Jump to content
kevinjohnsonmbe

Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Herein lies a part of the problem though Tom.

 

As you rightly say, MEWP has become the (AA sponsored) default preferred option over climbing.  I don't agree that this should be the case and I suspect this is a classic example of rules for the blind obedience of fools.

 

I suspect, as we start to see the MEWP as the preferred method slowly building a more frequent usage, we will also start to see an increase in the accident rate associated with poor choice or operation of the MEWP - there was that case recently where they used a MEWP because it had been written into the policy as the 'preferred' option, but then failed to set it up properly resulting in a death which would not have happened had they climbed.

 

I'm not in any way anti-MEWP quite the contrary (I'm in the market) in the right circumstance.  I am however, anti-make a policy which could result in unforeseen adverse consequences.

 

Just 1 minor point about 'reasonably practicable' though - it would be very difficult / indefensible to justify 'cost' as a reason not to go with the safer option. 

 

 

"AA sponsored" 😯 ...tis above climbing in the risk hierarchy principally because 'prevention' (of a fall) is better than 'minimising' the consequences (of a fall), ie tree climbin, plus it has collective protective measures, i.e. anyone who stands in the bucket is automatically prevented from falling because of engineered controls, i.e. the guard rails. Hence in terms of risk management (AND in relation to the specific hazard of a fall from height) HSE (AA sponsored, ie its in the ICoP) place MEWP before climbing.

"Cost" - DISPROPORTIONATE COST = NO NET GAIN IN SAFETY BY SPENDING MORE (and always try to add something else in, e.g. inadequate space / unsuitable ground.) 

 

On reflection there are many parallels between MEWPs and 2 ropes, i.e. principles / expectations set against risk assessed justifications...and most people still climb most of the time and use (hire) MEWPs only where there's a commercial gain to be had or where the tree's too dangerous to climb.

 

As a point of reference, and FYI, I have included a copy of the AA's site risk assessment form / template (see W@H justification section.)

 

Cheers,

Paul

 

 

Site risk assessment v4 (June 2019).doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm interested in the rigours risk assessment as newly layed out by LANTRA within their SRWP award that allows us to use a single rope to safely work the tree. 
Can anyone shine some light on this matter? 
Cheers 

This might help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dave J said:


This might help

Great. Thanks Dave J/John. Can you publish the rigours risk assessment for us all to peruse over?  I know that you have not directly upload this but the info you may have available may give others a chance to have a collective input..

 

 

 

 

Edited by Konstantly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great. Thanks Dave J/John. Can you publish the rigours risk assessment for us all to peruse over?  I know that you have not directly upload this but the info you may have available may give others a chance to have a collective input..
 
 
 
 
Hi, I'm not John I was just posting the link for the guys and girls who hadn't seen it.

Cheers

Dave
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dave J said:

Hi, I'm not John I was just posting the link for the guys and girls who hadn't seen it.

Cheers

Dave

Don't worry, facts aren't necessary on Arbtalk...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The team did extensive demonstrations of current climbing techniques, including access / descent and a work climb, in effect, to HSE to show that what we do currently, provided employed correctly, is safe and effective...but they disagreed and insisted on a default position employing 2 ropes, particularly for SRT/SRWP. The ICoP (Industry Code of Practice) is currently being re-written to take account of the changes...albeit not as you would like  
 
PS You lost me with the reference to Paul McAnn. If that is meant to be me, Paul Smith (and not the other ARBTALK'er with the same name, sorry) then I have climbed, albeit some considerable time ago, and hence my quals are the old 20, 21, 22 suit of NPTCs    

Was that on hemp rope Paul?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to pose a question in this thread as opposed to the new one...

 

The scenario of self rescue after an accident was brought up by a few and Pete explained what happened in an accident a few years ago.  Near fatal and self rescue was required in a time critical situation.  

 

So, on one side of the argument you have the HSE and the new directions for safe working practice.  If there is a fatal accident and it was deemed after investigation that the company owner hadn’t enforced the new requirements...  I guess they would be liable to prosecution if found guilty?

 

The other side of the argument, if the company and climber had followed the directions for safe working practice.  An accident occurs and it is time critical such as Pete’s.  I.e. severed artery.  If the climber is unable to self rescue due to requiring to manage both systems and use both hands, whilst panicking and bleeding out.

 

If they die due to the increase in time... will the writers of the ACOP and the HSE be held responsible for their deaths?

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:
10 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

"AA sponsored" 😯 ...tis above climbing in the risk hierarchy principally because 'prevention' (of a fall) is better than 'minimising' the consequences (of a fall), ie tree climbin, plus it has collective protective measures, i.e. anyone who stands in the bucket is automatically prevented from falling because of engineered controls, i.e. the guard rails. Hence in terms of risk management (AND in relation to the specific hazard of a fall from height) HSE (AA sponsored, ie its in the ICoP) place MEWP before climbing.

All good Paul - right up to the point the MEWP goes over. 

 

Number of recent fatalities directly associated with TIP failure as compared to MEWP accidents?

 

Maybe the point where theories part company with practical realities?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.