Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[scotspine1]

Skip to 124.50 for twin bridge, double SRT 

 

 

[Craig Johnson]

And of course to follow it to its logical conclusion you need two bridges and two independant tie in points. 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

11 hours ago, scotspine1 said:

The simplest way for climbers to get round this HSE nonsense (and it's dangerous nonsense at that) is to state in your risk assessment that using two ropes when moving around the canopy will make the job take considerably longer leading to needless fatigue and excessive stress and strain on the body so for that reason when moving through/around the canopy one rope shall be used. 

 

mmmm, may suffice in certain situations when tree climbing / 'work positioning' but don't think it would be deemed adequate for SRT / SRWP  

[Mike Hill]

53 minutes ago, Craig Johnson said:

And of course to follow it to its logical conclusion you need two bridges and two independant tie in points. 

But both bridges are attached to the same web on a harness,thus introducing a single redundancy. 

 

We need two harnesses. 

 

[Craig Johnson]

2 minutes ago, Mike Hill said:

But both bridges are attached to the same web on a harness,thus introducing a single redundancy. 

 

We need two harnesses. 

 

but there only attached to one body, so single redundancy again 

[Jcarbor]

Can’t see how this particular situation will/can change but have to await the tech guide for definitive answers.

Climb down and knock them overs the option in that particular situation. A lanyard and a rope has always been sufficient in pole reduction, I can’t see how you could do it any safer other than a MEWP.

[Tom D]

What was the HSE reasoning behind this decision? I understand that while cutting there is a risk of severing a line and that therefore a back up line is a good idea, and also when retying a second line is required. But what do they think is going to happen whilst moving around the canopy? I mean if you're tied in correctly to a suitable anchor what could happen? 

 

The risk of falling material snagging on a line with two lines in the tree is going to be much higher and that is a serious safety concern. If as I understand it the two lines are not to be tied in to the same stem that implies that there will be an angle between the two lines, so if I'm out on a branch I have one line heading back to the tree in one direction and the other in a slightly different direction. Now imagine I'm removing an upright section of the limb Im standing on, I have a drop zone but it is partially obscured by one of my lines... do I disconnect the line and work off one line? Do I fell it anyway and take the chance? Do I stop and rethink the whole situation. I have had many situations where I barely had room to get material past a single line let alone two.

 

This problem is only made worse when rigging. When a limb swings back in under the pulley, as they must do, it is important that the climbers ropes do not contact the rigging lines, a rigging line will burn through a climbing line very quickly in such a situation, this is a significant part of the NPTC Rigging course. Rope management. In a two line situation we are asking for accidents here.

I can already see that any job which involves material being cut from above the climber will be dangerous, and likewise any rigging job. I will amend our RA to say that any job that falls into either of the above categories will be done off a single line on safety grounds. Jobs which only require material to be cut from below the climber such as crown lifting and some one side reductions may be safe with two lines.

 

I think the AA should setup a new demo for the HSE involving some real world dismantling, using complex rigging techniques and then they will gain a better understanding of the risks involved.

[scotspine1]

This decision by the HSE will in some cases make to job more dangerous not less dangerous.

 

If you run a training company and are advocating using two lines at all times off the back of this latest development by the HSE you should be aware the people you're training have the potential to sue you in the event of an accident if it was found that the two rope system contributed to the accident where you advised/trained these climbers to use two ropes at all times. 

 

The big problem with the HSE requirement of two lines at all times is the inefficiency of it, the extra physical and mental stress on the climber of dragging two lines through, across, up and down a dense canopy, managing the trailing ends so they dont get tangled beneath him, the two systems constantly interfering with each other at the harness bridge, the endless distraction of managing your lines will affect concentration levels not to mention the multiple and potentially confusing unclipping and reclipping of carabiners as the lines constantly get crossed at your bridge. 

 

Treework is not industrial rope access, it involves a multitude of infinite variables in countless different situations which require the climber to adapt his equipment and technique to suit any given situation. There's no way it could ever be argued that two lines are always inherently safer when working in trees. Anyone arguing this proposition has limited experience of treeclimbing or none at all. It should be relatively easy to form a robust statement in your risk assessment justifying the use of a single line for moving around the canopy or ascending into the tree. 

 

This vid by Jerry Beranek - A straightforward, common sense example of when we use two ropes but HSE would require that Jerry uses two ropes to ascend, descend then traverse from the 1st Pine to the 2nd Pine. 

 

Why? what is going to happen to that main climbing rope on the movement to the 2nd Pine? how is it at excessive risk of being cut or failing? if he needs to cut smaller branches out of his way to get to the second Pine he'd tie in with his flipline at that point. 

 

 

[Stubby]

Why not go the whole hog and have spiders web of lines .....Its not been thought through by tree climbers as is obvious from pretty much all the above posts . 

[Konstantly]

14 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Sorry can’t help here.

Cheers Paul. Hopefully more info once the ink has dried.