Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[billpierce]

@MattyF
 

Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at...  

Cannae see it

[Marc]

1 minute ago, billpierce said:

Cannae see it

Well that’s BS... Or maybe I linked it wrong. I’m looking on my mobile and don’t think it’s linked to my AA membership

 

try going to the site and looking under news

[Khriss]

Did you log in prply Marc? I am still waiting fr a response fr my change of address  ? K

[billpierce]

Well that’s BS... Or maybe I linked it wrong. I’m looking on my mobile and don’t think it’s linked to my AA membership
 
try going to the site and looking under news

Yah found it here

Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height

TREES.ORG.UK

---

<h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2><h1 class= blue bold display ><span class= blue display >INDUSTRY CONSULTATION</span></h1><h3 class= orange bold >Please submit all responses by Friday 17th January 2020</h3><p class= lead >This is the ‘<a href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf target= _blank title= ICoP Draft for Consultation ><span class= bold blue >draft for consultation</span></a>’ for the second edition of the AA’s ‘Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height’ (ICoP) – First edition published in 2015.</p><p>This revision includes editorial and technical revisions throughout the document but there are specific, significant amendments in:</p><ul class= wia > <li><b>2.8.4 – Crane</b></li> <li><b>2.8.6 – Personal fall protection systems</b></li> <li><b>2.9 – Work positioning and rope access</b></li> <li><b>2.11.6 – [Equipment selection] Performance specifications</b></li></ul><p class= m30 >As with the first edition, the ICoP is aimed at the ‘<b>Responsible Person</b>’ and the ‘<b>Competent Person</b>’ within arboricultural contracting companies. The aim of the ICoP is to identify the principal planning, management and supervisory requirements necessary to establish safe systems of work for tree work operations at height. It is due for publication in early 2020.</p><h3 class= dblue bold >Responses</h3><p>Please read through the draft and make note of any comments. Please then complete the short ‘<a href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 target= _blank title= Click here to take the survey ><span class= bold blue >Survey Monkey</span></a>’ questionnaire, adding any extra information where requested.</p><p>If you have a longer or more complex comment or query, please email to <a href= mailto:[email protected] ><span class= bold blue >[email protected]</span></a> with ‘<b>ICoP Draft for consultation</b>’ as the subject title.</p><h4 class= orange bold mt20 >Please submit all responses by Friday 17th January 2020</h4><p>Please use the link below to review the <a href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf target= _blank title= ICoP Draft for Consultation ><span class= bold blue >draft for consultation</span></a>.</p><p>You can provide feedback via <a href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 target= _blank title= Click here to take the survey ><span class= bold blue >Survey Monkey</span></a> using the link below or the links within the PDF.</p><p class= clearfix mt20 mb20 ><a class= button2 href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf >View Draft for Consultation ></a></p><p class= clearfix mb20 ><a class= button2 href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 >Take the Survey ></a></p><p>Thank you for taking the time to review the draft for consultation, your feedback is extremely valuable in helping us complete this important new guidance.</p>

[Jake Andrews]

Ok, so I’ve been skim reading the IRATA ICOP to compare against our new draft version. Oh boy is it comprehensive........... well, more than ours anyway. It’s a solid 218 pages long compared to our 52?‍♂️. That gives an idea to the lack of information in which we have been provided. I’ve taken screen shots of just a few points that we have touched on in this or other threads relating to the new ICOP.




- The first point is that it specifically allows both lines to be attached to the same point on the harness. From what I can see in the draft ICOP, no where does it mention that two lines are permitted to be attached on to one bridge. This has caused a lot of confusion in the industry (not just on this platform) where it is unknown whether two points of attachment on the bridge is permitted or not.
- Second point relates to ensuring operatives/technicians are unable to descend off the end of the rope. Again, happy to be corrected but I don’t recall seeing this in our draft. I thought this would be an important insert into the draft seeing as a few of the aerial accidents recorded related to such this problem?‍♂️.



Pic two shows what IRATA consider the attributes to consider when hiring or training a suitable rope access technician. Discussions have been had on this site relating to the standard of people employed in our industry and so I thought I would add this pic.



Pic 3 lays out the roles and responsibilities of each level of operator. I know this has tried to be done in the draft with ‘responsible persons’ and ‘competent persons’ but I feel more expansion is needed. I’m not suggesting we move to a level tiered process but I do see the benefits of such a system with the level 3 being ultimately responsible. It also explains the progressive role of the level 1 operator. They should be supervised at all times until the level 3 dictates they are able to perform such tasks comptently. I know many of us do this on a daily basis or have these set ups in our workplaces however this is definitely not the case for many organisations throughout the industry.



The next picture is really important to me. Just because the L3 is qualified, this does not mean they are a suitable candidate to be a supervisor of daily tasks and operations. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions for that one.



A simple diagram of loads on anchors when applied at different angles. Now I personally have seen this diagram before and know these load increases/decreases but I can assure you many haven’t. There are many arborists using SRT redirects without knowing this basic principle.


A simple diagram of a stopper knot?‍♂️.

The IRATA ICOP is so much more detailed than ours and can really help their operators stay within the law AND provide good reference material for future operators. Our is much too ambiguous with many still scratching their heads after reading. We still have many more points in ours to discuss and refine.

It has been almost 5 years since this last ICOP was produced. How long will we be working to a version that we don’t understand fully adding further confusion to the industry for many more years. This issue needs to be sorted NOW.

[JSN]

On 25/12/2019 at 09:59, MattyF said:

Agendas ??? I believe we should have one united agenda on this forum and thread and that is make the AA back us and show the HSE what a croc of shite this whole two rope debacle is.
Bill and Marc unfortunately you have to be an AA member I believe to receive the email to reply to the ICop.
This is what is boiling my pish as the will effect the thousands of Arb workers who are not memebers of the AA and there decisions will directly effect there work safety and well being by allowing this to continue.
When the HSE wanted to ban top handled chainsaws I do believe it was paolo bavaresco who came to the rescue.. Why can’t an organisation which is supposed to represent us fight are corner for us.

Noo then - don’t think you have to be an aa member - all drafts are available to view / comment on aa website. 

[Khriss]

Haha ? at @Jake Andrews the a) d) j) k) rule out 90% of the guys i have worked with, in the last ten years in Arb companies over 1 million turnover and 400 persons staff...... 

K   ( should i be worried) 

[Jake Andrews]

Haha [emoji1] at @Jake Andrews the a) d) j) k) rule out 90% of the guys i have worked with, in the last ten years in Arb companies over 1 million turnover and 400 persons staff...... 
K   ( should i be worried) 

But is it those ‘types’ of people who have got us in this mess and falling out of trees?‍♂️.

A little industry structure wouldn’t harm us I don’t think but it’s to difficult to police. No way would it happen. Rope access is pro dominantly commercial and so easy to lay on the additional training costs. Unfortunately we have a domestic market to cater for aswell where cost cutting matters to many.

I really don’t know a way forward that isn’t status quo.

[struie]

On 21/12/2019 at 23:09, Bolt said:

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.
 

 

 

 

well well,in all my years  working derricks offshore i never once seen such facilities up at the monkey board level,100ft up give or take,also,you could be up their for the duration of your shift,12hrs,dinner etc sent up on the elevators,over the years we have worked for most of the big oil companys along with their company delegated safety officers,several occasions,after,a drill floor accident,a visit from hse,who showed a great reluctance along with said safety reps, to venture up to the monkey board level.anywhore the point of this is the hse pick and choose,on the day,which safety aspects they deem fit to pursue,the two rope system, hopefully,will die a death,if everyone on here and beyond shout loud and long enough to its demise.

[jfc]

Ok, so I’ve been skim reading the IRATA ICOP to compare against our new draft version. Oh boy is it comprehensive........... well, more than ours anyway. It’s a solid 218 pages long compared to our 52?‍♂️. That gives an idea to the lack of information in which we have been provided. I’ve taken screen shots of just a few points that we have touched on in this or other threads relating to the new ICOP.




- The first point is that it specifically allows both lines to be attached to the same point on the harness. From what I can see in the draft ICOP, no where does it mention that two lines are permitted to be attached on to one bridge. This has caused a lot of confusion in the industry (not just on this platform) where it is unknown whether two points of attachment on the bridge is permitted or not.
- Second point relates to ensuring operatives/technicians are unable to descend off the end of the rope. Again, happy to be corrected but I don’t recall seeing this in our draft. I thought this would be an important insert into the draft seeing as a few of the aerial accidents recorded related to such this problem?‍♂️.



Pic two shows what IRATA consider the attributes to consider when hiring or training a suitable rope access technician. Discussions have been had on this site relating to the standard of people employed in our industry and so I thought I would add this pic.



Pic 3 lays out the roles and responsibilities of each level of operator. I know this has tried to be done in the draft with ‘responsible persons’ and ‘competent persons’ but I feel more expansion is needed. I’m not suggesting we move to a level tiered process but I do see the benefits of such a system with the level 3 being ultimately responsible. It also explains the progressive role of the level 1 operator. They should be supervised at all times until the level 3 dictates they are able to perform such tasks comptently. I know many of us do this on a daily basis or have these set ups in our workplaces however this is definitely not the case for many organisations throughout the industry.



The next picture is really important to me. Just because the L3 is qualified, this does not mean they are a suitable candidate to be a supervisor of daily tasks and operations. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions for that one.



A simple diagram of loads on anchors when applied at different angles. Now I personally have seen this diagram before and know these load increases/decreases but I can assure you many haven’t. There are many arborists using SRT redirects without knowing this basic principle.


A simple diagram of a stopper knot?‍♂️.

The IRATA ICOP is so much more detailed than ours and can really help their operators stay within the law AND provide good reference material for future operators. Our is much too ambiguous with many still scratching their heads after reading. We still have many more points in ours to discuss and refine.

It has been almost 5 years since this last ICOP was produced. How long will we be working to a version that we don’t understand fully adding further confusion to the industry for many more years. This issue needs to be sorted NOW.

Hi jake, interesting to read that irata 1 is only 4 days training. Level 2 another 4 days training plus 1000 logged hours. Whereas we do cs30/31 about 5 days, plus 38/39 which is about 8 more days training. Total is 13 days which is more than level 2 irata. The big difference then is really the 1000hrs supervised hours and the fact that you get 38/39 then can just go it alone as a tree surgeon. J.