Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Guest]

Assuming this is mainly introduced by the idea of an anchor point failure, would it not make more sense for HSE to do a study into timber strength values and issue guidelines on minimum thickness dependant on species. If the anchor wood integrity is suspect most climbers would already use a system of redirects or secondary anchors if no other method (mewp etc.)was feasable. Whats the point of saying you've got a shitty stick to tie into, so tie into it twice, you'll be fine.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

1 hour ago, Calamity Wayne said:

Assuming this is mainly introduced by the idea of an anchor point failure, would it not make more sense for HSE to do a study into timber strength values and issue guidelines on minimum thickness dependant on species. If the anchor wood integrity is suspect most climbers would already use a system of redirects or secondary anchors if no other method (mewp etc.)was feasable. Whats the point of saying you've got a shitty stick to tie into, so tie into it twice, you'll be fine.

It’s not just anchor point failure, albeit that is one of the causes, and a common one apparently, it’s various reasons resulting in people falling out of trees.

Hence HSE have introduced/re-introduced a basic requirement that they believe will Improve the situation...n fundamentally it’s difficult to argue against (believe me.)

[jmac]

8 hours ago, drinksloe said:

Do they all use 2 ropes thou??

I'd certainly never heard of it before 

 

I'm a bit out off touch nowadays but 5 years ago spikeing up living trees with 1 rope and strop was standard practice. Even on live trees and near live wires.

Wind back a further 5 to 10 years to railway work and free spiking to top/where u lost ur bottle,  was the norm, which even then was against all best practice guidelines.

And in the rail industry which regarded itself as extra safe

When I was at sse all employees used 2 ropes plus a strop, or 1 rope and 2 strops. 2 ropes were handy for big hardwoods and big branch walks where you could take a big swing but I found it a total pain in the arse most of the time and defiantly slower! And still doesn't stop idiots tying into epi regrowth.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Of course it’s all down to “policing”, to make it effective, and that’s the HSEs role not the AAs, plus clients, in particular commercial clients/ LAs, and insurance industry “buy in”, but could increased industry regulation not potentially be a positive thing in terms of further marginalising non-compliant contractors? (an interesting viewpoint perhaps) 

Someone previously mentioned about IRATA and the ‘rope access’ industry and I think this takes us one step nearer to that...after all it was HSE scrutinising SRT and determining it as rope access which triggered all this.

Sorry, on an assessment all day now so can’t reply until late in the day (I hope they’re not SRT’ing on the work site inspection ??)

cheers

Paul

[Rich Rule]

Paul, I attended an SRT workshop a couple of years ago now.  It was organised by Noddy and Ben Rose.  To my knowledge it was to gather information from actual working climbers and how/which systems they utilise on a daily basis.

 

I was also under the impression it was funded party by the AA.  I could be wrong in that one of course.  I don’t recall anyone stating they thought two ropes would be a good idea.

 

Whatever happened to the research and did the AA/HSE actually take any notice of what was produced? Bearing in mind we were actually working climbers who used SRT on a daily basis and had done or years...  as opposed to a group of guys in orifices who hadn’t the faintest idea what goes on on a daily basis?  

 

From what I have read of the new guideline, it seems the latter of the two groups were the ones who came up with this.

 

[skyhuck]

8 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Someone previously mentioned about IRATA and the ‘rope access’ industry and I think this takes us one step nearer to that...after all it was HSE scrutinising SRT and determining it as rope access which triggered all this.

Sorry, on an assessment all day now so can’t reply until late in the day (I hope they’re not SRT’ing on the work site inspection ??)

cheers

Paul

Not a chance, IMO, IRATA has 0 domestic market. Mrs Muggins don’t get rope access lads in to paint her house. 

 Our industries have virtually nothing in common, IMO.

[Kev Stephenson]

As has been said before rope access has near enough zero domestic market so grouping tree work in with IRA is a big fail.    You can't get a rope access company to 'do it for cash' and I am sure the competition is much reduced or at least on a more level playing field.  Grouping tree work with rope access work is like saying all car wash places must have the same levels of training and compliance as MOT testing stations because they are working on cars. 

 

I am all for making the industry safer but which end of the industry needs this boost?  If the jobbing gardener or 'mobile tree firms' were forced out of the industry through regulation or even education of the public would general compliance and therefore accident stats improve?  While there is still the jobbing gardener who is willing to use eBay kit on a cash job at grass cutting rates domestic tree work will be price driven.  It is hard enough competing in a domestic market when VAT registered against the mobile tree firms or a team of people all registered self employed for VAT and PAYE avoidance without the addition of even more (unnecessary) training and compliance.

[carlos]

sounds like we should have called it "static rope technique" from the start!!

the "single" bit doesnt seem to have done us any favours

[scotspine1]

On 03/09/2019 at 17:00, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

 

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.

 

This guidance has been around for well over 10 years. I was at an AA workshop/seminar around 2006 where this subject was discussed and debated in detail. 

 

Only one person said he was going to climb off two ropes all the time then use a third when cutting. Not one person in the room of about 20 took him seriously. This was a gathering of experienced pro climbers/tree surgeons. 

 

Everyone else said they would just continue to climb off the one doubled rope when moving around the tree and tie in a secondary short line/flipline etc when cutting as per usual. 

 

SRT ascent for access was discussed and a couple folk acknowledged the possibility of using a back up rope during a long ascent mainly because the ability to descend the single line in the event of an emergency involved a lot of hassle. Pre Ropewrench days. 

 

End of conversation. That was 13 years ago. Everyone just carried on climbing as they always had done myself included. 

 

From the 2005 WAH regs, ‘tree climbing’

 

notice ‘where possible’ 

 

‘where possible, the system should be securely attached to two load-bearing anchor points. Each anchor point should be strong enough to support the climber, work equipment and any foreseeable loading.’

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

That’s guidance on the tree work section of the HSE website, in relation to the W@H regs, but this will doubtless change in the near future given their updated interpretation/opinion