Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Bolt]

@scotspine1
 

So I required a second climbing system, based on a shorter rope, that I can use in conjunction with a lanyard, allowing me to descend to the ground in an emergency  situation (such as destroying my main system).

 

Been working like that for years.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Bolt

[scotspine1]

2 minutes ago, Bolt said:

@scotspine1
 

So a second climbing system, based on a shorter rope, that I can use in conjunction with a lanyard, allowing me to descend to the ground in an emergency  situation (such as destroying my main system).

 

Been working like that for years.

 

 

 

Carry on doing what you're doing if your happy with it, but it falls short of what is described here in the ICOP draft. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bolt]

Just now, scotspine1 said:

 

Carry on doing what you're doing if your happy with it, but it falls short of what is described here in the ICOP draft. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No it doesn’t.

 

I feel you are pushing your own agenda here.

 

I think that spreading disinformation is a very poor way to try to improve the tree industry.

 

Nothing in you screenshot above disproves what I am saying.

[scotspine1]

6 minutes ago, Bolt said:

No it doesn’t.

 

I feel you are pushing your own agenda here.

 

I think that spreading disinformation is a very poor way to try to improve the tree industry.

 

Nothing in you screenshot above disproves what I am saying.

 

I'm against the mandatory/enforced two rope system at all times being pushed by the HSE and AA. 

 

You carry on using your own system if your happy with it. There's no argument from that perspective, it's just that your chosen method wont comply with the ICOP (as it stands) and your insurance will be voided should you or your climbers have an accident and it was found you didn't have two full length climbing systems in the tree. 

 

.

 

[Bolt]

2 minutes ago, scotspine1 said:

 

I'm against the mandatory/enforced two rope system at all times being pushed by the HSE and AA. 

 

 

 

 

Do you really mean that you are against the mandatory/enforced two rope SRT system at all times being pushed by the HSE and AA.  

 

If so, just come out and admit it.

 

Continuing to appear to spread disinformation does little to add weight to you arguments.

[Svts]

Sorry 8f I was a bit blunt last night. Was trying to make room for this years batch of Sloe/Bramble Gin so maybe a tad unrestrained. 

I have rambled through the draft icop now. 

I realise it needs to be comprehensive ect. But I doubt anyone besides the compliance people of large aa approved,local authority type outfits pay much heed to the bulk of it. 

After subbing to the odd large aa approved outfit over the years, I find almost without exception the lads doing the actual work largely ignore this stuff. Preferring to sign the bit of paper then crackon in their own way. If they're on the books the pay is usually dismal so they just want to get finished and hide somewhere. If they are subbed in they are usually on a tight price so need to push on to make it work. 

The smaller owner operated outfits usually make an effort, if the man running the show is a decent sort. 

The rest just don't give a toss and generally operate by the seat of their pants. 

This is the reality and no amount of well intentioned bumph will change it. 

Some people tend to be careless and occasionally hurt themselves. Some people are a bit sharper and save themselves a lot of bother. From my observations it has always been thus.  The stats bear this out as they reach a base line then plateau as engineered controls reach their limit. Human error eventually comes into play. 

As I said last night, writing yet more comprehensive rules won't change this. Could training and candidate selection help with the human factor?  If some of the woefully trained people I've come across in the last 10 years are anything to go by I think so. 

The aa need to step up and bring about a few radical changes if they want to retain creditability (outside of their bubble of "approved" contractors) in my humble opinion. 

I'll watch with interest! 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Svts
Spelling, punctuation,clarification

[Jake Andrews]

B) rope length allows for at least one of the systems in use by the operator to be capable of providing an uninterrupted descent to the ground;
 

 


We have interpreted that differently. My interpretation of that line is that one system at least must have an uninterrupted route to the ground I.e not draped over a load of branches or coiled/caught in the tree. It’s more about rope management imo.

[Pete Mctree]

33 minutes ago, Bolt said:

Do you really mean that you are against the mandatory/enforced two rope SRT system at all times being pushed by the HSE and AA.  

 

If so, just come out and admit it.

 

Continuing to appear to spread disinformation does little to add weight to you arguments.

You are missing the point completely- non of us are in favour of mandatory 2 working lines.

you asked if a short rope, long rope & lanyard fulfilled the criteria in the draft ICOP and supporting documents from the AA. It doesn’t, as it clearly states that both ropes have to be long enough to reach the ground. Simples !

[Bolt]

33 minutes ago, Pete Mctree said:

You are missing the point completely- non of us are in favour of mandatory 2 working lines.

you asked if a short rope, long rope & lanyard fulfilled the criteria in the draft ICOP and supporting documents from the AA. It doesn’t, as it clearly states that both ropes have to be long enough to reach the ground. Simples !

Nope.  I asked about the draft ICOP.

 

Why are you misquoting what I asked for?

 

The draft ICOP does not clearly state that for MRT both rope have to be long enough to reach the ground.

 

Why are you making the contents of the ICOP out to be more onerous for MRT than it is?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

4 hours ago, Marc said:

I seriously doubt anyone had the intelligence to dream up a revenue from this, it is simply poorly considered

I'd happily concede that the 'joined up thinking' necessary might be a stretch but since I'm a cynical bar steward by nature...  

 

After all, 'someone' dreamt up the 'new' requirement for TV licenses in student halls and military bases etc...  It all comes down to money in the end.  A department with dwindling income sets out to neutralise it's net deficit by raising enforcement fines.  Not like it hasn't Benn done before...  parking tickets for example...