Two Rope Working Consultation

[carlos]

i still think a twin rope system in a cluttered tree is going to be a slow going nightmare even twin srt, i  just did a big sprawling macrocarpa, full of dead wood and storm damage, no central main anchor , the idea of managing and dragging another rope around !!!

maybe a munufacture will come up with a twin device that takes two ropes and can be operated easily with one hand, that could help.

setting two lines from the ground!!!!  the relief some days when you finally get the shot...... now repeat??? 

i dont think i could cope to be honest!!!

[warren]

Well the ICoPs out for review .. section 2.9 

[Bing!]

Well this is what I was having a crack at today......

We had our first rescue refresher day under the new regs so we attempted to get it all done within the new rules. One guy is currently going through cs39 so was our example, it looks a proper faff and it was hard work. Our test set up was basically straight up with the anchor points relatively close to each other, no one was keen to traverse through the crown.

Would be good to get some examples of systems up for viewing/review....

[TIMON]

Well the ICoPs out for review .. section 2.9 

Do you have a link?

[Jake Andrews]

Do you have a link?

Arboricultural Association - Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height

WWW.TREES.ORG.UK

---

<h2 class= dblue bold >Revised Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height</h2><h1 class= blue bold display ><span class= blue display >INDUSTRY CONSULTATION</span></h1><h3 class= orange bold >Please submit all responses by Friday 17th January 2020</h3><p class= lead >This is the ‘<a href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf target= _blank title= ICoP Draft for Consultation ><span class= bold blue >draft for consultation</span></a>’ for the second edition of the AA’s ‘Industry Code of Practice for Arboriculture – Tree Work at Height’ (ICoP) – First edition published in 2015.</p><p>This revision includes editorial and technical revisions throughout the document but there are specific, significant amendments in:</p><ul class= wia > <li><b>2.8.4 – Crane</b></li> <li><b>2.8.6 – Personal fall protection systems</b></li> <li><b>2.9 – Work positioning and rope access</b></li> <li><b>2.11.6 – [Equipment selection] Performance specifications</b></li></ul><p class= m30 >As with the first edition, the ICoP is aimed at the ‘<b>Responsible Person</b>’ and the ‘<b>Competent Person</b>’ within arboricultural contracting companies. The aim of the ICoP is to identify the principal planning, management and supervisory requirements necessary to establish safe systems of work for tree work operations at height. It is due for publication in early 2020.</p><h3 class= dblue bold >Responses</h3><p>Please read through the draft and make note of any comments. Please then complete the short ‘<a href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 target= _blank title= Click here to take the survey ><span class= bold blue >Survey Monkey</span></a>’ questionnaire, adding any extra information where requested.</p><p>If you have a longer or more complex comment or query, please email to <a href= mailto:[email protected] ><span class= bold blue >[email protected]</span></a> with ‘<b>ICoP Draft for consultation</b>’ as the subject title.</p><h4 class= orange bold mt20 >Please submit all responses by Friday 17th January 2020</h4><p>Please use the link below to review the <a href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf target= _blank title= ICoP Draft for Consultation ><span class= bold blue >draft for consultation</span></a>.</p><p>You can provide feedback via <a href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 target= _blank title= Click here to take the survey ><span class= bold blue >Survey Monkey</span></a> using the link below or the links within the PDF.</p><p class= clearfix mt20 mb20 ><a class= button2 href= https://www.trees.org.uk/Trees.org.uk/media/Trees-org.uk/Documents/ICoP/ICoP-Dec19-ConsultationDraft.pdf >View Draft for Consultation ></a></p><p class= clearfix mb20 ><a class= button2 href= https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/2CQ5HB3 >Take the Survey ></a></p><p>Thank you for taking the time to review the draft for consultation, your feedback is extremely valuable in helping us complete this important new guidance.</p>

[Jamie]

Hi y'all,

 

I've not been on here for quite a while, but loitered in the shadows from time to time.

 

My background:

2003 I got my tree climbing and chainsaw tickets,

2010 got my IRATA level1, I'm now a level 3 and via a convoluted route working on shore, offshore, commercial, domestic, petrochemical and railways, I'm now railway structures examiner.

 

Having read through a fair chunk of this thread, I see a lot I want to correct.

 

To my best knowledge work at height (WAH) falls into 3 catagories,

1. Work restraint, you can't get to the edge to

2. Fall arrest, you climb with your kit being there as a back up (energy absorbers with scaffolders hooks or a Petzl  ASAP)

3. Work positioning, where you are in suspension (rope access and tree work)

 

The IRATA rope access system relies on two independent systems. A working line and a redundant back up line.

These can be anchored at the same unquestionably sound anchor but each on two systems. E.g. 2x wire sling, 2x carabiner 2x rope.

Every rope job I've been on has had a ropes long enough to reach a safe place / ground either as part of the kit or as part of a rescue bag. I would say that in the tree game both ropes should reach the ground.

 

Back ups.

A few years back Petzl withdrew the waiver they had for rope techs to use the Shunt as a back up as it is designed as an ascender. They then released the ASAP to replace it. The ASAP is a back up device on an energy absorber designed to be used on the sternal or dorsal attachment point to keep a casualty in a vertical position. It is not a work positioning tool. Depending on the activity the back up can be anchored a short distance away to keep the back up safe (welding, birning, grinding).

 

Rope systems

I'm happy working on both tree and IRATA systems and having both tool sets has allowed me to probl

 

Using 2 ropes.

I've had to use two ropes while tree climbing as part of IRATA jobs using a Shunt as a backup and an ASAP.

 

Is a redundant back up suitable for tree work? I feel a bit of a hypocrite for having a view despite not tree climbing anymore, but...

 

Will it slow down tree work? yes. In the rope game 2 points of contact means a minimum of 2 points, no changing over to one point etc.

 

Do you have to comply? Not all rope firms are IRATA members so don't fully comply with the IRATA ICOP, I imagine the same will apply to the tree world. If you can write a RAMS and risk assess it out, be my guest, but I wouldn't like to try and persuade an insurer orca court room if the worst happened.

 

Will it make people safer? That's down to the individual. I've worked with many who are worse than a man down. 2 lines, 1 which is a redundant backup makes climbing to a casualty easier.

 

Will it cost more and drive people to use non compliant companies? Who knows but maybe. The main clients who would ask for certs and compliance docs will be the commercial side, not the domestic market.

 

Anyway, those are my ramblings, feel free to ask about the IRATA side of things as that's my bag these days.

 

Oh and happy new year.

 

Jamie

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bsco85]

A good constructive thread, lots of valid points being made.

 

I thought something stood out from your initial topic post. That being climbed is the trees not rope. The tree being different every time, in every situation, leads it to be unquantifiable in the same way rope access and IRATA rope work can say how strong X and Y is. Therefore the training and experience of the climber is the biggest controlling factor in risk assessment, the tree can’t be relied on to be like the one before or after. The the climber and his experience trumps structural study on the supporting structure, the tree that is.

 

I don’t think you can suggest a single anchor point is safer and shouldn’t try. Instead we should suggest a icop does tie us in with rope access, but should contain a caveat section that states the climber in tree work has the responsibility and capacity to use rope access/work position techniques as most appropriate. 
 

blah, that was a mouthful! And not phrased in particularly well. But hope it is perhaps a better way for HSE to digest the unique factors that apply to Tree work.

 

also that the training and through years of experience, a climber is uniquely educated for making a call on the safest way to approach a problem.

 

ultimately the tree and situation, through the site specific risk assessment, is more important on a daily basis than the higher, generic industry guidance that towers above it. 
 

and a quick note on basal anchors. They should, in my opinion, be used for initial access then top anchored as soon as possible. Taut, tensioned rope around falling objects isn’t a good idea or particularly ‘safe’. 
 

A SRT access system, top tied, with a further DRT system, anchored separately above the SRT system as a working line. To me that is both a reasonable and safe professional way to work as a template. Unless the situation dictates otherwise. Oh, the SRT system detached while the working line is used. 

 

but whole point of my speel is to highlight the situation dictates the appropriate climbing system. So I’m just saying I don’t like working off basal anchors! 
 

hope this makes sense to some, especially those who matter reading this. Again a huge amount of great points written on here. I’ve, largely, enjoyed reading the responses. 

 

 

 

[Gray git]

[Jake Andrews]

Hi y'all,
 
I've not been on here for quite a while, but loitered in the shadows from time to time.
 
My background:
2003 I got my tree climbing and chainsaw tickets,
2010 got my IRATA level1, I'm now a level 3 and via a convoluted route working on shore, offshore, commercial, domestic, petrochemical and railways, I'm now railway structures examiner.
 
Having read through a fair chunk of this thread, I see a lot I want to correct.
 
To my best knowledge work at height (WAH) falls into 3 catagories,
1. Work restraint, you can't get to the edge to
2. Fall arrest, you climb with your kit being there as a back up (energy absorbers with scaffolders hooks or a Petzl  ASAP)
3. Work positioning, where you are in suspension (rope access and tree work)
 
The IRATA rope access system relies on two independent systems. A working line and a redundant back up line.
These can be anchored at the same unquestionably sound anchor but each on two systems. E.g. 2x wire sling, 2x carabiner 2x rope.
Every rope job I've been on has had a ropes long enough to reach a safe place / ground either as part of the kit or as part of a rescue bag. I would say that in the tree game both ropes should reach the ground.
 
Back ups.
A few years back Petzl withdrew the waiver they had for rope techs to use the Shunt as a back up as it is designed as an ascender. They then released the ASAP to replace it. The ASAP is a back up device on an energy absorber designed to be used on the sternal or dorsal attachment point to keep a casualty in a vertical position. It is not a work positioning tool. Depending on the activity the back up can be anchored a short distance away to keep the back up safe (welding, birning, grinding).
 
Rope systems
I'm happy working on both tree and IRATA systems and having both tool sets has allowed me to probl
 
Using 2 ropes.
I've had to use two ropes while tree climbing as part of IRATA jobs using a Shunt as a backup and an ASAP.
 
Is a redundant back up suitable for tree work? I feel a bit of a hypocrite for having a view despite not tree climbing anymore, but...
 
Will it slow down tree work? yes. In the rope game 2 points of contact means a minimum of 2 points, no changing over to one point etc.
 
Do you have to comply? Not all rope firms are IRATA members so don't fully comply with the IRATA ICOP, I imagine the same will apply to the tree world. If you can write a RAMS and risk assess it out, be my guest, but I wouldn't like to try and persuade an insurer orca court room if the worst happened.
 
Will it make people safer? That's down to the individual. I've worked with many who are worse than a man down. 2 lines, 1 which is a redundant backup makes climbing to a casualty easier.
 
Will it cost more and drive people to use non compliant companies? Who knows but maybe. The main clients who would ask for certs and compliance docs will be the commercial side, not the domestic market.
 
Anyway, those are my ramblings, feel free to ask about the IRATA side of things as that's my bag these days.
 
Oh and happy new year.
 
Jamie
 
 
 
 
 
 

Hi Jamie, glad to see you back and thanks for the response.

Can I ask why IRATA technicians can use both the working line and back up line on the same 2 anchors as you’ve stated above whilst the W@H regs seem to state that you need independent anchors?

Is this down to the load being shared between anchors and therefore classed as two anchors?

Also, what is the maximum swing potential you are allowed in rope access? This is another thing I’ve been thinking about recently when we ascend huge leaning limbs with just a side strop and the swing potential is huge. Obviously this is something we can overcome with two Permian things lines.

My personal view is to use two working lines in srt (2srt) instead of using a permanent back up system. At least this will aid me in climbing and just not dragging something around the tree with me getting in the way.

[Khriss]

@Jake Andrews from memory NPTC was a 2m pendulum. Which aint a lot. K