europe. I am interested to know how others are managing the risk assessment and method statement in this and similar situations?

 

Also

 

I understand that not all tree climbing ropes are suitable for SRT. Is this the case and if so what makes a rope appropriate and another one inappropriate and how are people managing this particularly with sub contract climbers providing their own kit

 

Thanks David

[Mark Bolam]

Remember it's twice as dangerous as double rope.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I'm writing a risk assessment and method statement to support the use of SRT. I am not aware of any national (FISA/AFAG type) guidelines for this. If there are any please point me in that direction.

 

Non CE marked equipment eg the rope runner causes me some concern. As its not CE marked it can't be supplied/sold for the work we do in Europe. I am interested to know how others are managing the risk assessment and method statement in this and similar situations?

 

Also

 

I understand that not all tree climbing ropes are suitable for SRT. Is this the case and if so what makes a rope appropriate and another one inappropriate and how are people managing this particularly with sub contract climbers providing their own kit

 

Thanks David

 

Hi David, not that I'm particularly familiar with, nor particularly know an awful lot about SRT but it is mentioned, albeit briefly, in Sect. 2.9.3 of the ICoP (copy attached.)

 

The Association is in the process of reviewing and updating the technical guides, including tree climbing and access, and this will give more guidance when it's completed (end 2017.)

 

Regards,

Paul

ICoP_TreeWorkAtHeight-090215.pdf

[David Dobedoe]

Remember it's twice as dangerous as double rope.

Why do you say it's twice as dangerous? It can put higher loads on the anchor point that doesn't make it twice as dangerous does it?

 

Sent from my D6603 using Arbtalk mobile app

[David Dobedoe]

Hi David, not that I'm particularly familiar with, nor particularly know an awful lot about SRT but it is mentioned, albeit briefly, in Sect. 2.9.3 of the ICoP (copy attached.)

 

The Association is in the process of reviewing and updating the technical guides, including tree climbing and access, and this will give more guidance when it's completed (end 2017.)

 

Regards,

Paul

Thanks Paul

 

Sent from my D6603 using Arbtalk mobile app

[Mark Bolam]

Why do you say it's twice as dangerous? It can put higher loads on the anchor point that doesn't make it twice as dangerous does it?

 

Sent from my D6603 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

 

No, you've only got one rope instead of two.

It's clearly twice as dangerous.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Old Mill Tree Care]

Why do you say it's twice as dangerous? It can put higher loads on the anchor point that doesn't make it twice as dangerous does it?

 

Sent from my D6603 using Arbtalk mobile app

 

 

He's making a joke David.

Anyway, more load can be exerted on the anchor point if the climber uses a base anchor, otherwise most other factors are the same.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Arbtalk

[Loler UK]

And sometimes the forces are actually less, much less!

 

You're right to be cautious there's little written guidance out there so you have to make your own judgement whether the equipment is Fit For Purpose and whether the technicians are competent to use it.

 

As far as the equipment goes, some of it isn't tested to any European norms so what criteria would you be looking for to deem it FFP? and why?

 

As far as the questions on ropes goes, it's great you're seeking the information but in doing so i'd guess you are perhaps highlighting that you're not (yet) competent to make this decision?

 

What every you decide i'd say you need to be sure your decision is not only well thought out & justified but that you're able to articulate it should you need to.

 

My most immediate focus in your situation would most likely be rescue planning & practice, are the rescuers on the ground familiar with what systems the subbies are climbing on and how that might effect the rescue plans? And vice versa?

[David Dobedoe]

The reason I'm asking about rope selection is that should a ground anchor be used we have a potential for twice the 'normal' load on the rope. Potentially if then used in this configuration for rescue it becomes four times the 'normal' load. One of my climbers said he had read an article about the working loads tree climbing ropes are designed for and that some of the lower specification ropes are not strong enough to have an acceptable redundancy for all SRT applications.. I will try and track down the article.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my D6603 using Arbtalk mobile app

[Loler UK]

You mean the anchor might take double the load? are ropes are all tested in a single configuration, not doubled. All ropes certified under 1891 are split into 2 categories: class A & class B but that has nothing to do with doubled vs single line application. In fact, not even the anchor will be subject to double the load.

 

Although the IMA may suggest a 2.0 MA at the anchor the TMA and AMA is far, far from it. Furthermore you have the active & semi active lengths of rope to consider. Its fair to say that the higher loads generated by climbers are dynamic ones.

 

A single rope (even without the added semi-active rope of a base anchor) may absorb much more force in a fall than a doubled one as the force isn't halved/ strand so it can elongate more, absorbing the impact.

 

I think there's allot to go through to bring you up to speed here and, although i'd actively encourage anyone to start reading up i appreciate that this information is not so readily available, summarised in one place, so perhaps it's best to wait for the paper being written on srwp in the UK to be published (maybe next year) and read out from there?