Two Rope Working Consultation

[TIMON]

I did some work on a large oak the other day. Large Co-dominant stems big spread on the canopy.
The job was to remove some large overhanging limbs and re-balance the crown.
I used two DDRT systems.
1. A VT hitch climber set up on tachyon
2. A Zigzag set up on different coloured tachyon.
(And a Petzl Zillon lanyard)
The perfect scenario for two rope working.
Except....
I could not get a rhythm going to my climbing.
This method of climbing is very cumbersome and awkward.
There is a lot of extra work involved in managing rope, repeatedly redirecting two 45m rope ends takes considerable energy and hastens the on-set of fatigue (a very real consideration as fatigue plays a part in a lot of accidents)
I think there are a myriad of reasons that this method is going to be less safe, even on a job that would apparently lend itself to two rope working.
The increase in time cutting with a top handled chainsaw when lactic acid was noticeably present in my muscles was very concerning..
There was a lot of ‘congestion’ of kit attached to my harness.
Using both a silky and a top-handle chainsaw, I found it increasingly difficult to use these tools without bringing the sharp edges into contact with the added rope systems. The chainsaw bar and chain in particular kept getting tangled in the trailing ends of the added rope. My ropes got ‘nicked’ a number of times during the climb and seemed to be unavoidable using this method.
These are real concerns. If this is the case when working in a large open canopy tree how much worse is this going to get when working in denser canopies and less suitable work situations?
This whole thing needs a re-think.
It could start with more in-depth training on anchor point selection and how to maintain better work positioning when cutting.
The current WAHR principles don’t seem to be the correct way of measuring ARB climbing.
To look at enforcing two rope working into the industry in the hope that it will reduce falls from height is one thing, but to do it without looking at the wider implications and other factors and aspects of working from rope in trees seems to be a very blinkered and dogmatic approach.
What was true in 2004 is still true today.

[Konstantly]

6 hours ago, Dan said:

Well how about everyone who is an AA member should email them to say they will not renew their membership over this matter. That may help motivate them to fight our corner! 

Yes I would say that voting with non renewal and non compliance is the only way to actually make someone take notice. 

The AA have proven their incompetence one too many times for my liking. 

Move over and get an ISA accreditation if it's important for business. 

Time to give them the rods..

[scotspine1]

PANO PIC WARNING - parts of this image are heavily distorted/blurred (rope + Ash), pic is for general outline of a scenario from yesterday....

 

Installed main line with cambium saver in the Ash from ground (top lead in Ash was split hence lateral used, it was solid) Could’ve used SRT/wrench with base tie also for this tree/anchor, but chose DdRT to be properly isolated around branch. 

 

Anyway - Proceeded to climb smaller leaning Alder with flipline and spikes - was tied in twice for the entire removal of the Alder. Mainline in Ash, flipline around Alder - Tied in twice. 

 

This twin line legislation now demands I put a full length second main line in the Ash or Alder. A 3rd system. Why? Don’t answer - it’s rhetorical. There is no logical or rational explanation for adding in a second full length climbing line in addition to the two systems already being used. 

 

Its an extreme and excessive measure to reduce risk so much so that it makes the job unworkable in a commercial setting. This is not a hobby, we don’t have all the time in the day to climb ourselves into a quandry with 3 systems. 

 

It’s risk managing the job into absurdity. It should be stopped in it’s tracks. The AA has to make better representation to HSE on our behalf. 

 

 

 

Pic below just to show close up of structurally poor central lead of Ash (right) and alternate anchor choice (left) 

 

[maybelateron]

Have any of you any awareness that anyone at all from HSE has undergone basic climbing training and then been allowed/encouraged to get up a tree and see first hand what it is all about??

 

Some years ago a couple near us both worked for HSE, one of them was in agriculture and forestry and went on a residential practical one week course in Scotland covering various topics including tree climbing. She was fit (physically capable of climbing etc), but NO NO NO, they weren't allowed to climb. WTF? Yet they want to tell us how to do it.?

[stewmo]

What was true in 2004 is still true today.

And will be for a long time yet [emoji106]

[Thesnarlingbadger]

I have yet to have my say on this.

 

 But from what I can tell it is already causing problems. I think one of the main issues is that many of us are too long in the tooth to make this an easy change over (myself included).

 

 Other problems I can see that have more than likely been mentioned are..

 

- Increased fatigue while climbing (i for one will be knackered after a big dismantle)

 

- Increased cost on a job (I'm sorry Mrs smith but that £500 job is now going to cost £800)

 

- How the hell am I going to drag two lines out to the tips of a big reduction without making a lovely nest of rope (I make a mess with one rope?)

 

- The cost of buying more kit (this isn't particularly a problem for me but most of my subby climbers aren't just going to have a couple of hundred quid lying around (I pay people well before anyone makes a comment)).

 

- The pain in the backside of re-writing all the 'health and safety policy' 'Risk assessments' and every 'Method statement' I send through (I just hate paper work).

 

- When is a tree to small to use two lines. I'm not going to be be taking two 45m ropes to an Apple reduction.

 

- They are saying you need to lines to ascend (does anyone know of any flaming accidents that have happened while climbing to a preinstalled anchor point that has been tested with two guys on the line? because I certainly haven't).

 

 The issue has and will always be human error, this isn't going to change just by adding a second line, it will just present different problems. so instead of a climber cutting there rope and falling out of a tree they are more likely to cut one of their anchors out on a multi-stemmed tree and find out they have snapped their pelvis due to the pressure on the harness, this will happen to someone before long, and then what? 3 ropes. Accidents happen and from what I have seen and heard  a lot of them could have been avoided if kit was checked properly or if people weren't trying to act like 'johnny big bollocks' on site. This being said I am aware that some accidents happen to sensible people who are just very unlucky.

 

 We all want a safer working environment but I can't see this being and easy change with out a bit of backlash.

 

 Out of curiosity (and this may be a stupid question) is this fully in effect now? as I'm getting mixed opinions and from what I can gather form the AA is that it is in effect but we don't have the proper guidance in place yet?. 

 

 Anyway I have a fairly big pine to take down this week so I am going to give it a go and see how I get on. I'll report back (with more woes no doubt).

 

 Anyway that's my 2 pence.

 

 

[Mr. Squirrel]

1 hour ago, Thesnarlingbadger said:

 

 

- They are saying you need to lines to ascend (does anyone know of any flaming accidents that have happened while climbing to a preinstalled anchor point that has been tested with two guys on the line? because I certainly haven't).

 

 

I'm totally against these plans, but yes. I've heard of several accounts of anchor point failures during ascent resulting in fatalities. I wouldn't say this was a failure of a system though, but of judgement.

[Tom D]

There are two main issues regarding this, you could argue that one of them is not the HSE"s problem. 

The first is a good solid practical one: That is that tree climbing and climbing man made structures are the same, or at least similar enough to warrant working to exactly the same regulations.  I do not believe that they are.

The second is that these new changes will be widely adopted throughout the industry. They won't be.

 

We have already discussed point 1 at length, there are so many situations in tree climbing that will never arise in a rope access situation. We can have these situations detailed in a robust ICOP .

 

Point two is a trickier one. The HSE can easily argue that it's not their problem, and to some extent they are correct.

IRATA companies rarely work for the general public, there are no IRATA door knockers or travellers, there are not even any IRATA corner cutters who will work cheaply. In fact they have an excellent professional reputation and a good safety record. I think that some in the HSE probably imagine that's how our industry will become. It won't unfortunately, not without some serious intervention on their part. If they could introduce legislation which made it clear that only 'approved' (by whom I don't know) companies could be used and that customers faced prosecution for using non 'approved' companies.

This is pie in the sky of course and will never happen. So we are left with the reality that those who choose to abide by the rules will be much slower and require more equipment, they will inevitably be more expensive. They will still be able to get work with commercial clients who take the rules seriously but the domestic market will be closed to them.

 

We may even end up with a two tier industry those who do domestic work and don't follow the regs and those who do commercial and do. This will be a very sad thing to see, and as has also been mentioned many times, if people break the rules once a precedent has been set, if you're going to not bother with two ropes, why bother with chainsaw PPE? No point getting LOLER if you're not compliant anyway..

 

The question they should be asking is would people obey the rules of the road if there were no police, no cameras, no dash cams? or would it just be a big free for all?  The fact that they only investigate accidents means that there is virtually zero incentive to follow these rules for many, (who goes out thinking they're going to have an accident) especially one man bands (something IRATA doesn't have either). If the HSE were driving around in unmarked cars turning up at domestic jobs at random and auditing firms on the job then this two rope thing would work. However thats not going to happen. It's going to be entirely optional.

[Mark Bolam]

[Thesnarlingbadger]

I'm totally against these plans, but yes. I've heard of several accounts of anchor point failures during ascent resulting in fatalities. I wouldn't say this was a failure of a system though, but of judgement.

Yes and that’s my point. If an anchor has been tested I.e having 2 fat bastards bounce on it before accent then that anchor is never going to brake whist climbing up.

I get it’s safer to have two ropes on paper but there are multiple reasons why it’s not and these issues will come out of the woodwork in the next year or so.

Most accidents happen on a Friday afternoon so I’m surprised HSE hasn’t said no one is allowed to work past midday on a Friday.