Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Bolt]

Continuing the GS6 derail.

 

Although section 2.4.7 of the draft ICOP draws on GS6 ( and HSG47, and the Electricity at Work Regulations etc.) I believe it over simplifies the situation by basically implying that all works within 10m requires requires Network Operator involvement.  
 

GS6 only requires a process to be followed based on a risk based approach.

 

Does this matter?  Does it really matter if the ICOP is more onerous than an HSE guidance document?  

 

Surely (you may think) we can simply ignore the ICOP and just work in line with the HSE guidance?

 

Alas no!

 

Check out section 32 of GS6.

 

 

Section 32 ultimately refers you back to industry specific guidance i.e. the ICOP.

 

[Bolt]

3 hours ago, Marc said:

 

Anyway beside the point as you can’t go against HSE guidance... Do you start to see?

 

@Marc. Thanks for taking the bother to reply.
 

The bigger picture is that we can’t just pick and choose what guidance we follow, or even which bits of the guidance.

 

If someone finds themselves in the dock following an electrocution, and the ICOP gets wheeled out, so compliance with section 2.4.7 can be scrutinised, I don’t think a valid defence will be “well yeah, you honour, there is all that, but at least he had two ropes in the tree”. 

 

The court won’t give a fruck.

 

 

[Bolt]

Anyway, back to ‘two ropes’...

 

I have read loads on here about the requirements stating that:

 

> You will have to have at least two rope systems attaching you at all times.

 

> both rope systems must be long enough to reach the ground.

but I still fail to see this spelt out in the ICOP for MRT

 

 2.9.2 Work positioning – Moving Rope Technique – MRT
A technique where the rope passes over or through an anchor and is formed into a large adjustable loop when both parts are brought together. The operator connects to both parts of the rope; one part remains static (often the termination of the rope) and the other is connected via a midline attachment in the form of a friction-based adjustment element, i.e. a friction hitch or mechanical device.

During ascent, descent or lateral movement the rope travels through or over the anchor as a result of the operator’s inputs, i.e. the taking in or letting out of rope from the adjustment element.

When this technique is used, the system must incorporate a suitable back-up which the user must be connected to. The use of a single system (i.e. without the use of a back-up) is only acceptable when it can be demonstrated that installing a back-up is not reasonably practicable.

 

I don’t to sound pedantic but to me It’s a bit of  a stretch to interpret the system must incorporate a suitable back-up as meaning that all climbers MUST have to have at least two rope systems attaching them at all times to two independent anchor points, and that both rope systems must be long enough to reach the ground.

 

Where is this overhype coming from?

 

It could be seen that the whole ’two rope’ agenda being forced by a vociferous SRT minority.

 

?

[Bolt]

For years I have climbed on a long rope, a short rope and a lanyard (MRT, obviously) according to the draft ICOP, what do I need to change.  

I would assume I’ve been ‘suitably backed up’ for years.

[scotspine1]

This video shows an Arboricultural Association competition/training event held in March this year. 

 

No twin lines being used yet they're the trade body of our industry who were responsible for the promotion and establishment of twin lines from 2005 onwards. You can see in the video that after 14 years they are still content to be promoting the use of a single line for movement through the canopy (with work positioning lanyard for cutting etc). There's nothing wrong with this. However, there now seems to be a lack of consistency with the Arb Association's approach to the promotion of twin ropes.  

 

In some ways this event shows the good work the AA do in promoting safety in climbing. They now need to be more robust in their dealings with the HSE and defend our industry and the work we've done to make it safer. 

 

They need to reject the mandatory/enforced use of twin line systems at all times in the tree.   

 

 

[RDB logs]

45 minutes ago, Bolt said:

For years I have climbed on a long rope, a short rope and a lanyard (MRT, obviously) according to the draft ICOP, what do I need to change.  

I would assume I’ve been ‘suitably backed up’ for years.

Looks like it see here ?

 

2.11.6.10 Rope and friction cord
It must be ensured that:
A) rope used for work positioning and/or rope access has a diameter of 10mm or greater;

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;

 

C) when it is new, rope with a termination has an MBS of 15kN and rope without a termination has an MBS of 22kN;

 

D) splices in rope are only formed by the manufacturer or with their consent against a validated performance criterion and subject to independent verification.

 

[scotspine1]

57 minutes ago, RDB logs 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;

 

 

NPTC - Two Rope Working at Heights Statement for Aerial Assessors

 

703650179_TwoRopeWorking-AssessorStatementDec2019 (3).pdf

 

4 Descent • Both primary and secondary working systems should be long enough to descend to ground.

 

The AA current guidance -

 

'Access

 

Rope Advance System

 

Have 3 viable systems prior to leaving the ground (2 climbing lines, 1 lanyard). Install systems 1 & 2 (2 climbing lines) from ground. Test each system. Ascend to first anchor.

Maintain 2 climbing systems at all times

Repeat to final anchor point.

 

Descent 

 

Both primary and secondary working systems should be long enough to descend to the ground.'

 

 

.

 

[Bolt]

13 minutes ago, scotspine1 said:

 

 

NPTC - Two Rope Working at Heights Statement for Aerial Assessors

 

703650179_TwoRopeWorking-AssessorStatementDec2019 (3).pdf 136.8 kB · 3 downloads

 

4 Descent • Both primary and secondary working systems should be long enough to descend to ground.

 

The AA current guidance -

 

'Access

 

Rope Advance System

 

Have 3 viable systems prior to leaving the ground (2 climbing lines, 1 lanyard). Install systems 1 & 2 (2 climbing lines) from ground. Test each system. Ascend to first anchor.

Maintain 2 climbing systems at all times

Repeat to final anchor point.

 

Descent 

 

Both primary and secondary working systems should be long enough to descend to the ground.'

 

 

.

 

 But the ICOP states it different.

 

How come the ICOP appears to be so much less onerous for ‘MRT, than you imply it is.

 

@scotspine1 are you an SRT kinda guy by chance?

 

 

[Bolt]

As for C+G NPTC, that are an awarding body, offering nationally accredited assessments.

 

They don’t produce ‘legislation’ but they should follow industry best practice (Such as the ICOP following the drafting, consultation and acceptance process).

 

 

[scotspine1]

6 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 How come the ICOP appears to be so much less onerous for ‘MRT, than you imply it is.

 

It not, it's says backed up at all times which means during ascent, working the tree and descent. Back up means a second climbing system. That's why it's called a back up, you cut your main line you can descend to the ground on the back up.