Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

2 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

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.

 

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.

- Agreed

-  

- Agreed (on reflection) - RETRACTED

 

Cheers

Paul

[openspaceman]

Just now, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

- Agreed

-  

- Agreed (on reflection) - RETRACTED

 

Cheers

Paul

Oh dear, just when I thought we were getting on so well ?

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

Oh dear, just when I thought we were getting on so well ?

Its always good to "clear the air" in any relationship...and admit defeat (regarding the seat-belt analogy!...I've already 'virtually' kicked my colleague on the shins)    

[TIMON]

I quite liked the idea of a Hobbs belay (wot rock climbers do) when the climber is moving, as long as it is fit under LOLER the lowering rope will be available then, or did I miss something? I only watched 55 minutes of the webinar so far and it;s all academic for me as last commercial climb was 8 years ago but I don't see the team I was last working with being willing or able to comply  and one of them will be reading this.

From a LOLER point of view, using a Hobbs type device for a belay system would require an ‘unused in rigging, ever’ new device to be used. Issuing a LOLER certificate for equipment requires the item to be classified either. PPE (for climbing) or RIGGING.
It is acceptable to downgrade PPE climbing gear to ‘rigging’. But never acceptable to ‘upgrade’ rigging gear to PPE, due to the considerable forces exerted on rigging kit.
Hope this is helpful. (From a LOLER point of view)

[openspaceman]

13 minutes ago, TIMON said:

 

From a LOLER point of view, using a Hobbs type device for a belay system would require an ‘unused in rigging, ever’ new device to be used. Issuing a LOLER certificate for equipment requires the item to be classified either. PPE (for climbing) or RIGGING.
It is acceptable to downgrade PPE climbing gear to ‘rigging’. But never acceptable to ‘upgrade’ rigging gear to PPE, due to the considerable forces exerted on rigging kit.
Hope this is helpful. (From a LOLER point of view)

I'm sorry I was not referring to the Hobbs belay device, I actually used one of these for negative rigging a couple of weeks ago and I quite liked it.

 

In rock climbing where the climber is climbing  and being belayed by a man on the ground and the anchor point is somewhere at the top of the pitch I knew this as a hobbs belay.

 

I am still awaiting clarification on this point but it could mean that the anchor point used for the lowering rope but, from what you say, not the  lowering rope could be used in this manner as the climber moves to his next work position,

[Khriss]

Carrying  Hobbs lowering device down a line or access road???? Whoopie sling n Figure 8 n locking device. This is where it falls down on discussion. K

[TIMON]

I'm sorry I was not referring to the Hobbs belay device, I actually used one of these for negative rigging a couple of weeks ago and I quite liked it.
 
In rock climbing where the climber is climbing  and being belayed by a man on the ground and the anchor point is somewhere at the top of the pitch I knew this as a hobbs belay.
 
I am still awaiting clarification on this point but it could mean that the anchor point used for the lowering rope but, from what you say, not the  lowering rope could be used in this manner as the climber moves to his next work position,

Ah, my mistake then.. I thought you meant using the lowering device fixed to the base of the stem e.g Hobbs, GRCS, RC3001 etc,, as the belay for the climber.

[openspaceman]

5 minutes ago, TIMON said:

 

Ah, my mistake then.. I thought you meant using the lowering device fixed to the base of the stem e.g Hobbs, GRCS, RC3001 etc,, as the belay for the climber.

Looks like @Khriss did too. No the belay for the climber would be a groundsman and only when he was shifting position after which his main line and  a back up he attaches (strop or lanyard) becomes his safety attachment.

 

Not that I'm particularly advocating anything just thinking  it is a method that could be readily adopted without major changes in climbing kit or technique.

[Khriss]

@openspaceman yes. I did twig it after reading  latest edition of AA winter 2020*    , i often teach pole rescue in the safety reviews as it just dont get the mention it should. Belayed rescue for conscious,  able but damaged climber should be drummed into every groundsperson on site. 

 

*Of note on this is the UAG 067 notice on a climber 07.09.20 power line climber using 2Rope systems fell out of tree on descent after both systems became detached from his harness. K

 

( 10m fall 4 discs and arm broke) 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Khriss
A update

[openspaceman]

5 hours ago, Khriss said:

*Of note on this is the UAG 067 notice on a climber 07.09.20 power line climber using 2Rope systems fell out of tree on descent after both systems became detached from his harness. K

 

were both lines attached to his bridge by one crab?

 

I've known two people that have fallen  in tree work and died as a result, I've been struggling all day to remember the first chap's name, such is memory as one gets older.