Two Rope Working Consultation

[swinny]

24 minutes ago, dumper said:

The Comments from the AA are deafening 

Fairy dust is no good here

[stewmo]

The report I found actually reads like someone who climbs wrote it. They have looked at the implications in a variety of situations (some of which do recommend 2 ropes), but many others don't. They have also identified many of the concerns we raised here. Good on the HSE producing such a useful document. [emoji12]

It was Tony Lane who wrote that report. Done years and years of climbing. He isn’t employed by HSE.

[jfc]

Looked through the ICoP again today -  the 'Dertermination of work positioning and rope accesss techniques in Arb' HSE/Lane (2004) wahreport.pdf that I quoted from previously isn't listed in the Biography of the ICoP. Can other people also check this out?

 

If no reference is made to HSE/Lane (2004) then the concerns identified 15yrs ago don't appear to have been addressed in the thinking behind the ICoP. (2019)

 

Why is it that Lane/HSE (2004), a report funded by HSE and published on their website, does not feature in the ICoP.

 

I think this is a very serious omission and failure to look at the available literature on 2 rope working, and serves as evidence  to discredit the legitamacy of both the ICoP and HSE decision making on 2 rope working.

 

end of rant!

[Khriss]

2 minutes ago, jfc said:

Looked through the ICoP again today -  the 'Dertermination of work positioning and rope accesss techniques in Arb' HSE/Lane (2004) wahreport.pdf that I quoted from previously isn't listed in the Biography of the ICoP. Can other people also check this out?

 

If no reference is made to HSE/Lane (2004) then the concerns identified 15yrs ago don't appear to have been addressed in the thinking behind the ICoP. (2019)

 

Why is it that Lane/HSE (2004), a report funded by HSE and published on their website, does not feature in the ICoP.

 

I think this is a very serious omission and failure to look at the available literature on 2 rope working, and serves as evidence  to discredit the legitamacy of both the ICoP and HSE decision making on 2 rope working.

 

end of rant!

Da da dahhhh  ?  K

Edited January 7, 2020 by Khriss
( undefendable position in Court you say?? But surely a mistake yr 'onour )

[stewmo]

Looked through the ICoP again today -  the 'Dertermination of work positioning and rope accesss techniques in Arb' HSE/Lane (2004) wahreport.pdf that I quoted from previously isn't listed in the Biography of the ICoP. Can other people also check this out?
 
If no reference is made to HSE/Lane (2004) then the concerns identified 15yrs ago don't appear to have been addressed in the thinking behind the ICoP. (2019)
 
Why is it that Lane/HSE (2004), a report funded by HSE and published on their website, does not feature in the ICoP.
 
I think this is a very serious omission and failure to look at the available literature on 2 rope working, and serves as evidence  to discredit the legitamacy of both the ICoP and HSE decision making on 2 rope working.
 
end of rant!

It’s a very good point

[Mark Bolam]

3 hours ago, jfc said:

Looked through the ICoP again today -  the 'Dertermination of work positioning and rope accesss techniques in Arb' HSE/Lane (2004) wahreport.pdf that I quoted from previously isn't listed in the Biography of the ICoP. Can other people also check this out?

 

If no reference is made to HSE/Lane (2004) then the concerns identified 15yrs ago don't appear to have been addressed in the thinking behind the ICoP. (2019)

 

Why is it that Lane/HSE (2004), a report funded by HSE and published on their website, does not feature in the ICoP.

 

I think this is a very serious omission and failure to look at the available literature on 2 rope working, and serves as evidence  to discredit the legitamacy of both the ICoP and HSE decision making on 2 rope working.

 

end of rant!

It’s an extremely valid point mate, and I think a few of us should print some hard copies of Lane/HSE 2004 before the website is ‘currently unavailable’.

 

HSE, go and make yourselves useful by sorting the door-knockers out instead of pursuing this madness, you spineless twats.

[Dan]

Petition · Single rope climbing for UK arborists · Change.org

CHNG.IT

---

Single rope climbing for UK arborists

 

[scottythepinetree]

How did they decide 2 ropes? Where are the studies showing the benefit to working with 2 ropes? The logic seems to be that if one rope is safe, then two ropes should be twice as safe. So why not 3 ropes or 4??

[RC0]

On 07/01/2020 at 12:47, Mark Bolam said:

It’s an extremely valid point mate, and I think a few of us should print some hard copies of Lane/HSE 2004 before the website is ‘currently unavailable’.

 

HSE, go and make yourselves useful by sorting the door-knockers out instead of pursuing this madness, you spineless twats.

You tell em mate. Tell the spineless twats

[TIMON]

It looks to me like the HSE are not going to be happy with ARB climbing on one rope, period.
If you go and look at the wording on the AA website ‘ Background to the decision’ this isn’t something they are going to back down from without massive pushback from the industry. They have looked at the HSE/Lane 2004 document and refuted it. (It’s on there) It’s all very well saying we can ‘risk assess’ two rope working out of the method statement when it isn’t reasonably practicable, but the HSE guys statement that in the event of a prosecution they will not take the definitions of ‘work positioning ‘ or ‘rope access’ into account is very concerning for the ‘Responsible Person’. It basically means that two rope working will be mandatory at ALL times regardless of how rIdiculous or detrimental to efficient climbing it will be.
The words ‘reasonable’ and ‘practicable’ are now redundant.



And more concerning for people who are responsible for climbers.