Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Konstantly]

Nothing constructive in this post. Just a general rant.. Read or ignore if you wish.

I am struggling to see how SRWP is deemed less safe than the DdRT method otherwise on offer.

The anchor point selection is pretty similar.

The load sharing via static pre loaded re-direct as opposed dynamic in DdRT, with the then lessened angle working position afforded to the climber on extremity of the crown that can not be achieved with a dynamic system as effectively.

The ability to again isolate a re-direct away from another working rope as sometimes encountered in rigging operations.

To highlight a few advantages imo.

Maybe a working demo in the techniques the HSE see fit to employ in our everyday situations should be organised. 

This may show all of us dinosaur SRWP climbers how to effectively and safety move around the tree.

The inclusion of self rescue whilst managing two ropes would be great to see too. (I remember on one aerial rescue refresher course I did we where asked to go to a work station on the crown extremity, then asked to get back down with one hand behind our back) two rope system.. ok unclip one line and descend on the other. Throw panic and fear into the mix... Yes I know their are ways around this. But... why complicate matters. 

Maybe a rigging demo on a large mature deciduous tree with multiple complex lowers and lifts that are required to complete the task in hand. 

While their at it they can also hold a workshop in how we are to run our business in an already competitive market that seemingly penalises companies for adhering to the current legislation thus allowing the more cut corner cutters to slash prices to the home/land owner who mostly want the cheapest price. 

Just what has made the HSE feel it is time to re write things? I'm all up for a safer working environment. I would like to know which stats lead to this discussion in the first instance. A bunch of RIDDOR reports with SRT/SRWP as the primary contributory factors? 

Rant over.. for now....

 

22 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Sorry can’t help here.

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

[Tom D]

The more I think about 2 rope working the more problems I find with it. I accept (annoying though it is) that for access where the strength of an anchor has not been assessed two ropes on separate anchors is ‘technically’ safer. However when actually cutting stuff off a tree this is insane.

 

Regarding industry standards, we already have the AAAC scheme of which we are members. Making things tougher won’t make more people want to comply. In fact it will have the opposite effect.

 

I’m going to make contact with the HSE and take this up directly with them, I do feel that the AA’s decision to simply do a rec climb as a demo was a huge mistake. I’ll be looking for additional constructive inputs once I have made contact. Watch this space.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

22 minutes ago, Carl1991 said:

I've skipped many pages apologies if this has been covered, but have the arb association actually done anything to actually back us up? Or have you just folded? It will not work, I cant see how for the life of me it will, extra gear to buy for staff, more for groundie to keep a check on, more hazardous in my opinion in the tree, at some point you'll be down to a single rope while you set a secondary anchor, great on big spread trees to get right out on the skinny stuff but come on. What's needed is to get to the root of the problem which has caused this decision, not brushing under the carpet with a new decision.

Hi Carl, respectfully this has all been covered, in detail, and we will feedback to HSE...how much difference it will make I don’t know.

Thanks for posting

Paul

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

42 minutes ago, Mick Dempsey said:

false dichotomy - Wiktionary

EN.WIKTIONARY.ORG

 

Hi Mick, you've lost me here (again) please elaborate on what the alternative views / options are? 

 

[jarborist]

Would/can the AA, as the industry's representative body consider not publishing new icop and tech guidance until they are sure that the industry supports the hse decision? 

[MattyF]

More jobs for the boys in training hey ? So I now have ropes to be a hazard when rigging ,two ropes I have to keep an eye on lads on the ground cutting or feeding through chippers , I can honestly say in 25 years of tree climbing I have never had an accident or seen an accident that would of been avoided by using two ropes ... are we supposed also to take a third rope in the tree to allow access for aerial rescue ? Maybe hse should look more realistically on why these accidents happen.

[MattyF]

The more I think about 2 rope working the more problems I find with it. I accept (annoying though it is) that for access where the strength of an anchor has not been assessed two ropes on separate anchors is ‘technically’ safer. However when actually cutting stuff off a tree this is insane.
 
Regarding industry standards, we already have the AAAC scheme of which we are members. Making things tougher won’t make more people want to comply. In fact it will have the opposite effect.
 
I’m going to make contact with the HSE and take this up directly with them, I do feel that the AA’s decision to simply do a rec climb as a demo was a huge mistake. I’ll be looking for additional constructive inputs once I have made contact. Watch this space.

Thanks Tom , we need to get this out there it is ridiculous !

[Steve Bullman]

2 minutes ago, MattyF said:

More jobs for the boys in training hey ? So I now have ropes to be a hazard when rigging ,two ropes I have to keep an eye on lads on the ground cutting or feeding through chippers , I can honestly say in 25 years of tree climbing I have never had an accident or seen an accident that would of been avoided by using two ropes ... are we supposed also to take a third rope in the tree to allow access for aerial rescue ? Maybe hse should look more realistically on why these accidents happen.

3rd and 4th rope actually. You can’t expect the rescuer to climb on just one rope, that’s just dangerous?

 

the more you consider the implications of this the more ludicrous it becomes 

[Carl1991]

Hi Carl, respectfully this has all been covered, in detail, and we will feedback to HSE...how much difference it will make I don’t know.

Thanks for posting

Paul

Thanks for the reply Paul. It's an already competitive industry, this could mean alot of difficulty for the companies. I respect the aa, I reg sub to companies in your scheme, it wouldn't be a bad shout going round, looking at the type of work they do before coming to an agreement. Thanks

 

[jarborist]

I have always had the impression the hse would rather we weren't climbing trees. This meets the narrative and conspiracy theory as climbing 'correctly' becomes too complicated so alternatives have to be used and developed. Mewp, poles etc etc. 

I think maybe people object to seeing us having fun at work.... And heaven forbid the elephant in the room... Grown people making a decision   to enjoy some (Considered) risk.