Two Rope Working Consultation

[Jamie Jones]

Last chance to give feed back on Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height

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=...

 

This is the feed back that  I have given:
 

While this document seem to be comprehensive it is also very lacking in detail and it will fail many in the industry. I would therefore say that it is not fit for purpose at this stage.

The reason for this is very clear to me for the following reasons:

1) When I look at a lot of people I know who work in the Arb industry who climb, many of them are dyslexic or don't have the best reading and writing skills. This document fails these people as there are no visual aids to assist. I would say that to get this ICOP to work for the people it is intended for you really need to pack it with visual aids like pictures (Photos, Art Work and Diagrams) to get the content message across.

2) When you look at the balance of the document... There is 34 pages of content, but when you look at the actual 'working at height' aspect and application there is only 8x pages at best. When you then look at the main body of where the greatest risk is and that is probably climbing using rope access. there is only 3x pages of content. Again there is no visual content, although you have a fancy but pointless graphic.

3) When you have covered off the equipment to be used, the regulations around the use of the equipment, The record keeping and LOLER inspections. The biggest issue is your anchor point/points in the tree. This is the point where no amount of legislation that is introduced can be applied to and where there is a gapping whole in why HSE have not taken this on board themselves and bullied the Arb Association in to producing this document. 
 

There is multiple mentions of anchor points and anchors. But surely this is where the whole system fall down. Why is there not a dedicated section on this?
 

I really think that this document needs to reflect the end users needs and not the Arb Association minimal requirements.

[Khriss]

On 13/01/2020 at 16:38, Gary Prentice said:

Sorry Timon I haven't been keeping up. Have you a link to the draft ICOP to hand?

 

If not I'll wade through the last forty odd pages. 

Or just go on the AA site and follow the easy link. K

[Jamie Jones]

On 13/01/2020 at 16:38, Gary Prentice said:

Sorry Timon I haven't been keeping up. Have you a link to the draft ICOP to hand?

 

If not I'll wade through the last forty odd pages. 

See this page...

Has the Draft Document and feedback survey.

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=...

 

[Mark Bolam]

24 minutes ago, Jamie Jones said:

Last chance to give feed back on Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height

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=...

 

This is the feed back that  I have given:
 

While this document seem to be comprehensive it is also very lacking in detail and it will fail many in the industry. I would therefore say that it is not fit for purpose at this stage.

The reason for this is very clear to me for the following reasons:

1) When I look at a lot of people I know who work in the Arb industry who climb, many of them are dyslexic or don't have the best reading and writing skills. This document fails these people as there are no visual aids to assist. I would say that to get this ICOP to work for the people it is intended for you really need to pack it with visual aids like pictures (Photos, Art Work and Diagrams) to get the content message across.

2) When you look at the balance of the document... There is 34 pages of content, but when you look at the actual 'working at height' aspect and application there is only 8x pages at best. When you then look at the main body of where the greatest risk is and that is probably climbing using rope access. there is only 3x pages of content. Again there is no visual content, although you have a fancy but pointless graphic.

3) When you have covered off the equipment to be used, the regulations around the use of the equipment, The record keeping and LOLER inspections. The biggest issue is your anchor point/points in the tree. This is the point where no amount of legislation that is introduced can be applied to and where there is a gapping whole in why HSE have not taken this on board themselves and bullied the Arb Association in to producing this document. 
 

There is multiple mentions of anchor points and anchors. But surely this is where the whole system fall down. Why is there not a dedicated section on this?
 

I really think that this document needs to reflect the end users needs and not the Arb Association minimal requirements.

I said pretty much the same thing Jamie, but in a lot less words.

I suggested they have a rethink and get something drawn up by people who actually climb trees for a living.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

1 hour ago, Jamie Jones said:

Last chance to give feed back on Draft for Consultation: ICoP – Tree Work at Height

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=...

 

This is the feed back that  I have given:
 

While this document seem to be comprehensive it is also very lacking in detail and it will fail many in the industry. I would therefore say that it is not fit for purpose at this stage.
 

I really think that this document needs to reflect the end users needs and not the Arb Association minimal requirements.

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi and thanks for your post...and for completing the ICoP questionnaire.

 

To clarify, once revised and completed (the ICoP,) the associated 'Technical Guide - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue' will be reviewed and issued out for consultation too. This guide is aimed at the end users, i.e. the climbers, and includes images etc.

 

Regards,
Paul

[Jamie Jones]

2 hours ago, AA Teccie (Paul) said:

Hi and thanks for your post...and for completing the ICoP questionnaire.

 

To clarify, once revised and completed (the ICoP,) the associated 'Technical Guide - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue' will be reviewed and issued out for consultation too. This guide is aimed at the end users, i.e. the climbers, and includes images etc.

 

Regards,
Paul

Thanks for the reply...
But we can only give feed back on what we are shown... So we need to see what is actually going to be going out.... before it becomes ICOP...

 

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

That’s the purpose of the current ICoP consultation (see above), ie to comment on the revised document ‘before’ it is finalised.

Thanks in anticipation 

Paul

 

[htb]

So we can comment on the draft, and then comment on the revised document?

[TIMON]

Hi and thanks for your post...and for completing the ICoP questionnaire.
 
To clarify, once revised and completed (the ICoP,) the associated 'Technical Guide - Tree Climbing and Aerial Rescue' will be reviewed and issued out for consultation too. This guide is aimed at the end users, i.e. the climbers, and includes images etc.
 
Regards,
Paul

Hi Paul..

Penny for your thoughts........

Timon