Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Mick Dempsey]

Ok, I think I understand your drift.

 

 

[JonnyRFT]

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 September 3, 2019 by JonnyRFT
Wrong terminology

[Pete Mctree]

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.

[skyhuck]

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.

???

[jarborist]

Pete. Absolutely agree with srt vs doubled rope - one is not safer than other. Pros and cons to both and a lot of pros in srt. 

 

[TIMON]

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.

[Mick Dempsey]

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

[carlos]

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 September 3, 2019 by carlos

[Stubby]

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 .

[carlos]

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.