Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 minutes ago, Joe Newton said:

It's become apparent that the AA are either uninterested, or considered insignificant by HSE.

 

They could have helped steer this in amore manageable direction for us, instead of nodding after a couple of climbers demonstrate a limb walk with two main lines and saying "we tried our best..."

Hi Joe, we are still in dialogue with HSE and it is imperative “the industry” responds to the ICoP consultation.

thank you 

Regards

paul

Edited December 21, 2019 by AA Teccie (Paul)
Amended wording

[Svts]

1 minute ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi Tony, I really do not believe that to be HSEs intention, they simply want to make the activity safer.

Then why don't the AA (the arb industries representing body) suggest a root and branch restructuring of the training industry. So the industry isn't awash with such a lot of low skilled workers. Who from my personal experience are are a danger to themselves and those around them. Rather than trying to enforce a system from another industry that is comeplety unsuited to arb. 

But as usual they roll over. A few well paid individuals get to produce some more bumph. And no meaningful increase in safety is achieved. 

To think 25 years ago I was all for certs and formal training. If only I knew then what it would morph into! 

[difflock]

It boils down to "still trying to fix stupid".

[Marc]

19 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi Marc, please be sure to complete the survey associated with the revised ICoP and ‘vent’ your views, and frustrations, there.

Regards

paul

I have done for what little good it will do, I’ve already vented my views to the authors and was reassured and now this, it makes little sense, but then what choice is there? Unless you and the AA take this seriously and listen to those with the technical experience we will end up with the situation we are now in.

I understand why, this is just my frustration that I feel we are not being represented fairly.

 

I am forever hopefully this will turn into something positive in time.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Marc

[dumper]

21 minutes ago, Marc said:

I have done for what little good it will do, I’ve already vented my views to the authors and was reassured and now this, it makes little sense, but then what choice is there? Unless you and the AA take this seriously and listen to those with the technical experience we will end up with the situation we are now in.

I understand why, this is just my frustration that I feel we are not being represented fairly.

 

I am forever hopefully this will turn into something positive in time.

And they charge you to fail to represent you 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Please all respond to the ICoP consultation, the responses from which will be fed back to HSE.

Thank you.

Paul 

[Marc]

10 minutes ago, dumper said:

And they charge you to fail to represent you 

I don’t believe that, even if you may read into my feedback here that I am frustrated.

[Bolt]

1 hour ago, Marc said:

......but the ICOP being as flawed as it is......

Hi @Marc, it would probably be useful if you were able to give more detail on the bits that you think are flawed.

 

i.e.

 

Section xx.x.xx

 

[pasted in paragraph from the icop]
 

I feel that is is inappropriate because of xyz, and personally would prefer it concentrated on abc instead.

 

 

This way, many of those who agree with your views will be more confident at completing the survey and will be able to add to the strength of your voice.

 

I would have thought that if you want the best chance of getting your voice heard, you are going to need to draw a united front with like minded people who will join with you to get your points across succinctly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marc]

13 minutes ago, Bolt said:

Hi @Marc, it would probably be useful if you were able to give more detail on the bits that you think are flawed.

 

i.e.

 

Section xx.x.xx

 

[pasted in paragraph from the icop]
 

I feel that is is inappropriate because of xyz, and personally would prefer it concentrated on abc instead.

 

 

This way, many of those who agree with your views will be more confident at completing the survey and will be able to add to the strength of your voice.

 

I would have thought that if you want the best chance of getting your voice heard, you are going to need to draw a united front with like minded people who will join with you to get your points across succinctly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other than I disagree with utilising two ropes for all but exceptional circumstances.

if we are to use two ropes then it has to be applied logically and fairly.

 

The definition between one rope and one rope is the same regardless of weather it is a loop with a static side and dynamic side, or completely a static rope system.

 

The phrase on 2.9.2 “”the system must incorporate a suitable back-up “” what does that actually mean? Is a lanyard a suitable back up, this is not clearly defined here, please clarify.

Where as 2.9.3 clearly states “”When SRT is used, the system must comprise two independently anchored lines and may only utilise a single line where the use of the second line entails higher risk.6”” More on footnote 6 later

 

As 2.9.2 and 2.9.3 both rely on a single rope to achieve work positioning and crown access then both should be treated as equal in the requirement to use two independently anchored lines (where possible, or both anchored at same point if not) and may only utilise a single line where the use of the second line entails higher risk.

 

In fact 2.9.2 due to being a dynamic loop requires a form of anchoring device-friction/pulley saver, and due to the system being a moving rope system only one effective anchor can be achieved-this anchor needs to be suitably strong. 

Where as 2.9.3 (SRT)being a stationary rope system multiple anchors can be used to load share and achieve a more suitable work position/more favourable rope angles when working at crown extremities.

Climbing on 2.9.2 requires the anchor point to be moved multiple times during a climbing day there by increasing the risk during multiple aerial changes overs to achieve a more favourable anchor point so as to lower rope angles whilst working at the crown extremities. 

Again this point makes utilising 2.9.3-SRT a more favourable and safer system as you are able to create new anchor points without having to change over or unclip from the system there by changing rope angles is a safer process.

 

Footnotes 5 and 6 I see no reason why the definition of risk is different due to the above points. In fact as is clearly demonstrated over the last ten years among active professional climbing arborists the use of SRT Systems significantly reduce the risk involved through no need to carry out aerial change over once initial anchor point is achieved, and the ability to load share through multiple anchors, and the ease of improving rope angles whilst working at crown extremities.

 

The wording of the foot note implies that you can risk asses out the need for a back up whilst utilising 2.9.2 MRT

Yet whilst utilising 2.9.3 SRT you must always use two independent lines and the only occasions where it can possibly be risk assessed out is during aerial rescue.

This is an unfair bias as both systems utilise one rope, and as demonstrated above SRT has many advantages over MRT making it a safer option, therefore footnote 6 is irrelevant to SRT and has greater importance on MRT thereby making the need to have a suitable second line perhaps greater for MRT as backed up by HSE reports into falls in arboricultural aerial operations.

 

 

 

Edited December 21, 2019 by Marc

[Bolt]

2.4.10 Welfare
Suitable welfare facilities must be identified and available for the duration of the work activity. Arrangements should be recorded and communicated to all parties. These facilities are to include, as a minimum, clean drinking water, hand-washing facilities and sanitary conveniences.

The use of public facilities should be a last resort, where no other arrangement is possible. The use of such facilities should not be acceptable where the provision of better facilities would be reasonably practicable.
 

 

I know everyone is really excited by the 2 rope business, but surely this section is far more of an oddity to the industry.

 

I can understand how this could feature in a general arb ICOP, but it surely has no place in a work at height icop - the sanitary conveniences are not going to be perched up in the canopy are they?

 

Despite being alarmingly out of place, just what mitigation does the average domestic arb have, should the need to demonstrate compliance with this section?  Put the location of the homeowners shitter on the risk assessment?

 

I am no conspiracy theorist, but I  almost wonder if the 2 rope business is being used as a catalyst to draw attention away from far more problematic (and less glamorous) areas of the ICOP.