Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

3 hours ago, Tom D said:

I received this today. I hope as many of you as possible write to your own mp’s to get the HSE to take the views of the industry seriously.

to Tom Dixon.pdf 82.32 kB · 36 downloads

I haven't copied and sent to my MP yet Tom but I will.  

 

I also thought I'd see if there is an all party parliamentary group that could be targeted which might have greater effect than individual regional MPs.  

 

After trawling through the pages of APPGs and having found there is one for just about anything from Prostitution & the Global Sex Trade to Cider, and a couple of Forestry / Timber industry groups, there is naff all for Arb.

 

Maybe the Working at Height APPG might be the right place to fire this into (page 1191 of the link)- if they even think arb is worth a thought.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/190731/register-190731.pdf   The index is on page 193.

Edited September 3, 2019 by kevinjohnsonmbe

[stihlmadasever]

What alot of shite.

What happens when we have accidents with 2 tie in points?

Do we need 3?

2 tips are a pita plus all the associated  rope management that comes with it and lets not even talk about rigging with two tips plus a rigging point plus a rigging redirect!

This really highlights just how fucking out of touch and utterly clueless hse are about our industry.

If guys are falling out of trees its more likely because they are under pressure to knock out trees fast and thats where the problem lies.

Companies putting excessive pressure on climbers which ultimatly incurs accidents.

Disapointed but not surprised

Edited September 3, 2019 by stihlmadasever

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

38 minutes ago, TIMON said:

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.

 

Hi Timon, need to await publication of Technical Guide 1 which will far better inform decision making and practices than my ramblings. This will hopefully be available in the next few months after the ICoP has been revised to reflect the changes.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

6 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

I haven't copied and sent to my MP yet Tom but I will.  

 

I also thought I'd see if there is an all party parliamentary group that could be targeted which might have greater effect than individual regional MPs.  

 

After trawling through the pages of APPGs and having found there is one for just about anything from Prostitution & the Global Sex Trade to Cider, and a couple of Forestry / Timber industry groups, there is naff all for Arb.

 

Maybe the Working at Height APPG might be the right place to fire this into (page 1191 of the link)- if they even think arb is worth a thought.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/190731/register-190731.pdf   The index is on page 193.

Hi Kevin, the Association is part of the ‘Horticultural Group.’  

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

14 minutes ago, carlos said:

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.

Put simply, this is because, as far as HSE are concerned, SRT/SRWP is equivalent to ‘rope access’ and hence subject to a higher level of compliance under W@H Regs. 

[carlos]

2 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Put simply, this is because, as far as HSE are concerned, SRT/SRWP is equivalent to ‘rope access’ and hence subject to a higher level of compliance under W@H Regs. 

cool thanks for the reply, il be watching this thread with interest.

[skyhuck]

21 minutes ago, Stubby said:

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 .

Exactly.

 

But why have the AA gone along with this nonsense, giving it some credibility, so any judge looking at a prosecution will think "Oh look this is seen as 'best practice' by those in the industry, so must be correct"

 

The AA should have stood firm and fought our corner, but unfortunately, IMO, they are more interested in being recognised by the 'powers that be', than the interests of those at the coal face of the industry.

 

 

[Stubby]

My old buddie who I used to work with still climbs with a \Willans  T22 on 3 core with a prussic  ! this will blow his mind ?

[Khriss]

Might be pertinent to point out now, arguing abt how it slows climbers down- when you see the huge number of shit cuts done. Or sloppy reductions. That some climbers accept. I view tree health and vigour above how quick you got in the pub..... K

[Mullany]

I fear that this shit will run down hill on to the individual contract climber from a liability point of view.

As is the case now from many companies it will be implicit to a climber that they must not fully comply to best practice in the interests of productivity. However those same companies in the event of an accident will happily blame the climber for non compliance as will the insurance companies.

The burden of responsibility, personal and public liability will fall on the shoulders of those least able to defend themselves.

If I still worked in the UK I doubt very much my calender would remain full if I insisted to all the companies I contract for that I followed these new regulations.  

 

Carlos, most other countries I have worked in or met climbers from dont have an arb industry as developed as in the UK and the standards are either non existent or not enforced. The UK and Ireland are particularly strict about health and safety which is very apparent when you work somewhere else. The new regulations reflect this culture and two life lines being enforced as best practice was probably inevitable. It is however very disappointing that they have not applied this with any nuance.

Perhaps this will come as it inevitably gets tested in court.