Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

1 minute ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Thanks Paul. 
 

Trouble is, doesn’t really add cred  

 

23 fall fro height incidents - so that’s everything from 4th rung on the hedge cutting ladder to falling off the tailgate of the PU. 
 

The question is, how many rope failure / cut or TiP incidents are there that would justify such a change. 
 

It still ‘looks’ like the answer is being made to fit the question. 
 

It’s not meant as giving you stick, you are a much valued and respected info source. 
 

 

Hi Kevin, never perceived as "giving me stick" but the HSE simply don't have that level of detail, and neither do we tbf  

 

Sorry, I can't help you anymore here and, tbh, with HSE taking on a new building fire regs role, plus COVID policing etc., we're probably never gonna geddit...even though they did give an undertaking to review how accidents are reported via their 'SIC' codes.

 

Perhaps the Utility industry sector, who are far more likely to record accidents and causation etc., can offer some insight...but of course the majority have been using 2-ropes for some time now and hence won't be falling from trees (tongue very firmly in side of mouth recess.) If any reports do come to my attention via UAG I will be sure to share..

 

ATB,

Paul

 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

25 minutes ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

HSE simply don't have that level of detail

That’s the genuine crux of the problem Paul and the basis of what I see as legitimate questions and contributions over the 100s of posts in several threads. 
 

I totally understand and appreciate the liaison that AA has entered into with the obviously immovable object that is HSE just as I recognise that corporate business and AA members (through the terms of their membership) are obliged to dutifully toe the line.  
 

And, thinking back to some of your previous posts about HSE determined implementation, it leaves the question, was there no one at AA that didn’t agree (or was willing) to ‘just say no?’
 

We still come back to the perception that this could be an office decision with unforeseen real world implications. 
 

We are where we are is an often used phrase to avoid detailed examination of how we got where we were going and I guess (sadly) this will only be fully resolved if/when an accident which may be deemed as non-compliant results in an attempted HSE prosecution. 
 

Whoever ends up in the dock if that happens would be wise to have a copy of the 100s of coal face comments, observations and questions in relation to this subject as part of their defence. 
 

What a turn out for events if it were determined that directed implementation of regulations was found to be a contributory factor in a future accident. 
 

Not wishing that to be the case but it might finally change the ‘we are where we are’ to ‘how the hell did this happen?’

 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

24 minutes ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

That’s the genuine crux of the problem Paul and the basis of what I see as legitimate questions and contributions over the 100s of posts in several threads. 
 

I totally understand and appreciate the liaison that AA has entered into with the obviously immovable object that is HSE just as I recognise that corporate business and AA members (through the terms of their membership) are obliged to dutifully toe the line.  
 

And, thinking back to some of your previous posts about HSE determined implementation, it leaves the question, was there no one at AA that didn’t agree (or was willing) to ‘just say no?’
 

We still come back to the perception that this could be an office decision with unforeseen real world implications. 
 

We are where we are is an often used phrase to avoid detailed examination of how we got where we were going and I guess (sadly) this will only be fully resolved if/when an accident which may be deemed as non-compliant results in an attempted HSE prosecution. 
 

Whoever ends up in the dock if that happens would be wise to have a copy of the 100s of coal face comments, observations and questions in relation to this subject as part of their defence. 
 

What a turn out for events if it were determined that directed implementation of regulations was found to be a contributory factor in a future accident. 
 

Not wishing that to be the case but it might finally change the ‘we are where we are’ to ‘how the hell did this happen?’

 

 

Kevin we did, and mainly my colleague Simon, disagree on several occasions, often supported by feedback via industry consultations ("thank you all"), and pushed back at HSE. Hence the use of the backup is a concession to 2-ropes at all times, as is 1 point of attachment with rope advance on ascent, even though many have adopted the 2-ropes approach.

 

In terms of saying "no", we didn't consider we had grounds to do so because:

a) they are the regulator 

b) IRATA use 2 lines (I know that's deemed as different but essentially a W@H industry)

c) Utility Arb did it already (generally)

 

Regards,

Paul

 

Edited November 27, 2020 by AA Teccie (Paul)
To clarify a comment

[Khriss]

Not at all @Alexthetreesurgeon  those nob heads were fre climbing and cutting with one anchor point. But you raise the important point of background not being noted in RIDDOR, who in their right mind would do something lethal  ( alcohol abuse / bullied at work / exhaustion from poor work practise)  when there is an alternative? K

[JAG63]

On 25/11/2020 at 13:49, openspaceman said:

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.

Always referred to this as a 'top rope' when rock climbing and is  installed from the top rather than the base of the climb, i.e. the anchor point is inspected for suitabilty prior to use.

My other concern with two ropes is how many understand the potential for exceeding 100% loading on each anchor point is you get the angles wrong? The potential for this to occur as a climber moves through the canopy and between multiple stems is significant. 

Edited November 27, 2020 by JAG63
typing error

[openspaceman]

46 minutes ago, JAG63 said:

Always referred to this as a 'top rope' when rock climbing and is  installed from the top rather than the base of the climb, i.e. the anchor point is inspected for suitabilty prior to use.

It's 57 years since I was introduced to rock climbing at harrisons rocks near groombridge  and our scout leader referred to it as Hobbs belay IIRC, I cannot remember what the anchor points at the top were. Friction boots were PAs and they hurt they were so tight.

[AHPP]

45 minutes ago, openspaceman said:

scout leader 

In which case you can be assured the terminology was either wrong, so absurdly niche as to be effectively wrong or 200 years out of date.

[JAG63]

Technically it could be top or bottom (steady) roping depending on the position of the belayer. In each case the anchor point is installed at the top of the climb and the climbing rope rigged before being dropped to the climber to tie in. For rock climbing the anchors are brought to a single point, usually a screwgate, with any movement essentially being in two dimensions rather than the three dimensions in arb. This makes the angles in rock climbing quite simple to establish and there is only minimal variation during the climb.

[Khriss]

Rock climbing is in 2 dimesions Arb is in 3 dimensions.  4 dimesions if you include time.  K

Edited November 27, 2020 by Khriss
... As in " have you got that fvvking job done yet...."

[TIMON]

Hi Kevin, never perceived as "giving me stick" but the HSE simply don't have that level of detail, and neither do we tbf [emoji32] 
 
Sorry, I can't help you anymore here and, tbh, with HSE taking on a new building fire regs role, plus COVID policing etc., we're probably never gonna geddit...even though they did give an undertaking to review how accidents are reported via their 'SIC' codes.
 
Perhaps the Utility industry sector, who are far more likely to record accidents and causation etc., can offer some insight...but of course the majority have been using 2-ropes for some time now and hence won't be falling from trees (tongue very firmly in side of mouth recess.) If any reports do come to my attention via UAG I will be sure to share..
 
ATB,
Paul
 

Hi Paul,

Hope you’re well. This has been my (main) gripe all along....
I remember hearing about the Utilities sector mandated ’2-rope working’ solution to their guys falling out of trees sometime before the HSE got hold of it... I wondered why they just chose to ‘mask the symptoms’ rather than hold an in-depth review of their working practices. (Maybe they did, but just introducing ‘2 ropes’ doesn’t address the root causes of accidents) Repeated falls from height in utility arb surely points to one or more of the following:

Poor anchor point selection.
Poor rope management
Poor work positioning
Insufficient management, planning and supervision.

Maybe I’m wrong in assuming there wasn’t any detailed investigation into why this was repeatedly happening in that sector... but to arrive at the conclusion that climbers were falling out of trees simply ‘because they weren’t using two ropes’ seems to suggest that the real issues weren’t being addressed.
It is unsurprising that the rest of the industry feel like they are being punished for someone else’s mistakes.

(I know the ICOP and TG1 do cover management and planning work safely)

It will be interesting to see how future accident reporting pans out in the next few years.
T