Two Rope Working Consultation

[jarborist]

That was it ' any fool can make a rule and any fool can mind it'

h. David thoreau

[jarborist]

Rules are for the odedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. 

[Arboricultured]

I did post something in the SRT thread but got little response as I guess it should have been here but I do think there is scope for a system to be developed that is used in a similar way to a single line but has redundancy. Especially if brains better than mine were thinking about it and if some sort of mechanical device or devices were thought about being used. It needn’t be onerous or clunky if properly thought through. It could even bring some benefits.

[Will C]

When those hitches are loaded uneavenly is one going to pull the other down with it if they end up one above the other?

 

i would consider there to be NO safety benefit from that set up as with the ropes that close together if one was cut there is a very high chance the other would be compromised.

[Mr. Squirrel]

On 05/11/2019 at 11:33, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

 

 

 

On 20/10/2019 at 18:54, Konstantly said:

Any IRATA level 3 qualified operatives out their who wish to input into this topic?

As previously mentioned rescue from an ASAP or similar device will need extra training. Generally in rope access work I believe that a level 3 has to be in close proximity to other operatives in case the need for rescue arises? 

If we are to transfer these methods to tree work dose this mean that a secondary rescue line installed within the tree will still be applicable? Or will two climbers have to be in the tree at all times too? 

More ropes, more targets another person wah... the list can go on..

If the hse are paying any attention to this topic can we please have some input too? 

We all seem to be stabbing in the dark towards a non existent light at the end of the tunnel atm.

A little light to aim towards Would be nice...

 

Except an ASAP is a mobile fall arrest device and requires a dorsal attachment. Aside from the fact that very few of our harnesses are designed for this use, you should never be in a fall arrest situation in tree work.

On 05/11/2019 at 11:33, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

All, "yes" HSE have said they expect 2 ropes...and have done so since 2003/5  

 

So, please think carefully about at what stage in the climb you are 'most at risk', e.g. on access (because you haven't inspected AND loaded the anchor at that point)  / when working (because of increased risk when using saws etc.), and ensure you fully meet the requirements. Further than that please await publication of the new Technical Guide and revised ICoP...hopefully Jan. 2020 to better inform and steer your decisions.

 

Regards all,

Paul

And yet in the 2015 ICOP it frequently cites 'work positioning techniques' and describes them as 'utilising a single rope passed over an anchor'. There's little to no mention of the necessity for two systems. You guys produced the code of practice.... I also don't believe the use of two systems is required according to AFAG401...? 

 

As I see it I should continue working to the ICOP. If and when you produce a further document I'll give it a good read and make a decision as to how I proceed from there based on it's credibility and how it's revisions will impact my safety at work.

 

Looking through the case studies of fatal accidents in tree work, the main common theme between people falling from height appears to be not using basic techniques correctly. Quite bluntly, I don't see how using two ropes would stop someone who isn't bothering to use any ropes from having an accident. At which point we should be looking at the industry demographics for who's typically having these accidents. Is it people who are really switched on and trying to do a brilliant job? Is it 20 something year olds hammering out street trees for the promise of a bonus? Or people who got their tickets 20 years ago and haven't invested in their professional development since? And how can we really compare these groups?

 

Yes, something needs to change. No, this isn't the right sort of change. The AA need to get a grip of things because right now they're letting the whole industry down as far as I can see. 

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

45 minutes ago, Mr. Squirrel said:

 

Except an ASAP is a mobile fall arrest device and requires a dorsal attachment. Aside from the fact that very few of our harnesses are designed for this use, you should never be in a fall arrest situation in tree work.

And yet in the 2015 ICOP it frequently cites 'work positioning techniques' and describes them as 'utilising a single rope passed over an anchor'. There's little to no mention of the necessity for two systems. You guys produced the code of practice.... I also don't believe the use of two systems is required according to AFAG401...? 

 

As I see it I should continue working to the ICOP. If and when you produce a further document I'll give it a good read and make a decision as to how I proceed from there based on it's credibility and how it's revisions will impact my safety at work.

 

Looking through the case studies of fatal accidents in tree work, the main common theme between people falling from height appears to be not using basic techniques correctly. Quite bluntly, I don't see how using two ropes would stop someone who isn't bothering to use any ropes from having an accident. At which point we should be looking at the industry demographics for who's typically having these accidents. Is it people who are really switched on and trying to do a brilliant job? Is it 20 something year olds hammering out street trees for the promise of a bonus? Or people who got their tickets 20 years ago and haven't invested in their professional development since? And how can we really compare these groups?

 

Yes, something needs to change. No, this isn't the right sort of change. The AA need to get a grip of things because right now they're letting the whole industry down as far as I can see. 

 

Your points are valid, and well made, but we are an industry body and the HSE are the regulatory body now (potentially) enforcing W@H regs from 2005.

We await a more informative article in the ARB Mag in the coming weeks followed by the revised ICoP and technical guide early in the New Year.

Regards

paul

[Tom D]

Paul. 

Will there be any possibility for consultation on the ICOP? perhaps a draft published here? I have been pleased with the large number of sensible and well thought out replies on this thread, perhaps if we were able to give a draft the once over it wouldn't be a bad thing?

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[Mr. Squirrel]

23 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Your points are valid, and well made, but we are an industry body and the HSE are the regulatory body now (potentially) enforcing W@H regs from 2005.

We await a more informative article in the ARB Mag in the coming weeks followed by the revised ICoP and technical guide early in the New Year.

Regards

paul

Exactly. You are the industry body, so to be advising climbing arborists to work in a way which inhibits their climbing, creates a more complex working environment and ultimately reduces safety is not acceptable.

How are the HSE getting to the conclusion that this is safer? It's absurd, and I strongly believe will endanger people's lives.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but I do strongly believe the industry as a whole is being failed here. 

[Khriss]

My conclusions also @ Mr. Squirrel  @Will C. obvs when barristers get involved - HSE will have to defend / prosecute their position - I just cannot see how the 2rope works better that 1rope in this - as you are in a hazard situation by default ( off ground at lethal height - lethal tools ) so by definition , it is yr judgement at THAT moment , yr defending ! K 

[dumper]

If the arb association is producing the code of practise how many people are involved/ consulted before its published I’ve always thought of the AA as a bit of an old boys club. 

Will they actually represent the industry or seek to ingratiate themselves with the HSE, if the industry doesn’t agree with the HSE how can it be enacted the HSE are not the experts if they were the AA would not be writing the icop, how representative is the AA of the industry are more than 50% of companies and individuals involved in arboriculture members? If not shouldn’t this be put out to the whole industry to write not just a couple of people in a office in Gloucestershire, I suggest the membership of this forum have more experience collectively than the AA     Rant over