Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Bolt]

1 hour ago, Jake Andrews said:

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.

Cool, my long rope/ short rope / lanyard MRT system looks like a winner to me.

 

Always been a wizard with my rope discipline.

 

 

[Jake Andrews]

Cool, my long rope/ short rope / lanyard MRT system looks like a winner to me.
 
Always been a wizard with my rope discipline.
 
 

Can I ask why you are becoming disgruntled over carrying an extra 20-30ft of rope with you if you already comply? It seems as though you are already doing the hardest bit (2 ropes and 2 anchors) just without carrying extra length in one rope to fully comply?

[Bolt]

43 minutes ago, Pete Mctree said:

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

 

Why, If you don’t want it, and the draft ICOP does not state it is mandatory (for MRT)  do you keep harping on about it then.

 

Its exactly this kind of over-zealous misinterpretation of regulations and legislation, spread about by pint-sized-part-time-wannabe H+S ‘experts’ *that gets our nation into the overcompliance nightmares that we so find ourselves in.

 

 

*not that I am implying in any way that anyone on here is a pint-sized-part-time-wannabe H+S ‘expert‘

 

[Bolt]

3 minutes ago, Jake Andrews said:

 

Can I ask why you are becoming disgruntled over carrying an extra 20-30ft of rope with you if you already comply? It seems as though you are already doing the hardest bit (2 ropes and 2 anchors) just without carrying extra length in one rope to fully comply?

 

Of course you can,

 

But just for clarity, the question above is what I would expect from someone who is in favour of MRT being undertaken with two ropes long enough to reach the ground at all times.

 

Is this the case or have I failed to understand your question?

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, Bolt said:

Why, If you don’t want it, and the draft ICOP does not state it is mandatory (for MRT)  do you keep harping on about it then.

 

Its exactly this kind of over-zealous misinterpretation of regulations and legislation, spread about by pint-sized-part-time-wannabe H+S ‘experts’ *that gets our nation into the overcompliance nightmares that we so find ourselves in.

 

 

*not that I am implying in any way that anyone on here is a pint-sized-part-time-wannabe H+S ‘expert‘

 

Legendary retort! ???

 

And totally on the money!

[Bolt]

3 hours ago, scotspine1 said:

 

 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. 

 

 

You keep saying that according to the draft ICOP that I MUST have two full length climbing systems in the tree, but for MRT, WHERE IN THE DRAFT ICOP IS IT STATED?  
 

Where are the actual words?

 

The draft ICOP is publicly viewable, you must realise that anyone can look at it and see that what you are saying is written, is in reality, not actually there! ?

Edited December 22, 2019 by Bolt

[Marc]

2 hours ago, Bolt said:

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?

That is my interpretation of it too, it doesn’t clearly state what the back requirement is, just that one is required I’ve heard the back up can simply be a lanyard. This is the issue with here say, it really needs to be clearly defined as simply as possible.

 

I do not understand why there is a distinction between two work positioning systems, sure a brief explanation of the difference should be included. Other than that there should be no difference between the two in terms of risk and application.

Why is SRT consider rope access and MRT is not? Both provide a means of crown access. SRT is only more efficient.

Describing SRT as Rope Access is a slippery slope, as we cannot adhere to this definition in arboriculture and working in tree crowns.

 

[Marc]

Actually I only just really looked at this.

 

i really need to sit down and digest it in more detail, as I am truly fixated on one point at the moment 2.9

 

In the pic it’s  saying fall protection system? Is this a good term for work positioning systems?

After all, we are not looking to take any fall, it’s always been my understanding and the way I’ve carried out aerial operations is to never be in a position where a fall can occur as the equipment namely a work positioning harness and semi-static rope is not designed to be subject to any type of fall.

Describing tree work as rope access with fall protection doesn’t sit well with me, we are a little more niche than that.

 

Or maybe I am being pedantic.

 

Edited December 22, 2019 by Marc

[Bolt]

@Marc  I only started looking into this the other day (up to that point I was happily absorbed in the TVI woodland thread).

 

From the impression I had picked up upto that point, I gathered that it was going to be law (according to the HSE) that you had to have two complete systems, able to reach the deck at all times.

 

Once I had actually looked with my own eyes at the draft ICOP, I saw that there appeared to be a certain amount of hearsay, disinformation and 4th columning going on. 

 

Reading the draft ICOP is not hard.  I am not interested in who apparently said what to whom.  I am not interested in personal agendas, or fake news.

 

I urge everyone to read the ICOP, draw their own conclusions from what is actually written (NOT from what some bloke on the internet seems to have dreamt up) and complete the consultation survey for themselves.

[Bolt]

15 hours ago, Marc said:

In the pic it’s  saying fall protection system? Is this a good term for work positioning systems?

After all, we are not looking to take any fall, it’s always been my understanding and the way I’ve carried out aerial operations is to never be in a position where a fall can occur as the equipment namely a work positioning harness and semi-static rope is not designed to be subject to any type of fall.

Describing tree work as rope access with fall protection doesn’t sit well with me, we are a little more niche than that.

 

Or maybe I am being pedantic.

 

 

@Marc The term Personal Fall Protection System comes straight from Schedule 5, Part 1 of WaHR 2005 

 

It is used as a general term that includes:

 

Work Positioning Systems (What it was generally assumed that DdRT type systems were)

 

Rope Access and Positioning Systems (What some people believed SRT was, (although some didn’t, because this definition require a higher level of ‘compliance’ than Work Positioning Systems do))

 

Fall Arrest Systems (Systems that allow you to fall, and decelerate you safely..... we don’t talk about them)

 

Work Restraint Systems. (Such as a short strop that holds you into a MEWP bucket, so you can’t fall out). 

 

In that respect, the diagram is non-prescriptive in what type of system (or technique) you choose to use.