Two Rope Working Consultation

[Mr. Squirrel]

Having read through the article about these new guide lines a bit more carefully, it seems that body thrusting up, lanyarding in and throwing your rope up will still be allowed. But once you create that top anchor a second system will be required.

The use of an access line will require a back up system though, which will require two separate parallel points in the crown. 

It's weird really, the use of access lines never made it in to the British curriculum as far as I'm aware? Elsewhere they're fundamental to safety at work, provide rapid access in the case of an aerial rescue. What the HSE are now proposing will, I imagine, make them less likely to be used, in favour of getting up there by 'old school' techniques. 

Really seems like a backwards step pushed by people in suits with no real understanding of what we're doing. Yes, they saw a demo, but did they *actually* understand the job? 

I wonder if they looked at accident statistics abroad too. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Mr. Squirrel

[Marc Doyle Treework NZ]

My biggest concern would be climbers trying to find a secondary tie in point because they have too; and choosing something substandard. If an accident occurs and the better-primary roping point is conpramised, the climber has no choice but to climb down on the substandard roping point. This is especially dangerous when an aerial rescue has to be performed relying on the substandard anchorpoint. I am also concerned that less experienced climbers will put themselves in danger and find themselves trying to find a suitable secondary anchor point, when it would be safer to just have the one and tie in twice when cutting.

 

I'm wondering if the effort should be put into educating everyone not to one handed chainsaw cut and to always rope in twice when cutting. I think more accidents will be prevented this way than adding in another rope that's mandatory.

 

Chris. Marc Doyle Treework. NZ

[Konstantly]

I am interested in seeing the proposed system put into practice.

Incorporating it safely and efficiently within a bunch of everyday scenarios. 

  As I see the pitfalls of as previously pointed out in previous posts, not mentioning the fact that the potential in some scenarios a secondary load/shock loaded anchor may not be available in the dynamic unpredictable organisms we work with and if they are they may introduce us to as said a shock load.

The systems we all generally employ at present time for anchor point selection obviously relay upon informed/educated decisions. 

Anchor point failure can be safeguarded with the correct deployment of a good SRWP understanding and back up that is ill afforded in a DdRT configuration. 

The broken record.......Education not legislation  

[Khriss]

Well. Few weeks ago, a climber fell out of a tree, not one of ours. Got asked by Area managers to do a 3 day presentation on Tree Works in Rail. Been following the HSE an AA articles on here. So.... made sure we did a day on 2 rope working. Lead climber climbs both ends of rope BTW. 

Day 1 Tree pruning ( single rope )

Day 2 Tree rigging and deadwood management.

Day 3 2 Rope Work positioning and Aerial rescue and a SRT system demonstration ( my prefered system)

 

 

 

[Marc]

I’m some scenarios I believe two rope working is possible to be employed effectively.

However the complexities of working with 3 dimensional organic structures with varying levels of tree morphology makes employing two rope working at crown extremities unduly complex, complexity doesn’t increase safety.

 

If we are going to make this a matter of justification in our risk assessments then you are already making the use of one rope acceptable in all situations, unless the competent arborist makes the dynamic risk assessment during the climb and sees the advantage to his worm positioning that a second line would provide.

 

Also you cannot define what we call a moving rope systems (DdRT) or a stationary rope system (SRTWP) as either work positioning or rope access. Both systems utilise one rope, you could argue that a moving rope system (DdRT) only provides the ability to have one anchor point where as stationary a number of back-ups can be employed whilst working the canopy. When working DdRT I often had to reanchor during the climb this seas on average two times during a single climb, this meant making an anchor point change over during the climb, something I now avoid with SRTWP.

 

also adding two ropes as a standard operating procedure will increase the complexities of aerial rescue in a tree work environment, having to find two anchors to provide a pick off rescue how would this be implemented?

 

i understand the thought process, tree workers only utilise one primary line adding a second as is found in rope access does seem on paper a simple solution to reduce falls from height. Although having worked in this industry for a number of years with a number of very talented arborist this is not the solution, we need the ability to work crowns safely and smoothly a single primary allows us greater freedom of movement, more ergonomic efficiency and reduced complexity.

 

More training and guidance is required as from my experience with accidents in arboriculture particularly falls it is complacency, inexperience and user error that are the root causes of accidents adding a second system is a short sighted solution fraught with issues.

Edited September 21, 2019 by Marc

[Khriss]

SO. ... I'm getting asked lots of questions by Area managers ( who may never have seen aerial tree works befr BTW ) but they have to understand and implement this proposed legislation that may affect hundreds of their staff.

 

We did aerial rescue 2 rope system. In Rail, yr working area ( accident zone ! ) often quite tight between rail and boundary fence. After three days the conclusions were- 2 rope system was not safer than both-ends of rope for ascent or cutting positioning. 2 rope system was nightmare fr ground staff/ rescuers to manage. Additional cable strop was advantageous fr chainsaw cutting. 

 

The change in method statement /  risk assesment recording would be considerable to meet insurance obligation. Staff would need extra training.

 

K

 

 

 

[Khriss]

I finally demonstrated SRT system, with side strop or cable strop. Climbers agreed it was workable system but will be happier sticking with what they know. I did base-tie system and demonstrated ground rescue advantage. 

 This is going to be an ongoing matter and all the rail managers expressed an interest in this presentation being a regular event. So possibly we might get a visitor or two from outside parties @AA Teccie (Paul) an his friends....... K

Edited September 21, 2019 by Khriss
....does my bum look big in this ?

[Khriss]

51 minutes ago, Marc said:

I’m some scenarios I believe two rope working is possible to be employed effectively......

 

 

More training and guidance is required as from my experience with accidents in arboriculture particularly falls it is complacency, inexperience and user error that are the root causes of accidents adding a second system is a short sighted solution fraught with issues.

That was our conclusions, Marc. The observers could not understand how it would be possible to fall with swapping from one anchor point to another if yr continuously clipped in.... two ropes do not make that less likely as only climber error or anchor point failure can initiate a fall, yr rope or ropes cannot ! ( systems checked and operated correctly ) Climber Fatigue was thoroughly covered in discussions by the way.

 

And by the way, if yr anchored on two ropes spaced appart an you cut the one with most tension on it - the slack in the other system will have you swinging / clanging into something with dire results. No Gain. K

Edited September 21, 2019 by Khriss
Remmbr summat.

[Marc]

1 hour ago, Khriss said:

That was our conclusions, Marc. The observers could not understand how it would be possible to fall with swapping from one anchor point to another if yr continuously clipped in.... two ropes do not make that less likely as only climber error or anchor point failure can initiate a fall, yr rope or ropes cannot ! ( systems checked and operated correctly ) Climber Fatigue was thoroughly covered in discussions by the way.

 

And by the way, if yr anchored on two ropes spaced appart an you cut the one with most tension on it - the slack in the other system will have you swinging / clanging into something with dire results. No Gain. K

 

Regarding changover of anchor point on DdRT I never fell neither did the countless others I worked with, we were continuously tied in, my point was more along the lines of the increased risk associated with DdRT even if extremely low, this risk is often eliminated with SRTWP once final tie in point has been reached there is no reason to unclip from your system from the entirety of the climb unlike DdRT where good positioning and desirable rope angles is not possible from a single anchor point. Where as SRTWP it is possible to make any point within the tree another anchor point often load sharing reducing strain and possibility of anchor point failure being reduced.

 

To be completely honest, I was one of the biggest sceptics to start with when it comes to using SRTWP as an everyday work positioning system, now I’m of the opinion why is this not the standard go to choice when working the crown of a tree, the increase in safety, flexibility and ergonomic gain are hard to ignore. We need to promote the standardisation of SRTWP and crown access into the work place not imposing greater restrictions.

[Khriss]

I would really need more practise on Static rope Marc, to make it look good ( ain't commercially climbed fr 4 yrs ) this was a demonstration so that the observers could see wot it means to do. But I have no hesitation in using it fr WP chainsaw cutting. It WILL access all points on a tree crown. K