Two Rope Working Consultation

[breffni]

Seen one lad today climbing with a bowsaw his 'groundsman' doing a great job without a helmet. 

Yesterday was a different clown up in a MEWP with no helmet. Surely they would be more worthy of the hse' attention? 

Edited January 24, 2020 by breffni

[MattyF]

Have been using two ropes over the last week , only one tree warranted two ropes in my view and would of used two ropes on it regardless ... have already had one near miss thanks to the positioning and obstruction of no escape route two ropes has placed me... another thing I’ve noticed is two ropes causes the perfect position for riding up your leg loops and giving them enough gap for your balls to swing in and get crushed when one rope takes the tension ... just saying.
Due to the near miss though I’m out...

[TIMON]

Done a couple of two rope climbs now.
Not being able to turn round in your harness is a very awkward and unnatural way of trying to move around the canopy.
The stress and frustration this causes a climber is not to be underestimated.
The inclination to cut and take bigger pieces due to good ergonomic movement being hampered is going to cost someone at some point.
Good anchor point selection, well maintained equipment and good work positioning when cutting should be sufficient. Two rope working definitely brings additional hazards into the working environment.

[Konstantly]

On 20/01/2020 at 16:05, Marc said:

@AA Teccie (Paul)

 

So if the overwhelming response is finding that the two rope working is not practical will the ICOP be revised to show this, or was the consultation for no reason? Would you be able to share the level of response and the percentage of those that felt two rope working is a workable new standard?

Two ropes is simply not an achievable standard work method, not unless you significantly raise the overall standards of training and practical experience in the industry, and even then the predominant anchor point would have to be one but with two ropes. There has been no research/demonstration of how this can be practically applied other than that initially carried out by the HSE which is still relevant.

 

We have been taught for decades on one rope, undergone training and judged competent on one rope , my entire company is based on those trained and proficient using one rope, I understand what is going on and still desperately cling to the hope that our voice will speak up.

 

We will now be put at a commercial disadvantage and frankly to say tough just deal with it, is very unfair. I am one of 3 local AAAC approved contractors, there are another 15 local outfits who are not part of the AA many of whom are not on this forum, or have no care for compliance, standards or meeting the revised ICOP, they just quietly, efficiently and safely get on with their work.

 

I cannot believe that overwhelmingly contractors are happy with this, but if they are i'll tow the line and see what happens. Otherwise we will continue to quietly, safely, efficiently and to a high standard continue our work. 

Well put Marc.

 

Unfortunately for the most part it is the insurance companies that will gain from all of this mess at the moment.

 

Non compliance = get out clause.

I have performed work safely and in a professional manner (most of the time) with non compliment systems and done so in the knowledge that if I had an accident any insurance company would get out of any pay out due to me. 

 

Obviously I'm speaking in the regards of injury to myself due to poor work positioning/anchor point failure. 

Not endangering my colleagues or clients of theirs.

The non compliment system is ropewrench without a ce marked tether ect.

The driving about in vehicles overloaded is just seemingly a given for a large majority of us so non compliment in that respect too.

 

Yes I would like to see a day when some sense is paramount within our industry and if sensible I will adopt the methodologies. 

 

I can see the benefits of using two ropes and two independent anchor points in some situations and obviously have done so when I felt it was necessary. 

I won't repeat other points that I have already made on this..

 

Their are far more pressing issues too concern ourselves with as an industry.

 

I am left wondering if we dig deep enough will we find that the hse have had pressure mounted upon them from the insurance industry due to the nature of riddor reports rather than just their own conclusions? 

Obviously so I would venture...

 

A more robust independent research into the implications needs to be carried out.

 

I do believe that their are a great number of rope work professional's within arboricultuure and company's who wish to develop their status as such to the full. An up hill battle at the moment with current legislation that allows fully (trained) people to jump into the compliment status in just a few months.

The result is obvious...

Their is a big difference between being training and being competent to a professional standard.

It takes time and mentorship I believe.

 

 

 

 

[swinny]

Stupid thing is your damned if you do damned if you don't.....

 

Insurance will cop out if only using one rope...... Insurance will cop out if using two ropes and not having a cert of competance to climb that way. 

 

It's all a load of bollox

[Jamie Jones]

1 hour ago, swinny said:

Stupid thing is your damned if you do damned if you don't.....

 

Insurance will cop out if only using one rope...... Insurance will cop out if using two ropes and not having a cert of competance to climb that way. 

 

It's all a load of bollox

I would argue the second point you make: “Insurance will cop out if using two ropes and not having a cert of competance to climb that way. ”

This is because you have been correctly taught and qualified as a climber. You have therefore been deemed that you know what you are doing and the addition of a second rope system is simply confirming to updated legislation. Insurance can’t not cover you because you are not breaking the rules.

 

But if you climb on a single rope system and can’t justify why and it becomes an issue. They you will run the risk of not having the insurance cover you.

 

This is why the Arb Assoc have to get this right in the ICOP because trees differ to such an extent that there are times when two ropes pose more of a problem than climbing on a single rope. Especially when you start using a chainsaw.

 

In a basic theory it is possible to achieve this all the time. But the reality of tree work is that every situation is different and there are a number of times when it isn’t. As mention before if you injured a hand it will make a rapid self Rescue far more difficult. If there is a death from this aspect will that mean you (or your family) will have a good cause to bring a legal action against the Arb Associaton because their ICOP has not taken this factor into consideration?

 

 

 

[ledders666]

Had a first go with two ropes today, so limited tries so far I know. but overall I'd say it was pretty positive.

It was slower yes, but i'm not practiced with it so this will speed up, and it wasn't that slow anyway.

I used the following method, which I'm going to try and refine some more to see how it goes. as an idea the tree was perhaps 18m high and a Sycamore, so usually a fair amount of solid points to use as anchors.

1 Main line, SRT set up as usual.

2nd shorter line, DRT (could also be SRT to get extra length out of it, but more moving to retrieve it each time) today was a 5m line, I have a 15m one also If needed. (Also one of the points in the original post was about space on the ground and extra ropes etc, This second line doesn't need to reach the ground mitigating that problem)

3rd short line 2.5m I think.

 

This works as this article, in the FAQ bit, states only 1 has to be long enough to reach the ground uninterrupted...hope its not that one that gets cut!

 

I  used the 2nd shorter line as my 2nd Anchor always around something that could take my weight fully on its own, in case the main line/anchor failed.

and used the 3rd short line to strop in, also always on something that could take my weight, whilst moving the 2nd anchor point around the tree.

Then whilst cutting I had 2 points of attachment, on independent anchors, 1 long enough to get to the ground and a 3rd and to hold me in place as usual.

 

So rather than look for 2 anchors to set up and leave for the duration of the job, I moved the second anchor around with me. I think it worked pretty well. Takes a bit more forward thinking to plan a second line as well as the main line. But on this tree is was more than possible to implement it.

As said only tried it on one tree so far and I'm sure there will be times it will be annoying.

But today was fully compliant and easy to implement and work with.

Edited January 27, 2020 by ledders666

[ledders666]

Reading other comments as well, I'm not a great fan of the 'What if' scenario of getting out the tree with a cut arm, for example, if you have 2 ropes. Don't cut and hold with a chainsaw, simple solution... Silkys can still catch you out of course but generally much less severe..

 

the other I don't quite agree with that I've seen on this thread is having a second substandard anchor, for example if you main anchor failed and you would have to descend on the substandard one. It seems in the 'what if' scenario youd be in a worse place had you have not had the second anchor, substandard or not?! maybe I misunderstood what people were saying on that one, but kinda the point of having a second TIP.

 

[Pete Mctree]

So people only ever cut themselves cutting & holding then? Sorry, but I find your opinion myopic & unrealistic 

[Jamie Jones]

Just renewed my insurance for the year... ? It has basically doubled for Equipment, Public & Employer Liability...

Two Rope Climbing was mention and you have to comply as per ICOP. 

Does anyone know when ICOP will be finalised?