Two Rope Working Consultation

[Ian C]

So, where do you stand with PUWER regs and LOLER if you are adding an extra bridge to a harness that was originally designed and supplied with only one? by doing that you are "modifying" the harness, If the extra one failed or the harness failed for some reason I bet that issue will be brought up!

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

46 minutes ago, scotspine1 said:

Experience climbers will be able to navigate this latest twin rope development using a main line, a lanyard and a shorter climbing line - say 5m/6m/7m. 

 

 

 

.

I see the point, but I read it as a requirement that 2nd TiP is only a part of the requirement. The ability to descent to ground off both TiPs being the intended purpose. 
 

Just my interpretation. 

[warren]

41 minutes ago, Ian C said:

So, where do you stand with PUWER regs and LOLER if you are adding an extra bridge to a harness that was originally designed and supplied with only one? by doing that you are "modifying" the harness, If the extra one failed or the harness failed for some reason I bet that issue will be brought up!

Yep, no doubt. When I have to buy a new harness it will have to be with a double bridge. 

 

I too originally thought about the short rope option, changing anchor points as required but that's another rope and another rope guide/cambium saver and 2 X double friction over branches. 

 

We'll see, the asap lock maybe a white elephant but at least it's a frictionless way of using a second rope at the moment (which is what all the fuss is about after all). I'm not suddenly gonna become unsafe after all this time up trees. 

[TIMON]

Experience climbers will be able to navigate this latest twin rope development using a main line, a lanyard and a shorter climbing line - say 5m/6m/7m. 
 
 
 
.

Except both main lines have to be able to take the climber to the ground from the final anchor point.

[scotspine1]

Have 3 viable systems prior to leaving the ground (2 climbing lines, 1 lanyard).

 

In the case of a single stemmed conifer removal - 2 fliplines and a mainline will suffice as they clearly state above - a lanyard is a, ‘viable system’. You can descend to the ground on twin lanyards should you cut your main line. 

 

Expand this mindset out to an open grown deciduous tree - a short secondary line (which easily falls within the scope a, ‘viable system’ will get you to the ground when used in conjunction with a lanyard should you cut your mainline. 

 

Warren, you wouldn’t use the ropeguide or cambium saver (multisaver etc) for the secondary short rope as it will be used over multiple different anchor points as you work your way around, across, and down through the canopy. 

 

Also, how do you plan to descend out of the tree on the ASAP if you cut your main line? 

 

. 

[Pete Mctree]

I see many benefits of the asap as a way  of providing a backup, but I also have two worries about it's introduction.Firstly is the wearing of full body class 3 harnesses as they should be attached to dorsal or sternal points (I think) and the second is the increased complexity of rescue and self rescue with a cut primary line. We need to have a close look at the rescue issue, because if staff are not competent & versed in it's use, it could potentially create a significant problem.

[warren]

31 minutes ago, scotspine1 said:

 

Also, how do you plan to descend out of the tree on the ASAP if you cut your main line? 

 

. 

Figure 8 descender. Or sit there awaiting rescue within 15mins ?

Edited December 15, 2019 by warren

[scotspine1]

2 hours ago, Pete Mctree said:

I see many benefits of the asap as a way  of providing a backup, but I also have two worries about it's introduction.Firstly is the wearing of full body class 3 harnesses as they should be attached to dorsal or sternal points (I think) and the second is the increased complexity of rescue and self rescue with a cut primary line. We need to have a close look at the rescue issue, because if staff are not competent & versed in it's use, it could potentially create a significant problem.

 

Pete, 

 

the Petzl Asap and other similar fall arrest devices are not the solution to the twin rope issue.   

 

The Asap doesn’t need to be attached to a dorsal attachment but that’s beside the point. 

 

The idea that you lock it off when work positioning then it suddenly becomes a work positioning device is dangerous. 

 

Warren is using his with an add on shock/energy absorber which is even worse when you stop to consider the ramifications of it suddenly releasing/activating when he’s using a big saw along a heavy lateral limb during a dismantle. 

 

2 hours ago, warren said:

Figure 8 descender.

 

That means you have to use it 100% of the time with the figure 8 in situ - thereby negating the fall arrest aspect of it and rendering it pointless as a shadowing secondary back up line. You’d be better going back to your wrench setup. 

 

 

 

[Brocky]

I believe a safety system like the ASAP, has to be  a dorsal attachment, and not in front, for the same reason a belt only is no longer allowed when in a bucket.

[scotspine1]

4 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

The ability to descent to ground off both TiPs being the intended purpose. 

 

4 hours ago, TIMON said:

Except both main lines have to be able to take the climber to the ground from the final anchor point.

 

"Q: Will both ropes have to reach the ground?

 

A: New technical guide has been drafted stating that at least one of the systems in use by the operator must be capable of providing an uninterrupted descent to the ground (i.e. without the need for a change of anchor) from any point within the canopy in the event of a self-rescue being required.

During descent under normal climbing conditions, the climber will need to ensure that they remain connected to two systems for the duration of their descent."

 

Quoted from this page...... 

 

 

.