Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[Marc]

28 minutes ago, Bolt said:

 

@Marc The term Personal Fall Protection System comes straight from Schedule 5, Part 1 of WaHR 2005 

 

It is used as a general term that includes:

 

Work Positioning Systems (What it was generally assumed that DdRT type systems were)

 

Rope Access and Positioning Systems (What some people believed SRT was, (although some didn’t, because this definition require a higher level of ‘compliance’ than Work Positioning Systems do))

 

Fall Arrest Systems (Systems that allow you to fall, and decelerate you safely..... we don’t talk about them)

 

Work Restraint Systems. (Such as a short strop that holds you into a MEWP bucket, so you can’t fall out). 

 

In that respect, the diagram is non-prescriptive in what type of system (or technique) you choose to use.

Thanks for the clarification,

 

It still doesn't explain, why in the ICOP there is a difference between MRT and SRT work positioning systems, both allow us to achieve the same overall aim, both entail the same level of risk and competency, actually i'd argue SRT entails a much lower risk with many benefits over MRT.

The reality is both are the same and should be considered equal in terms of application if that makes sense.

[Marc Lewis]

3 ropes is safer than 2, so why not climb on 3 ropes, or 4....5...

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

8 hours ago, Marc said:

Thanks for the clarification,

 

It still doesn't explain, why in the ICOP there is a difference between MRT and SRT work positioning systems, both allow us to achieve the same overall aim, both entail the same level of risk and competency, actually i'd argue SRT entails a much lower risk with many benefits over MRT.

The reality is both are the same and should be considered equal in terms of application if that makes sense.

PLEASE reply to the ICoP consultation!

 

Thank you

Paul

[Marc]

27 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

PLEASE reply to the ICoP consultation!

 

Thank you

Paul

I have done,

But you are not listening, neither are those who wrote it, how did the icop end up in its current state differentiating SRT as rope access and MRT as work positioning with differing levels of risk applied.

Because WAH regulation says it must, and someone from the HSE has said it is.

So how are those drafting it meant to go against WAH regs and the HSE? Even if they fundamentally don’t believe it themselves?

I am not hopeful of a rethink, I do hope the guidance will be made clear and fair.

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Marc

[jfc]

I think we have established that there is a discrepancy in the icop about what 2nd system is required. It really doesn't say 2nd full length rope for MRT/Ddrt. It is quite clear for srt they want 2 ropes going to the ground. There's some technical differentiation between MRT/work positioning and Srt being rope access. Therefore different rules apply. No logic to it in my mind. I guess the only issue is the doubling of the anchor loading in some srt setups.

So from my reading you need to be tied in twice at all times, and have a lanyard etc to allow for changeovers. Srt 2 full ropes, mrt 1 rope and 1 other system (which doesn't have to be full length).

It does make srt less attractive.

Jan.

[Rich Rule]

@Bolt

 

Having read through this and other threads.  
 

Why do you keep accusing people of having hidden agendas?  Twice I have seen it now.  Neither, Jake nor Scotpine have a foot in the training Industry.  They are just working arbs trying to find a way through a set of badly defined and written guidelines to enable them to see a way forward.

 

The way you keeping referencing MRT it is almost as if you have a hidden agenda or something?

 

i would guess you are just a working arb trying to find a way through a set of badly defined and written guidelines to enable you to see a way forward.

[Bolt]

20 hours ago, Rich Rule said:

@Bolt

 

Having read through this and other threads.  
 

Why do you keep accusing people of having hidden agendas?  

 

Well, @Rich Rule... that’s an intriguing  question.
 

 

 

I think what it boils down to is this....

When we read something, we take the info on board, but we can interpret that info in a number of ways....

 

A) One outcome is that we read the words and our brain processes the information in such a way that we can remember the info, draw on it and  accurately relay it to others, pretty much verbatim (handy if we want to recount the content of an assessment schedule, for instance).

 

B) Another outcome is that we read the words, but subconsciously struggle to accept them, so in an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance, our brain finds the need to edit them prior to storage.  What we remember is a different version of what was written, although we believe our version is a correct representation of what we read (a ‘Chinese whispers’ type scenario).

 

C) We read the words, but we disagree with them, so although we acknowledge that we have read them, we just disregard them because we prefer our ‘version’ which is better suited to meet our beliefs or requirements. (Useful if we want to tweak to truth to suit our own needs).

 

 

Anyway....

 

You say that have read through this and other threads, so, taking the 3 points above into account, you may well be confident that the question  “Why do yo keep accusing people of having hidden agendas?” is a result of “A”

i.e. you accurately recalling what I wrote...

 

As it turns out, you question stems from either 

“B” You believing you recall what I wrote...

or (hopefully not ) “C” You knowing that your question is not what I wrote, but not caring because your question has more impact as it is...

 

The mind certainly is a strange place, isn’t it!

[Bolt]

20 hours ago, Rich Rule said:

@Bolt

 

Having read through this and other threads.  
 

Why do you keep accusing people of having hidden agendas?   something?

 

......anyway, putting aside the point that I (unlike you) have not accused anyone of having a “hidden agenda”, another member has repeatedly insisted that the draft ICOP states that a climber  MUST have two climbing systems that are both long enough to reach the ground throughout the climb.

 

Now this is clearly not true for MRT,  as anyone who has read the ICOP can see.

 

It would therefore appear that the member in question either has made a genuine mistake about the “two long rope” business, or, they know it’s not true, but for some strange reason, they see fit to keep repeating it anyway.

 

I have repeatedly asked them to identify where the draft ICOP says that for MRT you have to have these 2 long rope, and that can’t or won’t do it.

 

They must therefore know that the requirement for 2 long ropes is indeed not in the draft ICOP, but they continued to to claim it was, and they also continued also pose scenarios that implied that it was.

 

 

I struggled to understand their motivation, that is all.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Bolt

[Bolt]

20 hours ago, Rich Rule said:

@Bolt

 

Neither, Jake nor Scotpine have a foot in the training Industry.  They are just working arbs trying to find a way through a set of badly defined and written guidelines to enable them to see a way forward.

 

 

 

As for @Jake Andrews, I read one of his questions whilst I was killing time wandering about Tescos, and I admit that I totally got the wrong end of the stick.

 

When I read his comments later, I saw my error and apologised for the wholly inappropriate tone of my comment.

 

Jake had detailed his desire to drive improvements to the quality of training, and the professional standards of the industry, and I find them highly admirable.

 

I have read nothing to suggest Jake has a “hidden agenda”, and I don’t remember ever claiming that I think he has.

 

[Rich Rule]

1 hour ago, Bolt said:

......anyway, putting aside the point that I (unlike you) have not accused anyone of having a “hidden agenda”, another member has repeatedly insisted that the draft ICOP states that a climber  MUST have two climbing systems that are both long enough to reach the ground throughout the climb.

 

Now this is clearly not true for MRT,  as anyone who has read the ICOP can see.

 

It would therefore appear that the member in question either has made a genuine mistake about the “two long rope” business, or, they know it’s not true, but for some strange reason, they see fit to keep repeating it anyway.

 

I have repeatedly asked them to identify where the draft ICOP says that for MRT you have to have these 2 long rope, and that can’t or won’t do it.

 

They must therefore know that the requirement for 2 long ropes is indeed not in the draft ICOP, but they continued to to claim it was, and they also continued also pose scenarios that implied that it was.

 

 

I struggled to understand their motivation, that is all.

I am not going to speak for Scotspine as he is more than capable himself.

 

The way I see it and how things were originally explained, initially we were told that there needs to be 2 systems in place suitable to descend to the floor at any point in the climb.

 

Regardless of whether a rope is tied and static or running over a branch and moving, it is still only one rope.  
 

Now the ICOP has been drafted (I haven’t read it and don't really intend to as quite frankly it is absurd and it won’t have an effect in how I work day to day) you state that MRT says you don’t need to have a rope suitable to descend in one pitch.  Whereas, climbing with a rope in a static configuration, base tie, tip tie, whatever, requires it to be able to reach the floor.
 

I read this to say that the guidelines have been written by people not really grasping the concepts of tree climbing and the systems we use.  They have looked at another industry and thought to adopt those techniques a rewrite the ICOP to incorporate these protocols.

 

It further illustrates the inconsistencies and shows that the writers and enforcers of such rules are differentiating between two systems and seeing them as different.  When in reality, whether the rope is doubled or single...  you cut it, you are going down.  
 

So why should the rules for the second system be different when the outcome will be the same?

 

The whole debacle is absurd.  Training is key IMO.