Jump to content
kevinjohnsonmbe

Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brocky said:

 

AF9DEEBB-DE45-4EEA-8A95-9D066A42D15F.png

This is why we will have to wait for the next guidance and icop as I see no way we can work to that currently as we work in trees.

 

as it stands it seems unworkable, those with time served industry experience can keep on saying it but the same reply comes back.

 

I would be interested how Utilities are approaching this and meeting the above criteria and providing an increase in safety?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point well made - we need exmaples of how the system is supposed to work in a safe manner rather than being told we must do it a certain way - it would help if they showed us - but then they would have to know how to climb trees with ropes rather than climbing stacks of paper work :D, But so far ive yet to see real video footage of a climber doing advanced work in a canopy using the two rope two sytems set up. (TRTS??) 

 

One point that came up in conversation was - with developments in techniques in SRT / SRWPT, there are comming into practice what can be called Hybrid systems. This is where the use of SRT/SRWPT is interchangeable with DRT/DdRT/MRT.  I use these sorts of set ups my self. E.g DdRT technique is at my top anchor - limb walking out to the crotch, decide to drop through the crotch to work on the outer sections of lower limbs, A quick butterfly here, a karabiner clipped in there and im now working off a SRT/SRWPT system. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I’m most interested in is how we can implement aerial rescue into this, the use of two anchors with two lots of rope to manage and install on a rescue would slow things down, but wait speed should not be an issue when it comes to safety?

Again all of this is just thinking out loud until any guidance comes into practice we will continue as is.

 

another point regarding utilities it could be argued that utilities operate differently from commercial arborist and may not always be presented with the access challenges we face on a regular basis so it is something that can be made a standard operating procedure.

Edited by Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marc said:

another point regarding utilities it could be argued that utilities operate differently from commercial arborist and may not always be presented with the access challengers we face on a regular basis so it is something that can be made a standard operating procedure.

Well keeping in mind they will in nearly all cases be removing everything beneath their anchor points, they are not going to be running into situations where they have to drop down/round branches etc, at least not as often. I hadn't considered that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AA Teccie (Paul)do you know if there has been any further communication with the HSE on this issue?

 

I wonder what the ramifications would be if the AA & industry as a whole refused to write an ACOP including this on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the safety within the industry? I cannot see any way they could force anyone within arboriculture to do it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pete Mctree said:

@AA Teccie (Paul)do you know if there has been any further communication with the HSE on this issue?

 

I wonder what the ramifications would be if the AA & industry as a whole refused to write an ACOP including this on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the safety within the industry? I cannot see any way they could force anyone within arboriculture to do it.

Hi Pete, as I understand it (from Tom Dixon) HSE are observing the other thread on the topic.

incidentally Stuart Parry, from HSE, is joining our annual assessors meeting and doubtless the subject will also be “discussed” there too (I will feedback afterwards...if I am able.)

Regards

Paul

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi Pete, as I understand it (from Tom Dixon) HSE are observing the other thread on the topic.

incidentally Stuart Parry, from HSE, is joining our annual assessors meeting and doubtless the subject will also be “discussed” there too (I will feedback afterwards...if I am able.)

Regards

Paul

 

Thanks Paul. I am always the optimist & I hope that a barrage of constructive well composed reason & fact will flip the common sense button at the HSE to "on"

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who defined the way we work as rope access as apposed to work positioning as was? (HSE, AA, other)

Seems that this kicked this whole s*@t storm off as well as some stats thrown in.

Not trying to lay blame, just would like to see the documentation and reasoning behind this all. If available would someone who knows where to find it be kind enough to let us all know so that we can all read and have informed comments on the matter.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully there might be a re-think of the implications of this policy stance given the quality and quantity of user feedback.

 

We live in hope. 

 

Should that hat not be the case - and the situation is ratified - it would be an interesting first attempt at investigation / prosecution from HSE. 

 

The 37 pages of input here, the Nelsonian blind eye of the pseudo industry body over the preceding years (most notably including the “gold standard” accreditation scheme) the failure to adapt training schedules to accurately reflect policy by LANTRA / NPTC, the apparent extrapolation of unreliable / unrelated accident stats by HSE as justification for the policy and the defendants RAMS explaining why single rather than x2 rope & TIP was employed. 

 

Lets hope it doesn’t have to get so far  as investigation / prosecution before it is recognised as being a poorly considered policy.

 

If it does, there’s a substantial body of evidence to present a counter argument. 

  • Like 6

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.