Jump to content

Log in or register to remove this advert

Background to the HSE decision on two rope working


kevinjohnsonmbe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Log in or register to remove this advert

Sorry if this has been mentioned already but...Could you not use a main anchor and then a redirect close to the main anchor? Then using the secondary line for work positioning. That way you have two anchors and 2 ropes albeit not two main lines. But at least you have 3 points of attachment when working. If anchor 1 fails, you still have the redirect with minimal fall/pendulum and still have the secondary for backup.

 

Edit: Sorry, not 3 points of attachment but 3 anchor points.

Edited by JonnyRFT
Wrong terminology
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fail to see the increased risk of srt as opposed to ddrt - even during access what is the difference between srt, footlocking the tail of a ddrt line or footlocking a doubled line? Yet I can differentiate between them on risk assessment?  I know I'm just a thick tree monkey cursed with a little common sense, but this just nonsense to me.

 

I think this whole scenario will be the big test for the Arb association & it will no doubt effect how it is perceived by many in the Arb community. I do not doubt that you are doing your best Paul, but the risk of dividing the Industry with regards to compliance or complete disregard to legislation is real. You know how far this industry has progressed over this last decade & it would be a travesty for one man in the HSE to fuck all that work up, because he cannot see the bigger picture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Steve Bullman said:

Sorry Stevie, but that is just utter tosh. There is absolutely no way in hell using 2 lines in a tree doesn't slow a climber down and create issues.

 

I reckon in 22 years I probably used 2 lines in a tree on maybe half a dozen occassions. And whilst it was useful and necessary, it was also a pain in the backside.


Whoever came up with this legislation clearly has no idea about climbing trees on a commercial basis.

???

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul, I don’t think anyone has mentioned that climbing with a second mainline would/could hinder any attempt at a self-rescue to the degree of making the system potentially unsafe. That would have to be a factor in any RAMS process.
Add that to the fact that it is not reasonably practicable in a lot of climbing/cutting situations and it shouldn’t be too hard to justify not using a third line. (Particularly If a ready installed rescue line is employed). It would be good to know your thoughts on this as we are looking at how to navigate these new requirements in a way that,
A, isn’t going to kill our business.
B, isn’t going to nullify our insurance.
C, will allow us to operate with integrity.
I’m all for making climbing safer, we all want to go home to our families in one piece at the end of the day.
Would appreciate your thoughts on this.
(Just trying to avoid getting strangled by bureaucrats, with both red tape and excessive rope)
Thanks.


  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

Doesn’t ascending on SRT double the pull on the (uninspected) anchor point compared to drt?

yes it can.

but unlike drt  were you would try and isolate a single fork so the rope runs better, in srt the rope often runs over the fork and down the back of the tree so if the top branch did fail the rope would be caught by the branch below.

it is always a good idea to weight test an anchor with a second bod

Edited by carlos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day , how will this be policed ?  If people carry on as before and don't have an accident ( as they never have before )  what is to stop small firms ( one climber and one or two groundies )  carrying on as they have ? I am talking domestic work here .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Having got a better grasps of the situation myself today, clarifying things with my colleague at Head Office who has actually been leading on the project.

 

If you are on a non-SRT/SRWP system, and you can clearly demonstrate that x2 lines is not "reasonably practicable" because of, for instance, very dense canopied trees and increased time, equipment needs, cost etc., which should be recorded, then you can proceed as before, in essence.

 

However, if you are on an SRT/SRWP system you will need to clearly demonstrate it creates a higher level of risk to personal safety and absolute record it.

 

Hope this helps, but still the assumption going forward is 2 ropes (+ lanyard when cutting) 'justifying' why if you're only using one (and with a much stronger justification, based on increased personal safety, if SRT'ing.)

 

Paul

who has worked out this increased risk using srwp and how, also i dont really understand why you would try and document that your work method creates a higher risk.

to me this rather suggests that the people making these decisions dont get the full picture.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


  •  

  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.