Jump to content
kevinjohnsonmbe

Background to the HSE decision on two rope working

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, aspenarb said:

Cant really ignore it Paul, the girl in the office has run  off a few copies for the lads to read and the disclaimer is there for them to sign. 

 

Bob

Hi Bob, "run off a few copies" of what?

If the DRAFT TG1 then it's, in effect, redundant as certain sections are being re-written to reflect the HSE's interpretations and requirements.

When you say 'disclaimer', do you mean they use SRT at their own risk, in effect? If so, again I'm not sure this would discharge your employer duties...and again we're getting ahead of ourselves I would suggest.

Cheers,

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that the AA has had an input into this farce but I have to say that as a long term member and AAAC I feel let down here. There should have been a massive push back against this. Where was the public consultation?

 

This is clearly bullshit, having 2 or 3 anchor points will be counter productive and unsafe as I'm sure it will only be a matter of time until someone unclips the wrong line thinking that the other one is still attached only to find that it isn't or that it has 20 foot of slack in it. Having one main line is safest because the climber KNOWS that that is his lifeline; cut that or unclip it and you're free climbing or free falling. That kind of logic sharpens the mind. 

 

The parallels between IRATA rope access and tree work end with the Geotech jobs cutting trees on steep slopes and cliffs. working in the canopy as a 3 dimensional structure is not remotely the same as hanging off a building. The complexity of moving around a crown whilst constantly maintaining 2 anchors is not to be understated. It will lead to accidents.

 

Many people have rightly pointed out previously that the stats for falls do not support this change. How many falls have there been due to single point attachment? That is vital information we don't seem to have. The fact is that a landscaper with no training who falls off a ladder whilst pruning a tree seems to be classed as an arb industry statistic. Where as in fact it should not be. I'd love to know the data for the number of accidents where the 'old' guide to good climbing practice was correctly followed. I'll bet it's close to none.

 

What is the AA's proposal to get this nonsense overturned?

  • Like 14
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tom D said:

I appreciate that the AA has had an input into this farce but I have to say that as a long term member and AAAC I feel let down here. There should have been a massive push back against this. Where was the public consultation?

 

This is clearly bullshit, having 2 or 3 anchor points will be counter productive and unsafe as I'm sure it will only be a matter of time until someone unclips the wrong line thinking that the other one is still attached only to find that it isn't or that it has 20 foot of slack in it. Having one main line is safest because the climber KNOWS that that is his lifeline; cut that or unclip it and you're free climbing or free falling. That kind of logic sharpens the mind. 

 

The parallels between IRATA rope access and tree work end with the Geotech jobs cutting trees on steep slopes and cliffs. working in the canopy as a 3 dimensional structure is not remotely the same as hanging off a building. The complexity of moving around a crown whilst constantly maintaining 2 anchors is not to be understated. It will lead to accidents.

 

Many people have rightly pointed out previously that the stats for falls do not support this change. How many falls have there been due to single point attachment? That is vital information we don't seem to have. The fact is that a landscaper with no training who falls off a ladder whilst pruning a tree seems to be classed as an arb industry statistic. Where as in fact it should not be. I'd love to know the data for the number of accidents where the 'old' guide to good climbing practice was correctly followed. I'll bet it's close to none.

 

What is the AA's proposal to get this nonsense overturned?

Hi Tom, thanks for your post.

 

Firstly, "consultation" - there wasn't anyway. On reviewing the new Technical Guide for tree climbing the HSE picked up on the issue and, essentially, imposed the requirement.

Secondly, by their own admission because of the RIDDOR reporting process, and code allocation, it is very difficult to get accurate data on accidents but there have been a spate of recent accidents / incident, including falls from trees, and of course fatal chainsaw cuts (unrelated, directly) but that puts the industry as a whole on the regulator's radar.

Thirdly, "getting the nonsense overturn" not sure that's an option really. We have spent considerable time and resource, with industry colleagues, demo'ing why current practices are safe, if employed correctly, but they've chosen to implement higher compliance requirements.

I will feed your comments back to my colleague who is the AA lead on the matter...but don't hold yer breath.

Regards,

Paul

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Tom, thanks for your post.
 
Firstly, "consultation" - there wasn't anyway. On reviewing the new Technical Guide for tree climbing the HSE picked up on the issue and, essentially, imposed the requirement.
Secondly, by their own admission because of the RIDDOR reporting process, and code allocation, it is very difficult to get accurate data on accidents but there have been a spate of recent accidents / incident, including falls from trees, and of course fatal chainsaw cuts (unrelated, directly) but that puts the industry as a whole on the regulator's radar.
Thirdly, "getting the nonsense overturn" not sure that's an option really. We have spent considerable time and resource, with industry colleagues, demo'ing why current practices are safe, if employed correctly, but they've chosen to implement higher compliance requirements.
I will feed your comments back to my colleague who is the AA lead on the matter...but don't hold yer breath.
Regards,
Paul


Hi Paul. Are the HSE even interested in why these accidents are happening? It seems to me that they aren’t arriving at meaningful conclusions that will be welcomed by the industry because they aren’t asking the right questions.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be some proper industry consultation before something as ground breaking as this is announced. I suggest that all those who disagree with this decision write to their MP. It's easy to do and if enough people do it questions will be asked. I'll draft a letter and post it here.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tom D said:

There should be some proper industry consultation before something as ground breaking as this is announced. I suggest that all those who disagree with this decision write to their MP. It's easy to do and if enough people do it questions will be asked. I'll draft a letter and post it here.

Good plan Tom. 

 

What happens in a rescue situation? Do you want the rescuer faffing around with two points of attachment. Or do you want rescued quickly? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then there's your rigging line too, it will be like a spiders nest. 

 

How come I don't need two points of attachment in a MEWP basket?  I believe that only one is required?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TIMON said:

 

 


Hi Paul. Are the HSE even interested in why these accidents are happening? It seems to me that they aren’t arriving at meaningful conclusions that will be welcomed by the industry because they aren’t asking the right questions.


 

 

Hi Timon, they're looking for a failsafe solution which is easy to implement and one that the industry itself concluded bck in 2004, effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously can’t see the fuss about using another line, I’ve worked with 3 lines from 3 separate trees in the past for accessing dead trees, I often use 2 lines if the crown has no central leader, it’s great for fighting the pendulum effect.

  I think this is only going to effect guys who don’t like being told they ‘ have ‘ to do something.

 Piece of advice, central line long  friction loop, offset line small loop.

  If you use mechanical then you have the ability to be progressive so you will fine.😀

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Featured Adverts

About

Arbtalk.co.uk is a hub for the arboriculture industry in the UK.  
If you're just starting out and you need business, equipment, tech or training support you're in the right place.  If you've done it, made it, got a van load of oily t-shirts and have decided to give something back by sharing your knowledge or wisdom,  then you're welcome too.
If you would like to contribute to making this industry more effective and safe then welcome.
Just like a living tree, it'll always be a work in progress.
Please have a look around, sign up, share and contribute the best you have.

See you inside.

The Arbtalk Team

Follow us

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.