Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

2 minutes ago, MattyF said:

But it’s not two ropes it’s three if we follow your other guidelines of having a rescue line installed as well ... if I was continue working SRT with retrievable anchors which I feel is the safest way to work on a average large tree of say around 22 metres that would mean around 150 metres of rope is needed.... that’s a 150 m of rope to manage... Put that along side conditions, rigging , woodchippers and groundsmen with saws I think I’ve pretty much trebbled my chances of some one cutting my rope or it getting damaged by rigging , being ripped out the tree by getting caught on machines.. all of these concern me greater as they are risks I can not control as a climber and VERY REAL ones I have personally witnessed.

Hi Matty, your are quite right if you include a pre-installed rescue line (recommended) and use a 2 rope as your backup (although this may not be suitable in every instance.)

 

Good rope management and competent support staff are key (..er, because of course they've always been) to a safe system of work.

 

Check out the Q&A session on the webinar as its raised there too.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 hour ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

My colleague uses the introduction of seat-belts as an analogy.

Identifying and overcoming resistance to change is a well recognised challenge.  

 

Less well recognised (often completely misdiagnosed by the change leader) is the determination to implement illogical change in the face of opposition whilst claiming 'resistance to change' is the barrier....

 

The seatbelt analogy is a strikingly poor one (perhaps symptomatic of an attempt rationalise that which isn't rational) since the 2 scenarios are so obviously out of kilter.

 

Seatbelts - a binary "wear / no wear" outcome with the "wear" benefits supported by factual RTA accident / injury data,  with the driver as the 'authority / responsible person' for compliance within a vehicle, a simple demonstrable and irrefutable advantage from the "wear" outcome in the event of an accident, an observable confirmation of compliance, an authority able to monitor and a penalty system for non-compliance.

 

Rather than adopt a "resistance to change is the barrier" approach, the Mark Drakeford "rules for Christmas" approach might be advisable....

 

To paraphrase what he just said on t' TV news, "...we're adjusting the restrictions over Christmas because if we didn't nobody will take any notice off them anyway..."

 

Rules that make no sense and cannot be applied / enforced are generally ignored...  

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

2 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Identifying and overcoming resistance to change is a well recognised challenge.  

 

Less well recognised (often completely misdiagnosed by the change leader) is the determination to implement illogical change in the face of opposition whilst claiming 'resistance to change' is the barrier....

 

The seatbelt analogy is a strikingly poor one (perhaps symptomatic of an attempt rationalise that which isn't rational) since the 2 scenarios are so obviously out of kilter.

 

Seatbelts - a binary "wear / no wear" outcome with the "wear" benefits supported by factual RTA accident / injury data,  with the driver as the 'authority / responsible person' for compliance within a vehicle, a simple demonstrable and irrefutable advantage from the "wear" outcome in the event of an accident, an observable confirmation of compliance, an authority able to monitor and a penalty system for non-compliance.

 

Rather than adopt a "resistance to change is the barrier" approach, the Mark Drakeford "rules for Christmas" approach might be advisable....

 

To paraphrase what he just said on t' TV news, "...we're adjusting the restrictions over Christmas because if we didn't nobody will take any notice off them anyway..."

 

Rules that make no sense and cannot be applied / enforced are generally ignored...  

 

 

"Time will tell.."

 

Thanks Kevin, hope you're well.

Paul

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

"Time will tell.."

 

Thanks Kevin, hope you're well.

Paul

?. All well Paul!  Busy!  Kinda hoping for a 'slow down' in the NY ? 

[High Scale]

Can you confirm that it's two points of attachments must be used at all times other than the before mentioned times but also when cutting will two suffice or should you use your lanyard as well, three points of attachment plus the rescue line?

 

Having the two rope systems is OK but surely both should be able to get you to the ground in the event of an accident? Otherwise your relying on a rescue which is not ideal.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

43 minutes ago, High Scale said:

Can you confirm that it's two points of attachments must be used at all times other than the before mentioned times but also when cutting will two suffice or should you use your lanyard as well, three points of attachment plus the rescue line?

 

Having the two rope systems is OK but surely both should be able to get you to the ground in the event of an accident? Otherwise your relying on a rescue which is not ideal.

 

Provided your "two points of attachment" are both load-bearing, i.e. can support you independently, you are not required to have a 3rd point of attachment (lanyard) provided the original ones are not at risk from cutting (obviously you may still use a lanyard to improve your positioning / stability.)

 

If you use 2 ropes, obviously the 2nd one being also able to get to ground is sensible...but not formally required (it is of course required with the first one such that the rescue line need not be employed as self-rescue takes precedent.)

 

Hope this makes sense  

 

Cheers,

Paul

[High Scale]

Paul, thanks for your reply, I will relay that information.

 

I fail to see how it would be cost effective regarding R and D when it comes to developing new compliant equipment for such a tiny market, ie, the UK unless the whole of Europe also adopts two rope working but maybe I'm missing a trick? Maybe utilizing existing industrial equipment in combination with the tree climbing equipment we already use.

 

Anyway, it'll will be good to see the developments when they arrive.

 

[Khriss]

It all makes sense and its all do-able. Until you get to the job. A famous quote at Sandhurst is " no plan survives first contact with the enemy". I have used each and every system in last 5 years and still am no clearer on this.  K

 

( and possibly like many persons reading through all of last 2 years discussions will just say 'sod it' at some point - and am a cautious climber ?) 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

17 minutes ago, Khriss said:

It all makes sense and its all do-able. Until you get to the job. A famous quote at Sandhurst is " no plan survives first contact with the enemy". I have used each and every system in last 5 years and still am no clearer on this.  K

 

( and possibly like many persons reading through all of last 2 years discussions will just say 'sod it' at some point - and am a cautious climber ?) 

Hi Khriss, sorry to read this.

 

The new Technical Guide 1 - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue (TG1) will be available very soon and that will give detailed information, illustratively, of how / what systems would comply.

 

Cautious is good, having the extra security of a backup system / 'fail-safe' "just in case", is better. 

 

Please bear with it..."ALL"

 

Thanks

Paul

[openspaceman]

4 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Sorry, can't comment on the belay proposal detail although I'm aware it is an option to use a belay technique.

I'll be watching out for comments but to me it is eminently practicable with  little expense but at the cost of a groundman's time and less rope management by the climber than with two climbing ropes.

 

I also see an eddy current fall arrest system using gravity for rope tension and a one way capstan as being a possibility but this would fail the 0.5 metre drop requirement as it would simply lower at a controlled rate.

Quote

<snipped obligatory prosecution warning>

 

Quote

My colleague uses the introduction of seat-belts as an analogy...initially much resistance, and draping it over your shoulder :/, but now quite normal/ natural.

 

 

It may be an analogy of resistance to new legal requirements but it's a poor analogy otherwise as a seatbelt does not impede the function of driving a car in any way but managing additional rope systems clearly does affect a climber's working.

Edited November 25, 2020 by openspaceman
added a"ffect a climber's working" to deal with ambiguity