Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Paul, @AA Teccie (Paul)

 

Can this article be translated into a couple of sentences for simple folk rather than pages of script which left me no clearer on what / when a change might be imposed?  

 

Is it saying that HSE require climbing arbs to use 2 separate ropes rather than the 2 ends of the same rope (for those that still dwell in the 19th century?) 

 

If so, when is this likely to be implemented?  Are we non-compliant now?  Is the training non-compliant?  

 

I have to admit, after reading it, I wasn't really any clearer on whether a change is imminent now, in the near future or maybe not at all.

 

Love & peace,

 

Confused of Cornwall..

 

 

Arboricultural Association - Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

A range of tree related help and advice for members of the public as well as tree surgeons.

 

[Mick Dempsey]

Saw that on FB, couldn’t understand it either.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Apologies all, there's much background tbh and my colleague Simon, who wrote the article, tried to cover all bases.

In a nutshell the HSE would expect to see 2x independent lines, and independent anchors, such that one system can act as a robust backup in the event of the other being damaged or becoming detached and the climber falling. 

In terms of timescales this is not gonna happen overnight and, in all honesty, nothing is likely to 'start to' change until the industry code of practice (ICoP) is amended and 'Technical Guide 1 - Tree Ascent and Descent' is released. As you rightly mention training, and assessment, will have to change to and existing operators will have to change their MO to comply with the law (effectively.) In his article Simon likened this to the industry's equivalent to seat belts being intro'd. so gonna be years rather than months.

Does this help clarify things...a little?

Thanks for asking Kevin and I hope you;re well

Paul

[skyhuck]

We already use two tie ins, nothing knew, just idiots with no real knowledge of our work sticking their oar in.

 

[skyhuck]

2 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Apologies all, there's much background tbh and my colleague Simon, who wrote the article, tried to cover all bases.

In a nutshell the HSE would expect to see 2x independent lines, and independent anchors, such that one system can act as a robust backup in the event of the other being damaged or becoming detached and the climber falling. 

In terms of timescales this is not gonna happen overnight and, in all honesty, nothing is likely to 'start to' change until the industry code of practice (ICoP) is amended and 'Technical Guide 1 - Tree Ascent and Descent' is released. As you rightly mention training, and assessment, will have to change to and existing operators will have to change their MO to comply with the law (effectively.) In his article Simon likened this to the industry's equivalent to seat belts being intro'd. so gonna be years rather than months.

Does this help clarify things...a little?

Thanks for asking Kevin and I hope you;re well

Paul

Oh dear............

 

And this IMHO, is why the AA will never have any real relevance within the industry. (walks away shaking head)

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

the HSEhave had very detailed demonstrations by the industry prior to making a decision about what systems are acceptable / compliant and what aren't.

Effectively, when working, you will still require to have an additional 'tie in', i.e. a 3rd connection...thats gonna be hard to stomach.

[Mick Dempsey]

No Paul it doesn’t help.

 

Are you saying that at all times, whilst moving around the tree there should be two points of attachment?

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Yes Mick, I am saying that...because that is what the HSE have decreed.

Much of the utility industry sector already operates this way.

[Mick Dempsey]

Ok thanks, then in reality (and I know you mentioned it earlier) there will be three points of attachment a lot of the time.

 

Were the AA consulted about this and did the AA go along with it?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

Thanks for Sunday reply Paul!  Didn't expect such a speedy pick up ??

 

The point I couldn't untangle was - Does ‘two separate and independently anchored lines’ actually translate to 2 separate and independent ropes or (as we are familiar) both ends of the same rope used to achieve 2 anchor points.  

 

It reads like 2 separate ropes and that gave the obvious rise to the question, if it is 2 separate ropes, have we all been non-compliant since 'the legal requirement goes back to 2003.'

 

I'm just thinking about the present (for the present), if it becomes 3 later - so be it.