Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Mark_Skyland]

Looks like a very, very sad day for treework

 

I would be interested in seeing a video of someone ascending a tree from the ground using a two rope system using a work positioning harness without introducing slack into one of the systems.

 

I'm trying to get my head around advancing on two prussik loops at the same time, or two zigzags, or two spiderjacks or two hitch climber setups etc. I think 'reasonably practical' would play an important part here. As for aerial rescue, I think that would now be redundant as reaching a casualty in time would be practically impossible.

 

Rope access is a completely different practice to treework and both require different work practices, this needs to be established before we start to try and adapt or disregard both working practices/techniques. The HSE needs to recognise this from the start.

 

You wouldn't expect that riding a courier bicycle and driving a fuel tanker are the same type of job and therefore the same safety restrictions should be put in place  just because they are carried out in the same environment and look a bit the same. Someone is comparing apples to oranges for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tom D]

21 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Herein lies a part of the problem though Tom.

 

As you rightly say, MEWP has become the (AA sponsored) default preferred option over climbing.  I don't agree that this should be the case and I suspect this is a classic example of rules for the blind obedience of fools.

 

I suspect, as we start to see the MEWP as the preferred method slowly building a more frequent usage, we will also start to see an increase in the accident rate associated with poor choice or operation of the MEWP - there was that case recently where they used a MEWP because it had been written into the policy as the 'preferred' option, but then failed to set it up properly resulting in a death which would not have happened had they climbed.

 

I'm not in any way anti-MEWP quite the contrary (I'm in the market) in the right circumstance.  I am however, anti-make a policy which could result in unforeseen adverse consequences.

 

Just 1 minor point about 'reasonably practicable' though - it would be very difficult / indefensible to justify 'cost' as a reason not to go with the safer option. 

Broadly speaking I agree with your sentiments on MEWP's, and I spent £30k buying one last year!  I think if they are widely adopted in tree work the number of MEWP related accidents will undoubtedly rise as you say. But as far as the regulations go its, work from ground...no? Work from MEWP...no? then work from a rope and harness....

Not saying I agree with that but there it is.

21 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

 

 

[skyhuck]

On 06/09/2019 at 10:58, Mike Hill said:

How much did you get paid for the demo?

30 pieces of silver...................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, couldn't resist, I did try, honest.?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

7 hours ago, Tom D said:

But as far as the regulations go its, work from ground...no? Work from MEWP...no? then work from a rope and harness....

Yes absolutely agree Tom, that’s what the guidance presently requires. 

 

I think we’re on the same page, regulations implemented without full and proper consideration of the potential implications can lead to greater hazard rather than reduced hazard. 

 

The MEWP scenario is an example where this could be considered to have already happened (and found its way through validation to regulation) and I think we share the concern that the 2 rope 2 TIP could, if similarly implemented carte blanche, result in an unjustifiable over complication of a situation with more notable disadvantages than there are tangible safety improvements. 

 

If someone can produce any data which indicates accidents / fatalities directly linked to single rope single TIP operation (in Arb - not recreational or commercial climbing!) then maybe there is a problem to be addressed. 

 

If not, then it must be self evident that making an already difficult task MORE difficult is entirely counter productive and unnecessary. 

 

I wouldn’t be averse to implementing a 2nd rope 2nd TIP if it were best on the day / for that specific job but I cannot bring to mind a single personal example of where that would have been of benefit. 

 

Another example of theory not necessarily standing up to operational practicality (like the MEWP scenario) is the rescue climber requirement. I’m much less vexed by that since there are obvious (albeit probably so exceptionally rare as to bring the requirement into doubt) examples of need. This has been borne out by the collective contributions from decades (probably 100s of years of experience from posters) that the first choice of an injured climber will always be rapid self rescue - get to the ground as quickly as possible. 

 

So I’m not saying do away with second climber, but I am saying I rather doubt the ‘need’ really exists. 

 

What this current proposal actually represents is making self rescue, and rescued recovery, more challenging. 

[jarborist]

There have been many very good points made throughout the 333 posts to date. I hope the hse IS following the thread. I have read every one and I m not paid to do so and have limited input on a decision that affects thousands. 

I presume I am wrong but am not clear on why the hse might not be able to review their decision. On the face of it confirmed by one days demo, one day's meeting and some unclear accident statistics. 

No doubt (hopefully) there has been more behind the decision to date, but if the decision appears to be ill judged and needs more nuance then hopefully the hse will consider agreeing to it being so in the guidance. - I am not aware of any hse guidance for arb saying otherwise as yet. 

 

 

 

 

[dumper]

How can one persons flawed opinion and interpretation of a document be allowed to have such a impact on a industry, they don’t have the correct statistics to back up Their actions surely its reasonable to request them to justify themselves  would there evidence of accidents stand up in court? 

[Konstantly]

15 hours ago, dumper said:

How can one persons flawed opinion and interpretation of a document be allowed to have such a impact on a industry, they don’t have the correct statistics to back up Their actions surely its reasonable to request them to justify themselves  would there evidence of accidents stand up in court? 

Agree with your points.

I'm sure in the case, would an extra rope on a separate anchor prevented the fall from cut line/failure of anchor point then the awnser would be yes in a court inquest. 

The question is why did the anchor failure occur or rope get cut?

Surely a better understanding of force impact on said points and better work position with saw management should be looked at as an option at training and initial mentorship times.

Not having these occurrences in the first instance needs to be addressed.

Not tangling us all up with more legislation and ropes that will make work more complex than it need be. Not to mention other valied points made elsewhere in the thread.

[Mark Bolam]

I think that there has been a bit of stick dished out unfairly on this thread, to the AA and Minty in particular, so I did a bit of research today.

[jarborist]

? 

[eggsarascal]

12 minutes ago, Mark Bolam said:

I think that there has been a bit of stick dished out unfairly on this thread, to the AA and Minty in particular, so I did a bit of research today.

I'm lost for words, Mark.